Could anyone share answers with me for the following:

Since Santa Clara is no done deal and since SF is still most interested in keeping the Niners in town, why have only the southern bay portions of the city (Hunters Pt, Candlestick Pt) been consdiered for a new stadium?

What about other sites, such as:

• China Basin, across the bridge from the ball park. Land is more expensive there and development is, of course, underway with UCSF. But could this be a possible stadium site? Could some of the Giants' lots be replaced with parking ramps and open up space for the 49ers with both teams sharing parking? With the public transportation (BART, Muni, Caltrain, ferries) this site would afford, you would have far few drivers...thus be more able to accomodate those that want to tail gate (a 49er issue).

• Treasure Island: the city wants a dramatic redevelopment of the site. Why not a stadium as part of the mix. The real negative here, of course, is Bay Bridge traffic and the merging on and off of YB. But let's consider that there are only 8 home games for NFL teams (plus a few exhibitions) and those games mainly occur on Sunday, when rush hour traffic is not an issue. If that were the only blocking point, I am sure that ways could be found to filter SF-YB-TI or EB-YB-TI traffic on those rare number of dates. Obviously bus service and ferry service (from the Ferry Bldg, Sausalito, Jack London Sq, etc.) could also get fans to the island.

• Kezar, back to the roots: all right, the worst suggestion of all. Nobody wants to see GGP covered with concrete. On the other hand, a significant part of the footprint is in place already with the existing stadium. And this fringe part of the park is less sylvan than its interior. Traffic issues, both public and private, would remain a huge issue...but again, this is on a Sunday and the time folks would be going to the game is not a heavy travel period.

I'm sure fault could be found with any or all of the above, what perhaps SF does have to think outside of the box on this one...especially if the box is a narrow one on the s.e. shore of the city.

...

the thing is, and i mean no disrespect here, nobody outside of the city/county of san francisco really cares about the 49ers moving to the south bay. as long as they stay in the bay area, no body really cares. its frisco thats making all the noise. i also must say that a stadium at TI would be a NIGHTMARE. can you imagine having to drive through the city or oakland into the bay bridge just to get to a game? can you imagine moday night games during rush hour bay area traffic? god no! Santa Clara is obviously the best location.

the thing is, and i mean no disrespect here, nobody outside of the city/county of san francisco really cares about the 49ers moving to the south bay. as long as they stay in the bay area, no body really cares. its frisco thats making all the noise. i also must say that a stadium at TI would be a NIGHTMARE. can you imagine having to drive through the city or oakland into the bay bridge just to get to a game? can you imagine moday night games during rush hour bay area traffic? god no! Santa Clara is obviously the best location.

no disrespect taken, surrill, but San Francisco does count. And while I'd be the first to say this is a small issue compared to teams leaving metro areas, it still is an issue.

And ther have been others like this one:

• the Rams took a big hit to their popularity when they moved to Anaheim. If they stayed in the Colliseum, they might never have moved to St. Louis (with or without the Raiders in the area)

• the whole "LA Angeles of Anaheim" thing and all the in-fighting was an internal matter in metro LA

• Oakland's identity will be affected by the move to Fremont if, as expected, Oakland is dropped from the name.

• NYC practically ran through hoops in an unsuccessful move to get the Jets to move back into the city, just a few miles across the Hudson from the Meadowlands

• a threat to move the Cardinals across the Mississippi River into the Illinois portions of the StL metro area was one of the things that got the city to build the new Busch Stadium

• the Bears flirted with the Indiana portion of Chicagoland prior to the Soldier Field renovation; Daley announced that "Chicago" could not continue to be used in the team's name is such a move were made.

So SF/Bay Area are not alone here.

Personally I think it is important to ralize how much the traditonal and historical franchise that is the 49ers is such an integral part of sthe traditonal and historical city of San Francisco. Past 60 years, this is, by far, the West's oldest franchise. It was born and grew up in San Francisco and is as much a part of The City as is the Wharf, Chinatown, the GG Bridge, Lombard Street's corkscrew, the Palace of Fine Arts, cable cars, and Coit Tower.

San Francisco deserves to always be home of the 49ers. The two flagship Bay Area franchises, 49ers and Giants, should always be playing in the Bay Area's flagship city, San Francisco, IMHO (with no disrespect to Oakland, San Jose....or Half Moon Bay, for that matter).

^ they just go wherre the $ is

^ they just go wherre the $ is

you guys planning to build a new stadium for the 49ers in the Russian River?

San Francisco deserves to always be home of the 49ers. The two flagship Bay Area franchises, 49ers and Giants, should always be playing in the Bay Area's flagship city, San Francisco, IMHO (with no disrespect to Oakland, San Jose....or Half Moon Bay, for that matter).

Flagships, like everything else, change. San Francisco will always be a great city, but the Bay Area is evolving rapidly. Maybe SF isnt as used to fast change as Silicon Valley. Down here, its adapt or become obsolete...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/27/MNGQ5OSHBO1.DTL

S.F.’S GRAND PLAN FOR 49ERS
STADIUM PROPOSAL:
Thousands of homes plus shops and parks on the city's southeast shore
Patrick Hoge, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

The neglected areas of San Francisco's southeast shore would be remade into a destination spot with a new football stadium, hundreds of acres of open space and thousands of new homes under an ambitious city proposal that rivals plans for Treasure Island and Mission Bay.

Mayor Gavin Newsom says his plan for the 790-acre site would not require public funding for a stadium at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, a toxic site that the Navy is cleaning up. The plan also calls for a new look for Candlestick Point, where the 49ers' current stadium would be bulldozed to make way for high-rise homes, retail shops and parks.

The plan, unveiled Monday night, makes other far-reaching promises, such as plentiful parking for tailgate parties, no seizures of privately owned homes, possible rebuilding of a troubled housing project and, ultimately, the chance for city voters to bless the final vision.

"We have a plan that we can finance -- no surprises,'' Newsom said in an interview. "I want to put pressure on the 49ers. I want to make it very difficult for them to leave our city,'' Newsom said.

The team is working on a plan to build a stadium in Santa Clara and is trying to raise public support for partial public financing. A detailed financing plan for that project is expected next month.

But Newsom is betting that the 49ers will not get what they are seeking in the South Bay. He said he plans to ask the Board of Supervisors to endorse his plan in May, and environmental reviews could start in June. Construction could begin in June 2009, and the stadium could be ready by the 2012 season, he said.

City officials insist that the transformation of the troubled neighborhoods will happen regardless of whether the team builds its new home in San Francisco.

The city's plan embraces financing tactics that have worked in San Francisco before. Its partner is the Lennar Corp. of Miami, a Fortune 500 company that is leading redevelopment efforts at former military bases on Treasure Island and Mare Island in Vallejo.

As it did for the San Francisco Giants' waterfront ballpark, the city would contribute the land. Lennar says it would contribute $100 million in cash and help finance the stadium's infrastructure, including parking, roads, electrical lines, sewer pipes and water service.

The 49ers apparently don't have anything like that in Santa Clara, and the team says the city will have to make some sort of "up-front public investment,'' possibly in the form of land or access to the city's utility funds. One source involved with the deal said the team wants between $150 million and $200 million.

Team spokeswoman Lisa Lang said San Francisco's latest proposal represents progress but doesn't address all the team's concerns. That includes the cleanup of the Hunters Point Superfund site, designated as one of the country's most polluted areas.

"We are still in the midst of working through the issues associated with the cleanup time frame of the Superfund site, the public transportation plan, the infrastructure issues and the traffic plans, and these are not yet resolved,'' she said. "But we are making progress and working through these issues with the city and Lennar."

In November, 49ers owners John York and Denise DeBartolo York announced that Santa Clara had become their favored stadium site, abandoning a Candlestick proposal that city officials hoped could also support the 2016 Olympic Games. San Francisco's plan, the Yorks said, would feel cramped with the high-rise housing development, and a proposed multilevel parking garage would ruin the fans' tailgate traditions.

They also questioned whether Lennar Corp. would construct needed infrastructure improvements in a timely manner.

John York said late Monday that he was glad that San Francisco was still pursuing its plan.

"At no point did we say that we were going to quit looking. So we're very pleased that they've gone forward with this because I think that it's going to be good for the city, and I think it's going to be good for the people of the Bayview-Hunters Point," York said in Phoenix, where NFL team owners are gathered for an annual meeting.

"Obviously, this is something that is going to be a long process, and it will be a long process down in Santa Clara as well. So whether it is Santa Clara, San Francisco or another site in the Bay Area, it'll be a long process," he said.

Newsom and Lennar's new plan provides open-air parking for 19,500 cars immediately around the stadium. The parking surface would be made of "dual use turf'' -- natural grass held together with a synthetic mesh in the root system, allowing the space to be used for recreation year-round.

The plan also includes at least 8,500 housing units, 2 million square feet of office space, an 8,000- to 12,000-seat arena and 700,000 square feet for retail and entertainment uses, including a large grocery store near Highway 101 at Candlestick and a smaller one at Hunters Point.

There would more than 350 acres of parks and open space, including the stadium parking and a waterfront trail.

Newsom said the plan would need the support of Bayview-Hunters Point residents, most of whom seemed pleased with the vision at a Monday evening meeting of citizens involved with the long-discussed redevelopment of both Hunters Point and Candlestick Point. To that end, Lennar's plans call for replacement housing for artists who have been living at the former shipyard.

There would also be an International African Marketplace, replacement housing for residents of the city's 45-year-old Alice Griffith Housing Development and even a cable-guided tram that would climb the steep hill that dominates Bayview Park, one of the city's least-used parks.

Lennar representatives said their project will be financed with private money, funds borrowed against future property taxes and assessments and fees typical of new development. They expect the project to be finished by 2021.

The 49ers are skeptical that the cleanup of the 500-acre former shipyard can be done expeditiously.

But Navy and Environmental Protection Agency officials say that much of the hardest work has already been done, and top Navy brass committed this month to trying to meet the city's schedule for a phased transfer of the shipyard, with the 27-acre parcel for the stadium conveyed first, by the summer of 2009, to allow for stadium construction.

The key issue is whether Congress will maintain the same level of annual funding for the cleanup of Hunters Point -- about $70 million. The answer to that question will not come until this fall, but the city has U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on its side.

The 49ers also have questioned whether fans will be able to get to and from a Hunters Point stadium quickly. Santa Clara boasts that it has four- to eight-lane roads serving the potential stadium site, between Great America amusement park and the city's convention center near the nexus of Highways 101 and 237 and Interstate 880.

Lennar's traffic engineers believe the "dump time'' for getting cars out of a Hunters Point site would be less than what fans currently experience at Monster Park and would be comparable to what fans would experience in Santa Clara. They reason that traffic would travel on several routes. Northbound traffic, for example, would go through industrial neighborhoods. The company has not provided any traffic studies. The city's plan also calls for mass transit, including buses and possibly water taxis or ferries.

The 49ers have not made a formal proposal to Santa Clara yet. Last week, however, 49ers officials were openly coordinating with former Santa Clara city staff members and elected officials who publicly called on the city to study using some of city-owned Silicon Valley Power's money for a stadium project.

One advocate for studying that approach was former city manager and councilman Don Von Raesfeld, for whom the city recently named its new power plant. Team officials told him they need a public investment of somewhere between $150 million and $200 million, he said.

John Roukema, assistant director of Silicon Valley Power, said that drawing down the utility's reserve funds could lead to an increase in electricity rates, which are among the lowest in the state.

Roukema said that as of January, the utility's cash and investments totaled $387 million. And of that, nearly $169 million is committed to specific projects or needed to pay down bonds. The remaining $241 million, he said, is needed for capital improvements and insurance against electricity market volatility.

"The fact is that this money is still used to allow us to provide competitively priced electricity,'' Roukema said. "It's certainly not a windfall here.''

Von Raesfeld said he did not think a citywide vote would be required if the city chose to invest utility funds directly into the stadium.

Santa Clara's city attorney in 2001, however, opined that voters would have to change the city charter to tap utility funds to help fund a baseball stadium for the Oakland Athletics. That effort, led by local citizens including Von Raesfeld, withered away without a vote after years of work.

In 1990, the San Francisco Giants also went to voters in Santa Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale and Milpitas seeking approval of a 1 percent electricity tax to pay for a stadium. The measure was soundly rejected.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A comparison of the 2 cities' proposals
In San Francisco

-- Lennar Corp. would build at least 8,500 homes, many in slim towers and surrounded by townhomes.

-- 700,000 square feet of retail shops and entertainment, as well as two grocery stores.

-- A possible 8,000- to 12,000-seat arena.

-- 350 acres of parks, open space and a waterfront trail.

-- 2 million square feet of commercial office space.

-- Replacement rental housing for artists' colony.

-- Replacement housing for Alice Griffith Housing Development residents.

-- Stadium site would include parking for 19,500 cars on natural grass held together with a root-mesh that would also allow the space to be used for sports fields.

-- Lennar would pay $100 million in cash and tens of millions of dollars for stadium infrastructure

In Santa Clara

-- Team has not made a formal proposal. City and team are working on a feasibility study.

-- Stadium site has excellent infrastructure, including multi-lane roads and close proximity to Highways 101 and 237 and Interstate 880.

-- Team reportedly wants city investment of between $150 million and $200 million, possibly in some combination of land or utility funds.

-- Stadium would occupy a city-owned parking lot that is now under lease to Cedar Fair, the company that owns the Great America amusement park. Cedar Fair must agree to any deal, and replacement parking for park patrons must be provided.

-- Niners would have to secure thousands of game-day parking spaces in surrounding office parks.

Chronicle staff writer Nancy Gay contributed to this report. E-mail Patrick Hoge at phoge@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

I'd like to strip down the whole SF/Santa Clara/49er issue down to one and only one issue:

On the basis of the structure of the Bay Area, does San Francisco have a more legitamate reason to want to hold on to the 49ers compared to other cities whose teams might move elsewhere in their metro area?

The Bay Area is arguably the most unusually structured metropolitan area in the nation:

• three major cities, SF, Oak, SJ, lie within it

• even smaller cities like Berkeley, Palo Alto, Sausalito, Alameda have their unique sense of place

• no other metro area has a huge body of water like SF Bay smack in its middle

• no other metro area has subregions with their own sense of identity, their own sense of being apart from the metro area as a whole than the Bay Area: San Francisco, Marin, the Peninsula, Silicon Valley, East Bay, Wine Country, etc.

• San Francisco is both a city and a county and its special sense of identity makes a huge distinction between being inside and outside of city limits compared to other cities. It doesn't matter how close Daly City is to SF; it's not SF.

Given the unique nature of the Bay Area, isn't it more than understandable that San Francisco feels it is losing something valuable in a proposed move of the 49ers to Silicon Valley and the greater South Bay region than what you have in other cities, cities where the structure is often far simplier than in the Bay Area, where there may be only one major city and the suburbs are just "the suburbs"?

As far as examples go:

• In Dallas, the Cowboys are just across the line in Irving

• Sure the Jets and Giants play in a whole other state, but they are far closer to Midtown Manhattan than many other parts of Manhattan are

• Southern California's own disjointed parts made the name the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim necessary. Both Anaheim and Orange County view themselves as not being LA

• even though the structure of Washington is highly unusual with a city that isn't part of any state, the MD and VA neighbors are suburbs so the Skins playing in MD is not incosnistent with the Dallas model

The SF-Santa Clara issue is a far bigger move than any of the above...and when considering the validity of SF's case, that whole Bay Area structure issue legimitately needs to be considered. SF lives in a different type of neighborhood than virtually all US cities.

I seriously doubt the Santa Clara plan will ever become a reality, and if it does it will have to endure long delays and many modifications. The current plan is dependent on public money, which eventually will force Santa Clara to the ballot box. I know the team wants to exploit the cash reserves of the water commission, but it wouldn't surprise me if a NIMBY group shots down the plan if this involve even the potential increase of water prices in the future.

Also, the land they want to use is partly owned by the city of San Francisco. The Hetchy-Hetch system runs under, so San Francisco will have leverage on how the development has to occur. Besides, the Hetch-Hetchy system will have to be renovated after 2009, which would delay the construction of the stadium.

Yet, I am glad the city is trying to do something with Candlestick and Hunters Point. The development should not be subjected to the wishes of a team.

With the move to Fremont, they won't be the Oakland A's anymore. So what's the new name going to be?

Why localize it to something in the South Bay. Why not go with a more general appeal with a place name not yet used in professional sports: the Bay Area Athletics. Using "Bay Area" suggests a population base from the whole huge region....oddly that would even include any non-Giant fans in SF.

With the move to Fremont, they won't be the Oakland A's anymore. So what's the new name going to be?

Why localize it to something in the South Bay. Why not go with a more general appeal with a place name not yet used in professional sports: the Bay Area Athletics. Using "Bay Area" suggests a population base from the whole huge region....oddly that would even include any non-Giant fans in SF.
They are taking a page from the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.... They're supposed to be called the the San Jose A's of Fremont. The owner of the A's, Lew Wolffe, has strong ties to San Jose. He developed and was part owner of two of the biggest hotels in the city's core. Wolffe was trying to move them to Downtown San Jose, but the SF Giants have so-called "territorial rights" to San Jose which prevents the A's from moving there. He tried to work some deal out with the Giants, but they wouldn't budge. Now, he's doing the next best thing, and moving them just beyond county lines(only 10 miles from Downtown SJ). The name will help draw corporate support and sponsorship from Silicon Valley and help draw huge fan support the largest city in the Bay Area. The A's already have a partnership with San Jose based Cisco Systems who own the naming rights to the stadium and is helping develop the stadium into some high tech show place.

Noooooooo!! Oakland forever! Oh well.

My vote is for San Jose A's =) Silicon Valley A's would be my second choice.

its pretty obvious it ll be San Jose A's at Fremont or Silicon Valley A's at Fremont.....Wolfe has already said the name would include "at Fremont" ....just cant picture him naming them Bay Area A's with all his ties to SJ...another thing, im sure the new Earthquakes stadium and the industrial land at Edanvale(SouthSJ) will tie into this A's deal somehow.

My vote is for San Jose A's =)

Me, too. That makes the most sense. Plus, from what I understand, Fremont officials (like Santa Clara officials with the 49ers) arent pushing the issue too much; they just want the team. Seems they could be called the Martian A's for all they care. The important thing is the A's be in Silicon Valley.

i understand what you guys are saying, but it seems to me that the name Bay Area A's would be a carrot and might offer a continued draw from core areas of East Bay (Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, etc.). It also creates a draw from areas that are traditionally Giant county like Marin, much of the Peninsula, and even San Francisco.

In addition, a name like Bay Area would serve a similiar function that the inclusion of the name Los Angeles did for the Angels: project the most visible of entitites. In that respect, Bay Area easily trumps possible names like San Jose or South Bay or Silicon Valley.

The Bay Area, as a entity beyond the concept of San Francisco and surrounding areas, is a highly evoacative and inviting name recongiztion. The A's would be well advised to include in any name change. The only possible name in the whole region that could have equal or greater status would be San Francisco. So SF aside, Bay Area would top them all and would foster the greatest fan base.

The problem is that the term Bay Area is too generic, the SF Bay isn't the only one in the US. They're going to get traffic from the East Bay communities either way. And even if they didn't there would easily be enough South Bay supporters to keep the stadium at max occupancy throughout the season (keep in mind that it will be the smallest stadium in the league and it will use retail to draw people in also).

San Jose has always gotten the shaft with professional sports. While there are 3 professional teams in Oakland and 2 in SF, all San Jose has are the Sharks despite being in a county of almost 1.8 million people. This will soon change, but I still think it would be unfair to call them the Bay Area anything. San Jose and/or Silicon Valley can stand on its own and doesn't need to slap up a name to appease SF or Oakland residents.

In addition, a name like Bay Area would serve a similiar function that the inclusion of the name Los Angeles did for the Angels: project the most visible of entitites. In that respect, Bay Area easily trumps possible names like San Jose or South Bay or Silicon Valley.


There's a Bay Area in Tampa, Chesepeake and SoCal at least. And as I've argued with many friends, Redondo Beach is in SoCals South Bay as well. Unless the A's are also trying to woo East Coast and Florida fans, I'd stick with a city name. (Though I'd be cool with them being called the California Athletics)

Just as long as they don't call it the Golden State Athletics. Sounds like a third tier college team.

There's a Bay Area in Tampa, Chesepeake and SoCal at least. And as I've argued with many friends, Redondo Beach is in SoCals South Bay as well. Unless the A's are also trying to woo East Coast and Florida fans, I'd stick with a city name. (Though I'd be cool with them being called the California Athletics)

Speaking of bays and regionalism. I seemed to recall that someone high up suggested SF's failed Olympic bid be more appropriately pitched as "San Francisco Bay" as that would be more inclusive of the enitre region. I think, as it turned out, only about 25% of events wouldve taken place in SF with as least as many happening in SJ. In that case, I think the inclusion of "Bay" wouldve been better.

There's a Bay Area in Tampa, Chesepeake and SoCal at least. And as I've argued with many friends, Redondo Beach is in SoCals South Bay as well. Unless the A's are also trying to woo East Coast and Florida fans, I'd stick with a city name. (Though I'd be cool with them being called the California Athletics)

Speaking of bays and regionalism. I seemed to recall that someone high up suggested SF's failed Olympic bid be more appropriately pitched as "San Francisco Bay" as that would be more inclusive of the enitre region. I think, as it turned out, only about 25% of events wouldve taken place in SF with as least as many happening in SJ. In that case, I think the inclusion of "Bay" would've been better. Dont know if that plan wouldve helped or not, but SF officials didnt want to change the bid. I suspect it couldnt have hurt as we have a very unique region, both nationally and internationally. In the end, that bid went down in flames.

The only possible name in the whole region that could have equal or greater status would be San Francisco.
I doubt there are as many people who would be turned off by "Bay Area" as there are who would be by "San Francisco." They are not on the same level in terms of appeal.

The name Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim is the worst sports name I have ever heard. Now this? San Jose A's of Fremont? Come on now, San Jose A's sounds fine by itself. Bay Area A's isn't too bad either as somebody suggested.

Wolff may just be appeasing Fremont so they are quicker to greenlight everything. Once it's built, he can call the team whatever. The title "at Fremont" would be a commercial disaster for a guy who's trying to market to a new region.

There's a Bay Area in Tampa, Chesepeake and SoCal at least. And as I've argued with many friends, Redondo Beach is in SoCals South Bay as well. Unless the A's are also trying to woo East Coast and Florida fans, I'd stick with a city name. (Though I'd be cool with them being called the California Athletics)

i'm sorry, but nationally the term "Bay Area" means the San Francisco Bay Area. There are two Kansas City's, but when someone says "Kansas City", I'm fairly sure they are referring to KC, MO....not the one in Kansas.

i'm sorry, but nationally the term "Bay Area" means the San Francisco Bay Area. There are two Kansas City's, but when someone says "Kansas City", I'm fairly sure they are referring to KC, MO....not the one in Kansas.
How often do you hear just "Bay Area" except on local news? It's always preceded by "San Francisco" because the body of water is not just Bay, but San Francisco Bay.

How often do you hear just "Bay Area" except on local news? It's always preceded by "San Francisco" because the body of water is not just Bay, but San Francisco Bay.

The Bay Area is the SF Bay Area nationally. In Chicago, there is no question what it means.

The Bay Area is the SF Bay Area nationally. In Chicago, there is no question what it means.
I forgot Chicago was the rest of the world.

Does anyone have a link to an article where this new name can be confirmed? All I saw was a speculative post about the name, and everyone ran with it like it was truth.:nuts:

Hopefully they'll keep Oakland in the name (but preferably leave the name alone) since the team will still be in Alameda county. It would sure be a slap in the face to not even recognize Oakland at all.

It would sure be a slap in the face to not even recognize Oakland at all.
Like when Oakland desecrated the Coliseum just to please Al Davis? That wasn't a slap in the face? Ever notice how many A's fans dislike the Raiders?

Does anyone have a link to an article where this new name can be confirmed? All I saw was a speculative post about the name, and everyone ran with it like it was truth.:nuts:

Hopefully they'll keep Oakland in the name (but preferably leave the name alone) since the team will still be in Alameda county. It would sure be a slap in the face to not even recognize Oakland at all.
Why would they want to have Oakland in their name after the Coliseum/City/County sold them out to get the Raiders to move back to the Coliseum?

Here's your link about the new name: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/15/SPGLRMD55K1.DTL

i'm sorry, but nationally the term "Bay Area" means the San Francisco Bay Area. There are two Kansas City's, but when someone says "Kansas City", I'm fairly sure they are referring to KC, MO....not the one in Kansas.

Sorry, spoken like someone who used to live in San Francisco. "Bay Area" doesn't even mean San Francisco in California. Hell, there are two bays in San Diego plus the Santa Monica Bay, Morro Bay, and Monterrey Bay. When you throw in the Boston Bay, the Chesapeake Bay, Norfolk Bay, Tampa Bay, Galveston Bay and all the other bays in the US, Bay area won't do it. On the other hand I think "San Francisco Bay Athletics" has a certain ring to it and may sell; unless you want to go all the way and rename them the "Silicon Valley Geeks".

On the other hand I think "San Francisco Bay Athletics" has a certain ring to it and may sell; unless you want to go all the way and rename them the "Silicon Valley Geeks".

When your computer unexpectedly melts...don't wonder why! ;)

Sorry, spoken like someone who used to live in San Francisco. "Bay Area" doesn't even mean San Francisco in California. Hell, there are two bays in San Diego plus the Santa Monica Bay, Morro Bay, and Monterrey Bay. When you throw in the Boston Bay, the Chesapeake Bay, Norfolk Bay, Tampa Bay, Galveston Bay and all the other bays in the US, Bay area won't do it. On the other hand I think "San Francisco Bay Athletics" has a certain ring to it and may sell; unless you want to go all the way and rename them the "Silicon Valley Geeks".
"San Francisco Bay" is far worse for a team than "Silicon Valley." Nobody wants to support inflation of SF egos, especially A's fans.

"San Francisco Bay" is far worse for a team than "Silicon Valley." Nobody wants to support inflation of SF egos, especially A's fans.Exactly!!!! It's hard to imagine any longtime A's fan (or a fan of any Oakland team) supporting a team with "San Francisco" in it's name. Most of the A's and Raiders fans I know would rather have a hole in their head than have anything to do with a team in any way associated with San Francisco.

"San Francisco Bay" is far worse for a team than "Silicon Valley." Nobody wants to support inflation of SF egos, especially A's fans.

I didn't think of this at all... it's pretty safe to say that SF won't be in the name of the team. Especially considering the SF Giants exist. I also think we've established that Bay Area is too generic.

So I guess the real question is San Jose or Silicon Valley?

I didn't think of this at all... it's pretty safe to say that SF won't be in the name of the team. Especially considering the SF Giants exist. I also think we've established that Bay Area is too generic.

So I guess the real question is San Jose or Silicon Valley?
I doubt it would be "Silicon Valley A's at Fremont" since that'd be a slap in the face to Fremont tech companies. Similarly, "Bay Area A's at Fremont" would be redundant. It'll have to be San Jose, I guess.

I forgot Chicago was the rest of the world.

only 70-80% of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk
I forgot Chicago was the rest of the world.

only 70-80% of it.

Everybody sing! "Its a small world after all, Its a small world........"

I didn't think of this at all... it's pretty safe to say that SF won't be in the name of the team. Especially considering the SF Giants exist. I also think we've established that Bay Area is too generic.

So I guess the real question is San Jose or Silicon Valley?

You could call them the "South Bay Athletics" but of course California has two "South Bays" (the other being the Manhattan/Hermosa/ and Redondo Beach areas near LA). How about the "North South Bay Athletics" so everything is perfectly clear! LOL:banana: :banana: :banana:

You could call them the "South Bay Athletics" but of course California has two "South Bays" (the other being the Manhattan/Hermosa/ and Redondo Beach areas near LA). How about the "North South Bay Athletics" so everything is perfectly clear! LOL:banana: :banana: :banana:
Yeah, whatever! It's North South Bay Athletics at Fremont, jerk!

I'm still sticking to the notion there is nothing generic about the term "Bay Area". In the US, the Bay Area is the San Francisco Bay Area. It is the only one that can suggest what it means without a descriptor.

In the US, if you told someone they were traveling from the Tampa Bay Area to the Bay Area...that would,no doubt, suggest a trip from Tampa to San Francisco. Or Oakland. Or San Jose.

That's why I honestly believe that it would be the most maximizing term for the A's after the move. It excludes nobody. It's a readily identified name. It offers inclusion to fans in Marin, the northern portions of the peninsula and....shocker of all shockers....even San Francisco. It respects both the present Oakland/East Bay setting and the new South Bay setting, as well.

And besides, it would be kinda fun to call the team the B'A's

In the US, if you told someone they were traveling from the Tampa Bay Area to the Bay Area...that would,no doubt, suggest a trip from Tampa to San Francisco. Or Oakland. Or San Jose.
See, that's a perfect example of you thinking such because you're familiar with the area. Flying from the Tampa Bay Area could also mean a flight out of St Petersburg. It works the other way, too. People around the country don't know San Jose. They barely know where Oakland is. You'd have to specify "San Francisco Bay Area."

GIANTS SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sure you're all aware

bay area really does mean sf area to everyone

bay area really does mean sf area to everyone
Who said people are smart?

I think a suitable location for a 49ers stadium would be the huge vacant lot accross the 101 from SFO. It has excellent freeway access (providing a new on/off ramp would be built) and lies next to both BART and Cal-train. The parking for the stadium could also generate income by being used as a park-and-ride as well as airport parking.

I seriously doubt the Santa Clara plan will ever become a reality, and if it does it will have to endure long delays and many modifications. The current plan is dependent on public money, which eventually will force Santa Clara to the ballot box. I know the team wants to exploit the cash reserves of the water commission, but it wouldn't surprise me if a NIMBY group shots down the plan if this involve even the potential increase of water prices in the future.

Also, the land they want to use is partly owned by the city of San Francisco. The Hetchy-Hetch system runs under, so San Francisco will have leverage on how the development has to occur. Besides, the Hetch-Hetchy system will have to be renovated after 2009, which would delay the construction of the stadium.

Yet, I am glad the city is trying to do something with Candlestick and Hunters Point. The development should not be subjected to the wishes of a team.

The fact remains that SF does not have a viable alternative proposal. The Bay Area is also unique in having three Alpha cities, and most residents are just has proud of saying "I'm from the Bay Area" as they are saying "I'm from Sunnyvale/San Francisco/Vallejo." The Rams case was different because Anaheim DOES NOT consider itself part of greater LA. [We can have an entire sociological discussion as to why this occurs there but not here]

With over 70% of season ticket holders not from SF proper, it leads me to believe most are from either San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties (I'm assuming Contra Costa/Alameda residents are more likely to be Raiders ticket holders; Marin's small population makes it negligeable). So in effect, the team will in fact be closer to its fan base. SF is what it is, but the Bay is more than just SF and I dont think we have the regionalism that the LA area has. Most of us here don't seem to care where they go so long as they stay in the Bay.

I dont think we have the regionalism that the LA area has
Other than Orange County vs Los Angeles County, we have it way worse.

MLB asks San Jose to wait on A's ballot measure

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/97/Oakland_Athletics_Insignia.svg/100px-Oakland_Athletics_Insignia.svg.png

(07-27) 20:46 PDT San Jose, Calif. (AP) --

Major League Baseball is asking San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed to hold off on putting a measure on the ballot for an Oakland Athletics ballpark.

Reed said he spoke with MLB President Bob DuPuy on Tuesday about the proposed measure.

Last week, the mayor said he would ask the City Council to approve a ballot measure even though the MLB has yet to decide whether the team can move. Baseball commissioner Bud Selig had said he was "disappointed" with Reed's action.

The A's need approval before they can move to San Jose because the San Francisco Giants hold territorial rights to the area. Voters also have to approve a stadium.

Reed, who said he would consider the request, also said the league committed to help pay for a special election if one is required.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/07/27/sports/s204657D47.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0uwlUGrpo

source (http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_16738316)

Planning commission meeting first step in A's ballpark plan

Oakland Tribune
Posted: 12/01/2010 12:00:00 AM PST
Updated: 12/01/2010 07:30:26 AM PST

OAKLAND -- Baseball season may have ended, but the challenge to keep the A's in Oakland has just begun. And opening night is today, when the Oakland Planning Commission meets to discuss a proposal for a 39,000-seat ballpark.

The meeting promises to be a lively one even though no decisions will be made on the proposal to build the Victory Court Ballpark, as well as retail and housing, within sight of Jack London Square. The public instead will be able to weigh in on what should be included in a study of the environmental impact that the construction and operation of the proposed development could have on the area.

Concerns may include several fuel lines that run nearby. Federal regulators have levied a $3.5 million fine on one of the operators -- Kinder Morgan Energy Partners -- after several incidents, including a 2005 spill into the Oakland Estuary. The Houston-based energy giant pipes jet fuel underground past the estuary to Oakland International Airport.

Other potential issues include the impact on neighbors and nearby businesses -- air quality, noise and especially traffic.

The plan calls for 2,500 off-street parking spaces including what is now the Laney College parking lot owned by the Peralta Community College District.

Gary Knecht from the Jack London District Association, which represents businesses around the historic square, is worried that tens of thousands of fans arriving at the same time will cause gridlock on Interstate 880 and city streets.

Once a year for the Fourth of July fireworks is one thing, he said. "Everyone wants to see the A's stay in Oakland," he said, "But (81) home games is a little different."

The association also wants the city to include in the environmental impact report a proposal to build a ballpark above I-980 between 14th and 18th streets.

Incoming Mayor Jean Quan has thrown her support behind the Victory Court site, which would sit between Fourth Street and the Embarcadero. The ballpark, Quan and other supporters say, fits into the overall redevelopment of the area which includes the Oak to 9th waterfront development and Jack London Square. The ballpark could give both a boost, prompting support from their developers.

But the city will still have to account for the 16 businesses that would have to make way for the ballpark. The land is occupied by a three-unit live-work building and facilities belonging to BART, the Peralta Community College District and the Oakland Fire Department.

City staff expects a draft of the environmental impact report to be complete by the spring of 2011. Meanwhile, many questions remain unanswered. Foremost is whether Major League Baseball will allow the A's to move to San Jose, where the San Francisco Giants have territorial rights. A's co-owner Lew Wolff has long expressed a desire to move to San Jose. He and majority owner John Fisher could still opt to sell the team if MLB stands in the way. Or they could move the team elsewhere

also posted in the US soccer stadium thread...
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4219/20110213091646982.jpg

By Bay Area Sports Guy (http://bayarea.sbnation.com/san-francisco-giants/2011/5/18/2176888/san-francisco-giants-oakland-athletics-bats-imitating-the-weather-bay-area-sports-week-in) - Contributor

What's colder lately? The air temperature or the bats guys like Aubrey Huff, Miguel Tejada, Mark Ellis and Hideki Matsui are bringing up to the plate?

Follow @sbnbayarea on Twitter, and Like SB Nation Bay Area on Facebook.

May 18, 2011 - Editor's Note: This post was written up shortly before the A's exploded for 14 runs against the Angels. The writer is a Giants fan, the editor is an A's fan. We'll just leave it at that.

I don't want to hear it from all you people in other parts of the country who have to deal with so-called "real" weather. The weather here is brutal right now. It's May. I should be squinting because the sun's out, not because rain is blowing into my eyes, even when I carry an umbrella. My wedding ring shouldn't be sliding off my finger because it's so cold all the blood's left my hands. I wore a beanie today to work. Nobody's supposed to do that in San Francisco this time of year besides Tim Lincecum. No, we don't have to deal with hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards or consistent humidity, but we also pay more for to rent one-bedroom apartments than people in other areas of the country pay for 3,500 sq. ft. houses on an acre and a half. We're paying for the right to not walk around in 48-degree weather with 20 mph winds. Especially in the middle of May, the time when a boys thoughts turn to baseball players rounding third, heading for home...

Hell, we don't even get to see that this year. The Minnesota Twins only have two good offensive players and they're both broken, so forget about them. If it weren't for the Twinks, this weekend's matchup between the San Francisco Giants and Oakland Athletics would be a fierce crossbay battle for the title of WORLDS ... WORST ... OFFENSE!

Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! And almost every day in between! Get ready for double plays! One-pitch at-bats! And COMEBACKERS, COMEBACKERS, COMEBACKERS!!!!! ... Giants! A'S! We'll sell you the whole seat, but you'll only need the EDGE!!!!

It's a show fit for weather like we've been having. All this great pitching without any hitting is too much suffering for one to bear -- and it's almost ruining my Napa County Viognier.

Lucky Lacob?

- In an attempt to change the Warriors' recent luck in the NBA Draft Lottery, Joe Lacob went to Secaucus, NJ and tried to move up from the No. 11 spot by sitting on a chair and smiling into a television camera. The Warriors ended Tuesday night with the No. 11 spot in the draft.

- A lot of Warriors fans have already called for the team to try to draft Bismack Biyombo, an 18-year-old physical freak. No, that's not hyperbole, the Biyombo's wingspan is 7-7, even though he stands just short of 6-8. He's 245 lbs, with 4.8% body fat. Upside alert! Sounds like a guy who's stock is going to soar far too high for the Warriors to have a chance.

- For the record, I hope the Warriors get a swingman like Kawhi Leonard or Alec Burks, since any center available at No. 11 would probably be available for a reason (like calling Andris Biedrins' game and work ethic "inspiring" during the pre-draft interview process). Leonard isn't exactly an offensive genius, but the Warriors could use a little extra toughness and he would certainly provide it.

- Then Hoopshype goes and mocks the Warriors drafting Jimmer. Somebody at Hoopshype has a good sense of humor.

- The Sharks won a thrilling Game 7 against the Red Wings, after Jeremy Roenick gave his own version of "tough love" to the leading playoff scorer in Sharks franchise history, Patrick Marleau. Oh, but Roenick's a huge fan of the Sharks, so it's okay. When Roenick cried on TV after the Chicago Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup last year, it wasn't because he felt a kinship with the team he played for during the first eight years of his career, it was because he still felt bad for the Sharks, a team he played with ... for two years.

- I'd love to figure out how 95.7 FM sounds, but I can't hear it in my apartment. My apartment that's right in the middle of downtown San Francisco. Tough to get a huge following when your signal's only slightly stronger than the FM feeds they use at drive-in movie theaters.

- Jim Harbaugh's biggest recruit since leaving Stanford: Alex Smith.

- Awesome when you spend all evening (and half a column) snarking it up over the local baseball teams' lack of offense and the A's go and win 14-0 over the Angels while you're finishing the rest of the post. In a related story, the A's reached first place in their division on Tuesday, the same day the Giants relinquished the top spot in the NL West to the Colorado Rockies.

- Just watched HBO Real Sports' latest, led off with a feature on chewing tobacco in Major League Baseball. Interesting that they snooped around the Giants' clubhouse looking for cans of dip, and pointed out the can in Tim Lincecum's locker. The quotes they got from players' union rep Mark DeRosa made him look kind of like a tool, as well. This wouldn't have anything to do with a certain rival premium cable channel broadcasting what some would argue is a near-reverential reality series featuring the very same San Francisco Giants. Naahhhhhh.... Next you're going to tell me Sports Illustrated was biased against Barry Bonds after Bonds blew off Rick Reilly.

http://www.knbr.com/portals/3/podcasts/razormrt/0518tedford.mp3

Jeff Tedford talking about my Golden Bears on KNBR.

Go Bears!

New Earthquakes Stadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Earthquakes_Stadium) is the working name of a planned soccer specific stadium that will be built in San Jose, California, for Major League Soccer’s San Jose Earthquakes. The stadium will be built on what is currently called the Airport West site that is located to the west of San Jose International Airport. The stadium will hold approximately 15,000 fans, expandable to 18,000, and estimated to cost between $40 million and $60 million. The stadium will be part of a mixed use residential, retail, R&D and hotel development. The stadium is planned to be constructed privately with no public money provided by the city of San Jose. Additionally Lewis Wolff, owner of the San Jose Earthquakes, has offered to pay for the maintenance of the stadium for a fifty-five-year timespan.

http://sharkspage.com/jpgs6/quakes_stadium2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/TheEpicenter.gif

The San Jose City Council approved rezoning property near Mineta San Jose International Airport to allow a soccer stadium to be built for the San Jose Earthquakes.

The council voted 10-0 Tuesday in favor of the proposal, which involves 95 acres on Coleman Avenue.

The stadium is expected to have about 18,000 seats.


Read more: San Jose soccer stadium rezoning approved | Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/03/15/daily59.html?surround=lfn)

As of now, the site is mostly or totally demolished. Fans who've driven by say "totally" but I think that's in reference to the buildings which were there, not the concrete on the ground.

I wonder how long it will be before we get an updated render? I don't see any suites or press boxes which will undoubtedly be included in the final design.

There is also a fly-in video over here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsC79Uti-MM

http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_AndrewD/scuba_lou.jpg

After apparently moving on from that whole Tempeh District thing, PETA has named AT&T Park the most vegetarian and vegan-friendly major league ballpark in the country (http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2011/05/18/top-10-vegetarian-friendly-major-league-ballparks.aspx). In a schlocky blog post, the activist group says, "the only thing sweeter than a World Series championship is knowing that no animals had to suffer for a tasty ballpark meal," citing the range of meatless concession items as reason for the ballpark's success. Now, shush - no one tell them about that Seal sweatshop operating in the kid's area. [via KTVU]

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/5-23-11giants.jpg

by Sally Kuchar (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/05/23/honoring_the_sf_giants_history_and_world_series_win.php)

San Francisco Giants team officials announced Friday that the long journey to win the World Series will be commemorated by a World Champions Walk. "The 2010 World Series title was the culmination of more than five decades of memorable moments, historic games and hundreds of legendary players who have worn the San Francisco Giants uniform," Giants president Larry Baer said in a statement. The walkway will encircle all four plazas of AT&T Park. The walk will also include brick pavers that fans can purchase to mark their own memories of the team's history. The brick pavers will be sold for $225 to $475, depending on the location, team officials said.

demolition officially complete
http://www.sjearthquakes.com/news/2011/06/kavals-kickoff-demolition-done-stadium-site
slow but steady...

49ers New Stadium

source: 49ersnewstadium.com (http://49ersnewstadium.com/)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5816135948_a588a50e22_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816135948/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816135948/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2093/5815568791_47a2fecdeb_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815568791/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815568791/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2738/5815570203_feb80d3eff_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815570203/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815570203/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2631/5815571611_188918da55_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815571611/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815571611/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2403/5815572921_c385abc773_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815572921/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815572921/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/5815574281_e6578dc474_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815574281/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815574281/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3267/5815575775_c17fcf09a7_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815575775/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815575775/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5117/5816145774_38787d9994_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816145774/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816145774/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3304/5816146864_f5e56749c4_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816146864/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816146864/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2429/5816148132_68be23fb6a_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816148132/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816148132/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5277/5815581555_c4282d3ce5_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815581555/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815581555/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2516/5816150848_73462ebdf8_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816150848/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816150848/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5263/5816152116_bbaf170416_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816152116/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816152116/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2433/5815585227_908b61772f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815585227/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815585227/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2242/5816154606_dab77df046_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816154606/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816154606/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5237/5816155936_05be6f39f8_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816155936/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816155936/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2056/5815589195_57007abc14_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815589195/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5815589195/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5108/5816158250_ba3f8f32df_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816158250/)
New 49er Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/5816158250/) by TPZ3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/tjprz/), on Flickr

When is the stadium going to be completed?

Doh, it's saying the photos are unavailable.

^^ Hope it works now.

They've said it will be done no later than 2013. Not sure what time of year, though. Other projects in MLS have been completed fairly quickly, so that's not unreasonable.

I'm hoping they will figure out a good way to connect with public transit. Perhaps downtown shuttles?

How much will the box with no window and just a large flat screen go for? I'm guessing there will be an actual window in there but it's interesting that they would rather show the flat screen and "bottle service" on the table instead of the view of the field. And don't even get me started with whatever the hell that's supposed to be on the wall behind the chairs. Maybe there will be a Crate and Barrel outlet at the stadium as well.

How do they anticipate people paying money to be at a game in that part of town just to work on their laptops and not see the field? It's almost offensive how stupid they think we are, but it's sad to think they may be right.

I really hope that's never built.

I'm wondering if they might keep some of those lounges / restaurant areas open all year round.

Look closely at the photo again, the seats facing the stadium view are where the "camera" of the photo would be. They are just showing how nice the suites are on the interior. Every suite is in that 5 story glass tower on the side, so they all have floor to ceiling windows facing the game.

How much will the box with no window and just a large flat screen go for? I'm guessing there will be an actual window in there but it's interesting that they would rather show the flat screen and "bottle service" on the table instead of the view of the field. And don't even get me started with whatever the hell that's supposed to be on the wall behind the chairs. Maybe there will be a Crate and Barrel outlet at the stadium as well.

I'm wondering if they might keep some of those lounges / restaurant areas open all year round.

Totally agree! There should be some retail on the ground floor that will be open year-round.

It's in the middle of a desolate industrial zone. Nobody will go there except for a football game. It's not like stopping by the Sharks store on Santa Clara Street.

It's in the middle of a desolate industrial zone. Nobody will go there except for a football game. It's not like stopping by the Sharks store on Santa Clara Street.

The Santa Clara Convention Center is right across the street and gets tons of traffic. I drive by it every day and it seems like there is always something going on. That alone could probably support some retail. There are also tens of thousands of homes within a few miles radius, a light rail stop, and half a dozen Silicon Valley corporate headquarters in the immediate area.

^^ I've been to that area a few times to go to Great America and there's honestly nothing there. The convention center is across the street, but there's not a lot of pedestrians walking, just cars passing by.

Anyways, I hope that's not the final design of the stadium.

^^ I've been to that area a few times to go to Great America and there's honestly nothing there. The convention center is across the street, but there's not a lot of pedestrians walking, just cars passing by.

Anyways, I hope that's not the final design of the stadium.

No not a lot of pedestrians, but tons of corporate buildings and housing in the immediate area. The area is also retail deprived (can look how packed Rivermark always is). @First is the only major retail development in the area.

By Ben Enos (http://www.contracostatimes.com/athletics/ci_18313047?nclick_check=1)benos@bayareanewsgroup.com



Right-hander Trevor Cahill knew well enough not to mess with the mojo his A's teammates are carrying.

Cahill, who chose to wear the team's alternate gold jersey for the first time this season, delivered eight masterful innings as the A's finished their sweep of the Giants at O.co Coliseum with a 2-1 victory Sunday.

Catcher Landon Powell homered in the eighth to break a 1-1 tie.

With a 0-5 record and a 5.67 ERA over his previous seven starts, Cahill needed to snap out of his own funk if the A's were going to win their fifth consecutive game.

By Ben Enos (http://www.contracostatimes.com/athletics/ci_18313047?nclick_check=1)benos@bayareanewsgroup.com

grrrrrr.... :bleep:

By Ben Enos (http://www.contracostatimes.com/athletics/ci_18313047?nclick_check=1)benos@bayareanewsgroup.com

Pretty surprising =)

^^ The Giants sucks nowadays. :lol:

San Jose Sharks' signing of Devin Setoguchi helps shape draft-day plans




By David Pollak (http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18341400?nclick_check=1) dpollak@mercurynews.com
Posted: 06/23/2011 05:27:58 PM PDT
Updated: 06/23/2011 08:51:44 PM PDT

Sharks general manager Doug Wilson describes the trade talks and player movement that surround the 2011 NHL draft that begins Friday night in St. Paul, Minn., as "a bit of a poker game."

Thursday, Wilson got a better idea of all the cards he is holding when he signed Devin Setoguchi to a three-year, $9 million contract extension one week before the 24-year-old right wing would have become a restricted free agent.

This was an old thread before the reorg and it seems to have disappeared. So, I thought I'd revive it as efforts for a new A's ballpark in San Jose, a new Earthquakes stadium, also in San Jose, and a new 49ers (possibly joint 49ers/Raiders) stadium in Santa Clara are ramping up.

First up: Cisco Field, proposed home of the San Jose A's. Capacity: 32K. Awaiting MLB's transfer of Santa Clara County territorial rights from the Giants back to the A's. Privately financed by the A's.

http://www.stadiumpage.com/cisco/Cisco_082410_1000_5.jpg

Next: The New San Jose Earthquakes Stadium (unofficially dubbed "The Epicenter"). Across from San Jose International, near Santa Clara University. Capacity: 15-18K. In the permitting stage; most shovel-ready of all projects. Privately financed by the Earthquakes.

http://www.droppingtimber.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/San-Jose-EarthqaUKES-new-stadium.jpg

Finally: The Proposed 49ers Stadium in Santa Clara. Capacity: 68,500K. The team is in the process of securing approximately $900 million for construction. NFL in favor of a joint 49ers/Raiders stadium. Projected opening: 2015. Jointly-financed by the 49ers and the city of Santa Clara.

http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/new49ersstadium.jpg

The capacity on the football stadium could be raised a bit, and the baseball stadium definitely needs a boost to at least 40, with room for expansion. Also I don't think football will come until baseball has done it successfully, and BART is building or has the funds ready for a project serving the area.

The capacity on the football stadium could be raised a bit, and the baseball stadium definitely needs a boost to at least 40, with room for expansion. Also I don't think football will come until baseball has done it successfully, and BART is building or has the funds ready for a project serving the area.

40k for the ballpark is a bit much for this market. 34-36k is appropriate.

40k for the ballpark is a bit much for this market. 34-36k is appropriate.

The 32K capacity comes from A) the limits of available space and B) the desire for a more intimate baseball experience. I think the difference between the Coliseum and Cisco Field will be night and day.

@mic5228: BART funding is actually coming along; it will reach SJ--eventually. I think the bigger question is HSR. Arguably, that'll have a much bigger impact on the South Bay than BART.

I'll just merge this one here so that we can all discuss any sports or improvements until contractions of the project. :)

The capacity on the football stadium could be raised a bit, and the baseball stadium definitely needs a boost to at least 40, with room for expansion. Also I don't think football will come until baseball has done it successfully, and BART is building or has the funds ready for a project serving the area.

I think the 49ers stadium will be built in the South Bay regardless of what happens with baseball. Several million were just invested in a preview center for the new luxury boxes, and they have already sold almost $200M worth of luxury suites alone. By the end of 2012 they should have the financing they need.

As for the A's, if they don't move to San Jose you can wave goodbye to the team (which I'm sure would thrill the Giants). Only pure greed on behalf of the Giants is making it take this long for a decision.

I think the 49ers stadium will be built in the South Bay regardless of what happens with baseball. Several million were just invested in a preview center for the new luxury boxes, and they have already sold almost $200M worth of luxury suites alone. By the end of 2012 they should have the financing they need.

As for the A's, if they don't move to San Jose you can wave goodbye to the team (which I'm sure would thrill the Giants). Only pure greed on behalf of the Giants is making it take this long for a decision.

We've been here before, but the A's are indicating more and more that a decision will come down from MLB within weeks.

http://prod.static.raiders.clubs.nfl.com/assets/clubimg/ad.jpg

No matter what you think of Al Davis and the Raiders, you can't deny the impact he had on the NFL and American sports culture.

San Jose OKs land deal for potential A's stadium

Susan Slusser, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 9, 2011

The A's took another incremental step in their quest for a stadium in San Jose on Tuesday when the San Jose City Council voted 10-1 to approve extending a land-purchase option to the team.

"It's a small step, but it's still a significant step," San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed said by phone. "It feels more concrete. Now we're talking about a real-estate deal. I think we're getting closer."

San Jose is granting the A's a two-year option to buy about 5 acres of land downtown, near HP Pavilion and the Diridon Station. The option will cost the A's $50,000, and there is a $25,000 option for a third year. During that period, the team may purchase the land for $6.98 million - an outcome presumably dependent on Major League Baseball approving the move.

A's owner Lew Wolff said in an e-mail to The Chronicle that he is "pleased with the vote" by the City Council.

There are no indications from MLB that the A's stadium issue is on the agenda for next week's owners' meetings in Milwaukee; the next owners' meetings after that will be in January. MLB's blue-ribbon panel studying a new A's ballpark has operated for nearly three years with no public recommendation.

Even if the A's get the OK to move, any final land sale and ballpark must be approved by San Jose voters, a stipulation affirmed by City Council vote Tuesday. No public funds are to be used to build or maintain the facility or to reimburse the team for any building-related expenses.

Santa Clara County is considered to be Giants' territory by MLB, but major-league owners could vote to overturn the territorial rights.

The A's are likely to pay the $50,000 for the option agreement within the next few days. Should the team decide not to purchase the land, the city will keep the $50,000.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/08/SPKI1LS5Q5.DTL#ixzz1dEnji6Ji

The 49ers Stadium now has Financing!

Santa Clara, 49ers line up $850M stadium loan
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal
Date: Saturday, December 3, 2011, 8:58am PST - Last Modified: Saturday, December 3, 2011, 8:58am PST
Related: Sports Business, Banking & Financial Services
Enlarge Image

courtesy rendering
Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and U.S. Bank have agreed to lend $850 million to build a new $1 billion home for the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara next to the California Great America theme park.

Related News

Slideshow: Silicon Valley 40 Under 40 reception
People on the Move
Jive Software sets IPO range at $8-$10
SolarCity, B of A Merrill Lynch to build $1B in solar projects
SEC looking into ex-49ers' investment firm
Santa Clara city officials said Friday night that the financing for a new billion-dollar home for the San Francisco 49ers has been arranged, a significant step towards beginning work on it next year.
About $850 million for the project will be loaned by Goldman Sachs , U.S. Bank and Bank of America .
The loan is expected to be repaid mostly from revenue generated by the 68,500-seat stadium in the form of ticket sales, stadium naming rights and rent.
The National Foootball League is expected to contribute another $150 million.
The rest is planned to be paid by the city’s redevelopment agency, about $40 million, and a hotel tax that is projected to kick in another $35 million.
City and team officials believe the new stadium will generate enough revenue to repay the loan in 25 years, with the 49ers expected to pay higher rent to make up for any year-to-year shortfalls.
The team is also expected to cover any contraction costs that run higher than expected.
The agreement calls for no money from the city's general fund to be used for the stadium.
Study sessions on the new agreement and plan for construction are scheduled for Tuesday and Thursday next week at the Santa Clara City Council Chambers and the plan is expected to be acted on at a City Council meeting on Dec. 13.
Click here to read a (PDF) draft of the new stadium agreement between Santa Clara and the San Francisco 49ers.
Written by Cromwell Schubarth. Contact him at cschubarth@bizjournals.com or 408.299.1823.

Warriors talk possibility of San Francisco arena (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/sports/pro/basketball&id=8461041)

Laura Anthony

OAKLAND, Calif. (KGO) -- The Golden State Warriors are exploring a possible move to San Francisco. In response, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan called a news conference to say Oakland has a firm plan to keep the A's, who have their sights set on a possible San Jose move, and wants the Warriors to stay also.


One of the concepts discussed Friday by Quan and other top city officials is something they're calling a "Coliseum City." That is basically remaking this entire complex with individual venues for the A's, Raiders and Warriors. It seems no coincidence this plan is being promoted just as the Warriors have their heads turned toward San Francisco.

On the first official day of practice, it appears Monte Ellis and his Warrior teammates maybe making a play to move from Oakland to San Francisco.

"We received an invitation from Mayor [Ed] Lee of San Francisco about 10 days ago to come visit with them," Warriors President Rick Welts said.

Welts confirmed he and other top team officials met this week with Lee and representatives of the San Francisco Giants about building a new arena for Golden State near AT&T Park.

"He directed, or asked at his direction, that the Giants and the Warriors work together to begin to explore whether or not there is a feasible site in San Francisco that could be the new home for the Warriors," Welts said.

"We want to make it absolutely clear that we want to save and keep all three teams in Oakland," Quan said an hour later during her own press briefing.

Billed as a "major announcement" about her city's efforts to keep the A's, Quan took the opportunity to reiterate she wants all three major sports teams to stay put and that she's been part of the conversation with the Warriors all along.

"I've met with the new owners of the Warriors since they bought the team, we've been keeping in touch," Quan said. "They actually contacted me last week to let me know that San Francisco was going to contact them."

Beyond that, Quan and other top officials want to remind everyone that Oakland has two viable sites for a new A's ballpark -- one at Victory Court near Jack London Square and the other near the site of the existing Coliseum.

"This is their home," Oakland City Council Member Larry Reid said. "This is where they need to be at, and we're going to do everything that we can to make sure that they stay here in the city of Oakland."

A's spokesperson Bob Rose had no new comment, except to reiterate what the team has been saying all along, that their focus is on building a new ballpark in San Jose. The team is still waiting for Major League Baseball to announce its decision about whether the team can move to San Jose. It's a process that's been going on now for three years. An announcement is expected soon.

It's only a matter of time before Oakland completely loses all their sports franchises.

GOOD LUCK ON THIS WEEKENDS NFC PLAYOFF GAME AGAINTS THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS...

The 49ers just pulled off an 'INCREDIBLE' victory over the Saints with just 9 seconds left to win it by a score of 36-32 and will advance to the NFC championship game for the rights to appear in Super Bowl 46... YEHEY! HOORAY! WOWEE! :banana:


http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m335/filipinas40/Smith2.jpg

Warriors talk possibility of San Francisco arena (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/sports/pro/basketball&id=8461041)

I suspect Monte will be retired before the Warriors move to SF. I would guess 5 years minimum, probably longer. The real problem is getting enough talent to get near .500.

The A's and Raiders and goners, of course.

One last time: thanks for a great and entertaining season, Niners.

:applause:

<sigh>

Source: SJ Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19944306)

Santa Clara sets 49ers stadium for earlier debut

The Associated Press
Posted: 02/11/2012 11:44:43 AM PST
Updated: 02/11/2012 01:02:12 PM PST

SANTA CLARA, Calif.—Santa Clara officials are expected to approve a construction contract for the San Francisco 49ers' new stadium that calls on the facility to open in 2014, a year earlier than originally projected.

City officials are scheduled to vote on the $878 million building contract Tuesday, the San Jose Mercury News reported (http://bit.ly/xDGYr0).

It requires construction to begin by July 1 and the stadium to be completed in time to open at the end of August 2014.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19944306

Pretty soon you can just assume traffic jams downtown SJ any time you go (Sharks, A's, Quakes, concerts).

Santa Clara on Sunday won't be good either, especially if Yu lures the Raiders.

Santa Clara Sundays I'm not worried about. Many more people are coming and going during regular commute hours M-F than will be coming for a game. It will be the occasional Monday game that will cause issues.

The Quakes stadium won't really impact traffic much either, but the A's could have a big impact.

Santa Clara Sundays I'm not worried about. Many more people are coming and going during regular commute hours M-F than will be coming for a game. It will be the occasional Monday game that will cause issues.
The fans and local businesses will adjust. People have been going to MNF at Candlestick for 40 years, and the traffic there is already brutal at best. But the fans have learned to arrive early, take mass transit or simply be patient.

Baseball to tell Oakland ... no way, San Jose (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-03/news/31120446_1_san-jose-young-players-manny-ramirez)

BILL MADDEN
NY Daily News
Saturday, March 03, 2012

After a whirlwind winter of wheeling and dealing, in which he traded three All-Star pitchers and signed both Cuban expatriate, Yoenis Cespedes, and MLB renegade Manny Ramirez, Billy Beane went to Hollywood for the Oscars last week as a guest of Brad Pitt (who played him in a 2011 film) and Sony Pictures, with visions of one day soon taking his revised on-field version of “Moneyball” to San Jose.

Unfortunately, the “Moneyball” film came up empty with the Academy Award voters, and the same fate beckons for Beane and Oakland A’s owners Lew Wolff and John Fisher in their determined effort to move to a new stadium in Hi-Tech haven. The latter prospect, in which, for a variety of reasons, MLB is going to uphold the San Francisco Giants’ territorial rights in San Jose, will be especially disheartening for Beane.

With or without Manny and Cespedes, however, the A’s are looking at another long, dreary season in Oakland as Wolf grows increasingly impatient with Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig’s interminable delay in ruling on the Giants’ territorial rights to San Jose. There are two reasons why Selig hasn’t ruled:

1. The Giants’ territorial rights to San Jose are part of the MLB constitution as a result of former A’s owner, Levi-Strauss heir Wally Haas agreeing to cede them in 1989 to Giants owner Bob Lurie, who, frustrated in his efforts to get a new stadium in San Francisco, was looking to relocate the team.

2. Even if Selig did invoke his “best interests of baseball” powers and allowed the A’s to move to San Jose, he probably doesn’t have the votes.

Lurie never did try to move the Giants to San Jose, but the fact that he now held those territorial rights to the rich high-tech Silicon Valley enhanced the Giants’ value, and was a prime reason why Lurie, who bought the Giants in 1976 for $8 million, was able to sell them for $100 million in 1993 to a group headed by former Safeway magnate Peter Magowan. The San Jose rights were also the reason why Magowan was able to secure financing for the new ballpark in San Francisco, as the Giants now maintain the crux of their constituency — season box and suite holders — is from the Silicon Valley.

Ah, the paper of record....

Baseball to tell Oakland ... no way, San Jose (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-03/news/31120446_1_san-jose-young-players-manny-ramirez)

BILL MADDEN
NY Daily News
Saturday, March 03, 2012

That was a bullshit article with the Vagiants finger prints all over it.

Baseball to tell Oakland ... no way, San Jose (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-03/news/31120446_1_san-jose-young-players-manny-ramirez)

BILL MADDEN
NY Daily News
Saturday, March 03, 2012

That was a bullshit article with the Vagiants finger prints all over it.

Updated: May 21, 2012, 12:46 AM ET
ESPN.com news services

The Golden State Warriors are close to making a deal to move to San Francisco, a source told ESPN the Magazine's Ric Bucher on Sunday.

The team wants to make the move and is committed to making it happen, the source said.

San Francisco mayor Ed Lee sent a letter on May 11 saying the city would work with Warriors executives to bring the team to San Francisco in time for the 2017-18 season.

"We are not prepared to make any announcements at this time," Warriors owner Joe Lacob said in a statement released Sunday.

The note, signed by all 11 city supervisors and numerous business and labor leaders, floats the possibility of building a waterfront arena. It was sent a few days after Lee met with new Warriors owner Peter Guber in Los Angeles . . . .


http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7953690/source-golden-state-warriors-committed-moving-san-francisco-oakland

hopefully if they do end up moving it does end up being a water front arena. Not that it really matters San Francisco is in the same metro area so the fan support would be pretty much the same. Hopefully they keep the same team name know though I just like Golden State for some reason. But I kinda wished they'd kept Jeremy Lin though I liked him before he ended up with the Knicks.

Some renderings and info about the move and arena:

Warriors to build new arena, move back to S.F.

The Golden State Warriors are jumping across the bay, with plans for a privately financed, $500 million waterfront arena that would allow the team to play its home games in San Francisco for the first time in more than four decades.

The NBA franchise would leave Oakland for a 17,000- to 19,000-seat arena that would be built on Piers 30-32 near the foot of the Bay Bridge, a short walk from downtown, and open in time for the 2017-18 season.

"It is going to happen - let there be no doubt," Warriors co-owner Joe Lacob said Monday.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/22/MNP41OK74T.DTL#ixzz1vcKmTn7r

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/05/21/ba-warriors22_PH_SFC0111089780.jpg
Source: www.sfgate.com

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/05/21/ed-edit22_warrio_SFC0111090014.jpg
Source: www.sfgate.com

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/05/21/sp-knapp22_PH1_SFC0111089788.jpg
Source: www.sfgate.com

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/05/21/ba-warriors22_PH_SFC0111090020.jpg
Source: www.sfgate.com

^^From the Chron article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/22/MNP41OK74T.DTL)

a privately financed, $500 million waterfront arena . . . . 17,000- to 19,000-seat(s) . . . . be built on Piers 30-32 near the foot of the Bay Bridge, a short walk from downtown, and open in time for the 2017-18 season . . . . would also host conventions and entertainment events such as concerts . . . . Plans for the site also include 100,000 square feet of restaurant and retail space . . . . "this will be an architecturally significant building, resting on an iconic site" . . . . The mayor called it "my legacy project," and said, "I'm going to be on top of it personally ' . . . . The Warriors have set a tight time frame, hoping to break ground in two years and finish the arena in another three years, when the team's lease at the Oracle Arena in Oakland expires . . . .

As for whether the team plans to change its name back to the San Francisco Warriors? Not right now, Lacob said. And in the long run, "we will do whatever the fans think is right."

That's great! :cheers:

Losing the 49ers was a blow but getting the Warriors into a sparkling downtown waterfront arena makes up for that quite nicely! I do hope Oakland can keep the A's in town so the East Bay still has a team to rally around.

San Francisco is in the same metro area so the fan support would be pretty much the same.

There could hardly be a better site for "the fan base". This will be within walking distance of (1) the new TransBay Terminal, i.e CalTrain; (2) BART; (3) MUNI Metro; (4) much of downtown SF's business district; (5) ferries to Marin, Vallejo, the South Bay and East Bay.

This is so great. The Niners ownership wanted more municipal funding for a stadium that they'd use for ten home games.

This arena won't require any tax payer money (or so they say) and will be used for 40+ home games plus add to the SF convention scene? Big win for SF.

Poor Oakland though... GSW are leaving. The A's want to leave (whether it's to San Jose or beyond) and the Raiders are also threatening to go.

Really great news for SF. I can't stop looking at the renderings because of the 1200' Transbay Tower. :runaway:

Really great news for SF. I can't stop looking at the renderings because of the 1200' Transbay Tower. :runaway:

Hah! Doesn't seem to show One Rincon tower 2 which is more likely to be there, though. ;)

That is a great news. Welcome back to SF, Warriors. I am so exciting to see the new arena to be built in Pier 30-32. It is a great location and using for parking space for long time.

A's stadium search returns to Oakland waterfront (http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/localnews/ci_21250460)

A shipping terminal long ago consigned to the dustbin of Oakland A's stadium sites has remerged as one of the city's two most viable options to keep the team from fleeing to San Jose.

During their first meeting in two years with the Major League Baseball committee studying future homes for the franchise, Oakland officials last week presented two ballpark options -- the well-publicized Coliseum City concept near the current stadium in East Oakland, and Howard Terminal, a waterfront site a few blocks north of Jack London Square.

The 51-acre terminal was one of the first sites considered more than a decade ago for the team. It didn't gain much traction then as its owner, The Port of Oakland, had it pegged for maritime operations. But an ongoing legal dispute with the terminal's tenant and ample shipping capacity at the port have city officials and stadium boosters again thinking it could play home to the A's.

"Howard Terminal is a spectacular site, one that would rival any stadium in the country for views and ambience," said Jim Zeliniski of the group Save Oakland Sports.

The site, while flawed, could make it harder for the team to leave town, sources aware of the proceedings said.

The MLB committee and city business leaders had told Oakland officials that they prefer a waterfront stadium near downtown rather than the Coliseum site.

That is, Oakland's stadium search returns to waterfront. They've flip-flopped between three different sites this year alone. What a mess.

The Timeline And Key Milestones For Building The Warriors Arena In SF

http://www.socketsite.com/Piers%2030-32%20Stadium%20Watercolor.jpg

The official project schedule, key dates, and milestones for building an arena upon San Francisco’s Piers 30-32 for the Golden State Warriors in time for the 2017-18 NBA season with construction proposed to start in the summer of 2014 and finish three years later:

∙ October 2012: Homeowner Association Meetings and Public Outreach
∙ October 16, 2012: Conceptual Drawings, Framework and Fiscal Feasibility Presentation
∙ October 23, 2012: Port Commission Action on Framework and Fiscal Feasibility
∙ November 20, 2012: Board of Supervisors Action on Framework and Fiscal Feasibility
∙ November 21, 2012: Notice of Preparation for EIR issued by Planning Department
∙ December 2012 thru 2013: Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
Design Review Board (DRB) Hearings
∙ January/February 2013: Port Commission Hearing and Action on Term Sheet
∙ January/February 2013: Board of Supervisors Action on Term Sheet
∙ Summer 2013: Planning Commission Hearings: Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
∙ Late Fall 2013: Certification of EIR; adoption of Zoning and General Plan
Amendments and approval of Conditional Use permits if required
∙ January – April 2014: Board of Supervisors Action on Transaction Document
∙ January – April 2014: BCDC DRB Action on Project Design
∙ January – April 2014: BCDC Major Permit & Public Trust Consistency
∙ January – April 2014: Other regulatory approvals
∙ Summer 2014: Proposed Start Construction
∙ Summer 2017: Proposed Complete Construction

It's an aggressive schedule as proposed with little leeway for major legal challenges or NIMBY opposition to building upon the Piers and Seawall 330 at the base of 501 Beale.
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/10/warriors_stadium_project_schedule_for_development_of_pi.html#more

^^The preliminary Snohetta design for the Pier 32 Warriors arena:

http://www.socketsite.com/Warriors%20Stadium%20Rendering-thumb.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/Warriors%20Stadium%20Design%20Overview-thumb.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/Warriors%20Stadium%20Schematic-thumb.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/Warriors%20arena%20Kayak%20Launch-thumb.jpg

The proposed arena would rise 135 feet (AT&T Park is 183 feet to the light standard, 132 feet to the top of the seating bowl) and seat 17,500 (Oracle Arena seats 19,596).

Other key arena facts ;

Venue Footprint: 170,000 square feet
Venue Total Square Footage: 740,000 square feet
Community Event Room: 10,000 square feet
Retail: 105,000 square feet
Parking Spaces: approximately 630 covered by tiered landscaping (Piers 30-32 currently parks 1,500 cars out in the open)
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/10/golden_warriors_san_francisco_arena_design_for_piers_30.html#more

The last picture with the Bay Bridge tower appearing at the top of the stairs just makes me swoon. The usual contingent of NIMBYs will sure come out to oppose this, but we must overcome them.

I can't understand why someone wouldn't want to live near that. It's beautiful!

From what I can make out from the renders. The entrance will be right on the Embarcadero and the venue plaza, event lawn, etc is the roof for the walkaway that leads into the arena.

It's lacking an iconic silhouette like the Sydney Opera House, the comparison we were given back in May. That looks more like it belongs on a blighted block in the middle of town, like that Disney building in LA.

It's lacking an iconic silhouette like the Sydney Opera House, the comparison we were given back in May. That looks more like it belongs on a blighted block in the middle of town, like that Disney building in LA.

The Snohetta opera house is in Oslo, not Sydney and the steps down to the water resemble that (they are also doing the SFMOMA addition). That is the signature feature of both beautiful buildings. And these renderings are preliminary. They will be refined.

You sound like you think it belongs in . . . San Jose. Never happen.

The Snohetta opera house is in Oslo, not Sydney and the steps down to the water resemble that (they are also doing the SFMOMA addition). That is the signature feature of both beautiful buildings. And these renderings are preliminary. They will be refined.

You sound like you think it belongs in . . . San Jose. Never happen.
First of all, what the fuck does this have to do with San Jose? If anything, a Warriors arena belongs in Oakland, where they sell tickets even though the team has mostly sucked forever.

Second, when the location was originally announced, the waterfront location was likened to Sydney opera house on Port Jackson. My comment has nothing to do with the designers or their other projects, as they were announced well after the fact.

Last, this will only make the Bay Bridge look even better by comparison. That has a bold and distinct look; whereas, this arena looks like a building that melted in the sun. Conversely, the aforementioned Sydney opera house is so iconic in shape that it was worked into the Swans logo.
http://www.bigfootynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/SydneySwans_246b.jpg
Wasted opportunity, that's all.

^^ I never heard it likened to the Sydney Opera House. Once they announced Snohetta was designing it, a lot people started talking about the Oslo Opera House. I find it funny that you think "a building that melted in the sun" is not a bold and distinct look.

^^ I never heard it likened to the Sydney Opera House. Once they announced Snohetta was designing it, a lot people started talking about the Oslo Opera House. I find it funny that you think "a building that melted in the sun" is not a bold and distinct look.

What is not getting trough here? Snohetta was announced months after the waterfront location.

So they likened the location to the Sydney Opera House. I will admit they are very similar, but lacking a silhouette like the Sydney Opera House does not make this less amazing. I don't understand how this would "belong in a blighted block in the middle of town."

First of all, what the fuck does this have to do with San Jose? If anything, a Warriors arena belongs in Oakland, where they sell tickets even though the team has mostly sucked forever.

Second, when the location was originally announced, the waterfront location was likened to Sydney opera house on Port Jackson. My comment has nothing to do with the designers or their other projects, as they were announced well after the fact.

Last, this will only make the Bay Bridge look even better by comparison. That has a bold and distinct look; whereas, this arena looks like a building that melted in the sun. Conversely, the aforementioned Sydney opera house is so iconic in shape that it was worked into the Swans logo.
http://www.bigfootynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/SydneySwans_246b.jpg
Wasted opportunity, that's all.

How do the warriors "belong" in Oakland but not SF, why would you hate this arena because it "doesn't have an iconic silhouette like the Sydney Opera House" (that's pure opinion, and never mind the fact this is a preliminary design, and the comparison to the Sydney opera house was based on the prominent waterfront location, not the design itself, which didn't even exist yet, and still doesn't exist in any finalized form), and why do you hate the location for the arena?

So they likened the location to the Sydney Opera House. I will admit they are very similar, but lacking a silhouette like the Sydney Opera House does not make this less amazing. I don't understand how this would "belong in a blighted block in the middle of town."
Okay, that last part I was apparently very unclear on. I don't mean that it looks like a piece of crap, and thus belongs in a blighted neighborhood. The point was that something smooth/shiny/modern would stand out more amidst older, traditional buildings. On the water, which is already smooth and shiny most of the time, it doesn't play to the same effect as the ferry building, for example. Maybe I prefer contrast more than others.
How do the warriors "belong" in Oakland but not SF, why would you hate this arena because it "doesn't have an iconic silhouette like the Sydney Opera House" (that's pure opinion, and never mind the fact this is a preliminary design, and the comparison to the Sydney opera house was based on the prominent waterfront location, not the design itself, which didn't even exist yet, and still doesn't exist in any finalized form), and why do you hate the location for the arena?
They "belong," like any sports team, where they've been supported well for decades, that's all. I'm not doubting they'll do fine in appealing to the demographics they intend to, and still transfer over some current fans. The new San Francisco Warriors won't be a flop.

That said, I do not "hate" this design, nor its location. However, the location is only comparable to Sydney harbor as the building itself itself juxtaposed against it. In this case, as I explained above, the two designs go very different directions. Say all you want about the official status of such comparisons in the first place, all of which is true, but I never intended to hold the architects to some sort of promise.

^^ Keep in mind that this is no where near the final arena design. This is more of just a preliminary design placeholder. More time was spent on the layout of the piers and the surrounding infrastructure than the design of the arena itself. We may want to wait until a more polished rendering is released before we crucify the plan.

^^ I never heard it likened to the Sydney Opera House. Once they announced Snohetta was designing it, a lot people started talking about the Oslo Opera House. I find it funny that you think "a building that melted in the sun" is not a bold and distinct look.

Neither did I. But hope WAS expressed that it would show a familial connection to the other Snohetta waterfront design, the OSLO opera house:

http://www.archdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/20.jpg
http://www.archdaily.com/440/oslo-opera-house-snohetta/

And never expect Krudmonk to say anything positive about anything, much less a building in San Francisco. This arena is beautiful in concept and will be beautiful in final design, his misanthropic opinions notwithstanding.

How do the warriors "belong" in Oakland but not SF . . . .

The Warriors belong where they want to be, just as the 49ers do. All I personally care about is that the tax money going into the business of sports franchises is minimized. But if they are using their own money, where they play is up to them and the planning/zoning/permitting authorities.

And never expect Krudmonk to say anything positive about anything, much less a building in San Francisco. This arena is beautiful in concept and will be beautiful in final design, his misanthropic opinions notwithstanding.
Oh fucking christ....


p.s. the 49ers "belong" up there and the Oslo opera house looks a thousand times better than the proposed arena

Warriors see 200-room hotel near new arena
Friday, November 16, 2012, 3:00am PST
Eric Young

The extent of the Golden State Warriors’ proposed development in San Francisco is coming into sharper focus with the team giving more details about what it may build in addition to a new arena.

Along with a 17,500-seat arena on Piers 30-32, the Warriors also plan to build across from the Embarcadero on a 2.3-acre site at Beale and Bryant streets. That site, called Seawall Lot 330, would host 34,000 square feet of retail, enough parking for 200 cars, up to 125 condominiums and a hotel with 200 rooms.

The Warriors have said the team has not finalized its plans for the plot of land and the precise makeup of the project could still change . . . .
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2012/11/16/warriors-see-200-room-hotel-near-new.html

Oh, they're just real estate developers, they don't care about sports, blah blah blah...

Timeline And Key Milestones For Building The Warriors Arena In SF

The official project schedule, key dates, and milestones for building an arena upon San Francisco’s Piers 30-32 for the Golden State Warriors in time for the 2017-18 NBA season with construction proposed to start in the summer of 2014 and finish three years later:

∙ October 2012: Homeowner Association Meetings and Public Outreach
∙ October 16, 2012: Conceptual Drawings, Framework and Fiscal Feasibility Presentation
∙ October 23, 2012: Port Commission Action on Framework and Fiscal Feasibility
∙ November 20, 2012: Board of Supervisors Action on Framework and Fiscal Feasibility
∙ November 21, 2012: Notice of Preparation for EIR issued by Planning Department
∙ December 2012 thru 2013: Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
Design Review Board (DRB) Hearings
∙ January/February 2013: Port Commission Hearing and Action on Term Sheet
∙ January/February 2013: Board of Supervisors Action on Term Sheet
∙ Summer 2013: Planning Commission Hearings: Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
∙ Late Fall 2013: Certification of EIR; adoption of Zoning and General Plan
Amendments and approval of Conditional Use permits if required
∙ January – April 2014: Board of Supervisors Action on Transaction Document
∙ January – April 2014: BCDC DRB Action on Project Design
∙ January – April 2014: BCDC Major Permit & Public Trust Consistency
∙ January – April 2014: Other regulatory approvals
∙ Summer 2014: Proposed Start Construction
∙ Summer 2017: Proposed Complete Construction

http://www.socketsite.com/501%20Beale%20Aerial.jpg


http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/10/warriors_stadium_project_schedule_for_development_of_pi.html

Board Of Supervisors Unanimously Approve Warriors Arena Resolution
Having been endorsed by their Budget and Finance Committee last week and right on schedule, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors has unanimously approved the resolution backing the proposed financial framework for the rehabilitation of Piers 30-32 and development of the proposed Golden State Warriors arena upon the site.

San Francisco’s Planning Department can now officially start work on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) necessary for the billion dollar arena to rise. The EIR is scheduled to be ready for review by summer 2013 . . . .


http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/11/board_of_supervisors_unanimously_approve_warriors_arena.html

The Conceptual Details And Design Discussion For Seawall 330

As roughly outlined in the endorsed Financial Framework for the Golden State Warriors proposed arena upon Piers 30-32, the preliminary plan for the development of Seawall (SWL) 330 across from the arena calls for two buildings rising up to 150 feet, one of which would be residential with up to 130 units and the other a hotel with up to 250 rooms, up to 300 parking spaces, and 33,000 square feet of retail at the base of the buildings.

http://www.socketsite.com/San%20Francisco%20Seawall%20330.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/SWL%20330%20Rendering.jpg


http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/11/the_conceptual_details_and_design_discussion_for_seawal.html

Oakland A's: Camp issues (http://www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_22560998/oakland-camp-issues)

The A's are seeking a five-year extension at the Coliseum. They need a place to stay, but five years? Maybe they've given up waiting for commissioner Bud Selig to act on the club's desire to move to San Jose or to retire and leave the decision to someone else.

I'm not current on this, but last I heard the theory is that Cisco Field won't start for at least a year and will take over two years to build (it's in a downtown setting, surrounded by homes, a train station and HP Pavilion so building won't go as fast as 49er Stadium). That means 4 years likely before occupancy. You add one year as a cushion.

The big negotiating points seem to be over the right to early termination: Oakland wanted huge penalties for early termination (they understand the A's will leave as soon as possible) and that is what is holding up the negotiations.

Florida refuses to fund stadium improvements for the Dolphins, which means that Santa Clara is very likely to get Super Bowl L (2016).

The hype will be about how much money this makes, but when you finish with tax waivers; free rooms, entertainment, suites, parking and security; traffic jams, business disruptions, etc., it's not obvious that the city makes money.

What will be interesting is what SJ and Santa Clara do in the intervening 3 years to make sure that people stay in South Bay, not SF, and visitors and viewers leave with a positive image. This is probably a real plus for SJ since it is not as well known as many Super Bowl sites.

Guest services around the stadium are an obvious move but can progress be made on transit, landscaping, a baseball stadium, downtown, etc.? Hopefully Samsung, Apple and Google have new buildings well under way to jazz up the architecture.

Blimps, anyone?

This'll be a great deal for San Francisco. The people with money WILL want to stay in (and party in) San Francisco and all the costs wil be born by the taxpayers of Santa Clara.

Once again, good riddance to the Giants and their absurd demands on taxpayers to help their owners get even richer.

I think Santa Clara is going to make a killing off the 49ers at the rate things are going. At first it seemed like just an okay deal, but with PSLs selling the way they are, a recent refinance that will shave $80M off of liabilities, and the prospect of building a mixed-use entertainment district across the street up to 5 times the size of Santana Row... it is all coming together.

San Jose might turn out being a surprise winner here as well. The 49ers just hosted their 2013 Draft Bash at the San Pedro Square Market and it attracted a max capacity 7500 person crowd. The 49ers also approached the SPSM, not the other way around. Downtown San Jose is a 15min light-rail ride from the stadium's doorstep, so I am sure there will be a lot of events going on there if the Super Bowl comes to Santa Clara. Downtown Mountain View could also be a nice destination with easy rail access.

I don't think the Santa Clara mixed use project will be ready by 2016, but I am sure there will be huge events at the Santa Clara Convention Center and Great America, and maybe the Joe Montana Hotel might be ready by then.

Most of the pressure will be on San Jose to create attractions that would keep visitors in the South Bay for longer periods of time, and hopefully by 2016 Downtown San Jose will be a huge draw. By then all of the vacant ground floor retail might become leased (the restaurant boom is making huge strides to help), there will be a lot more street activity thanks to the new high-rises, the SPSM should be wrapping up their first major expansion, and several new public art projects will be installed adding some overall polish. Also, I think many of the people travelling will choose to stay in a San Jose hotel and take a bus or light rail instead of dealing with the 45min-1.5h trek back and forth to SF (the Santa Clara hotels will be 100% booked a year before the event).

I also don't see why everyone can't benefit from this... SF, Santa Clara, San Jose, and other surrounding areas. There are going to be enough tourism dollars to go around for all.

This'll be a great deal for San Francisco. The people with money WILL want to stay in (and party in) San Francisco and all the costs wil be born by the taxpayers of Santa Clara.

Once again, good riddance to the Giants and their absurd demands on taxpayers to help their owners get even richer.

I hadn't heard, but I'm not surprised the Giants are leaving too. Where are they going? Are they tired of their faux-Disneyland ballpark (oooh, look at the giant mitt)?

But they collected their booty from SF long ago so it's too late for that.