The 49ers have averaged 10 losses a season for the past eight years, so it's not surprising that the team has generated less excitement on the field recently than in architectural circles. A team once known for its proud tradition of five Super Bowl titles, since the 1994 season, the Niners have been the Noners. But when it comes to blueprints and artists' renderings, they're the champs.

On Wednesday, the 49ers unveiled another set of drawings and a new scale model of the stadium they hope to build in Santa Clara next to Great America.

According to the $987 million project's two lead designers from the architectural firm HNTB, the building itself will be a dazzling showplace of sustainability, and so rich in metaphor that the seats will not be Niner Red, they'll be zinfandel and Bordeaux.

By eliminating the customary encirclement of club level suites in favor of a stacked tower of them on one side of the field, there will be more seats close to the field than in any other NFL stadium. Fernando Vazquez, design director of HNTB, brought pictures of ancient Roman amphitheaters, whose C-shaped seating bowl and proscenium structure bear a remarkable resemblance to the new stadium's design.

"We love the metaphor because we think the 49ers' style of play elevated the game to a beautiful thing,'' Vasquez said. "So we thought the idea of looking at football like high performance art was appropriate for the 49ers -- especially Montana's teams."

He and the firm's national director of design, Tim Cahill, referred to Joe Montana -- the renowned Santa Clara hotelier and former quarterback -- a combined six times and to current QB Alex Smith zero times. When a TV reporter at the news conference asked Vazquez if he had the Roman Coliseum specifically in mind during the stadium's design, he quickly corrected her, preferring not to have his metaphor mixed up with a stadium whose primary purpose was ritual slaughter.

"Being in the birthplace of technology, our hope for the stadium was that it become a manifestation of everything Silicon Valley represents," said Paraag Marathe, the team's chief operating officer. "To deliver on that vision, we needed to make sure that the stadium was focused on innovation, focused on technology, focused on being an open-source platform so that we can plug a lot of things in as technology improves."

This was another metaphor, in case you're counting: the 49ers will have the Firefox of football stadiums. There could be one problem with the plug-ins, however. "We have a little design problem," confided Vazquez when the formal presentation was over. "We planned space for five Super Bowl trophies. What if they win another one?"

Opening day is in 2015. Maybe by then, they'll have that one figured out.

The article, and a bunch of pictures that I don't have the foggiest idea of how to bring here, can be found at this link:

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_18610675?nclick_check=1

Am I off base, or is Oakland just not acceptable to 49er fans? My sense is that Santa Clara is now more or less a certainty, the only question is with or without the Raiders.

Trask's comments sound like warming people up for a 2 stadium solution ("current economic climate", "creativity and ingenuity", "stadium solution", all sound like a willingness to accept a joint solution, perhaps even with a long-term lease and concession rights rather than an ownership of control position in the property itself.
I've been thinking about this for a couple of days, and I'm still not quite sure how to answer it. I've been to Raider games. And while they have a lot of nice and well behaved fans, my observation is that the Raiders have quite possibly the highest percentage of violent morons among their fan base in North America. How are these people going to react to the idea of sharing a stadium with us? What happens if one hot Sunday afternoon the refs pull another tuck rule on Oakland, and the ensuing riot racks up a couple million in damage before the Niner game on Monday night? I think that the only thing Amy Trask will do, is appear in court first thing Monday, with some sort of motion claiming it's all the fault of the Niners. Remember, she is both a lawyer, and someone that Al Davis trusts. The only thing missing is a pointed tail and trident.

Interesting points, but the main point is that it won't be the Niners stadium; it will be a shared stadium. 50/50.

For sure the red seats need to go neutral. Banners and electronics can be used to set the Niner tone or the Raider tone.

Even for a lawyer it will be hard to do anything but repair the damages if the stadium is truly neutral; if the Raiders have effective control of the stadium on game day, they will certainly be the target for multiple suits from fans who are injured or threatened by the disruptive fans, so I think the Raiders would be interested in maintaining adequate security.

However, I would suggest against games on successive days.

Interesting points, but the main point is that it won't be the Niners stadium; it will be a shared stadium. 50/50.

For sure the red seats need to go neutral. Banners and electronics can be used to set the Niner tone or the Raider tone.

Even for a lawyer it will be hard to do anything but repair the damages if the stadium is truly neutral; if the Raiders have effective control of the stadium on game day, they will certainly be the target for multiple suits from fans who are injured or threatened by the disruptive fans, so I think the Raiders would be interested in maintaining adequate security.

However, I would suggest against games on successive days.
You raise good points, but how would it be 50/50? The Niners have raised almost $200 million so far, and are the only corporation listed on any of the documents with the city.
Another cheerful fact about the Raiders is they are just about the most cash-strapped team in the NFL. They've spent a lot on wasted draft picks in recent years, they rarely sell out, and there are suites in Mt. Davis that have never been occupied for a sporting event.
And a main reason that the Giants and Jets are able to share, is the ability to have events on successive days.

If the New York/New Jersey metro area can legitimately function with a single 60,000+ seat, professional-caliber outdoor stadium, what other than the Raiders being the Raiders lets anyone believe there should be more than one stadium in the Bay Area. I know it may be overstepping their bounds, but why doesn't the league compel the two to attempt to work together to accomplish building a new stadium? Other than the seat color, there doesn't seem to be anything terribly team specific about the design of this stadium that could not be adapted to accommodate both teams. (aside from the fact that the 49ers headquarters are to be located next door) It just seems foolish to build a second stadium in relatively close proximity, especially if the 'Niners do move to Santa Clara.

If the New York/New Jersey metro area can legitimately function with a single 60,000+ seat, professional-caliber outdoor stadium, what other than the Raiders being the Raiders lets anyone believe there should be more than one stadium in the Bay Area. I know it may be overstepping their bounds, but why doesn't the league compel the two to attempt to work together to accomplish building a new stadium? Other than the seat color, there doesn't seem to be anything terribly team specific about the design of this stadium that could not be adapted to accommodate both teams. (aside from the fact that the 49ers headquarters are to be located next door) It just seems foolish to build a second stadium in relatively close proximity, especially if the 'Niners do move to Santa Clara.

This is my thinking as well. I don't have the specifics for how the "equality" will be reached and documented, but both for practical operating purposes and for symbolic "ego" purposes, it has to look like a shared facility. I had speculated before that the Raiders might move their HQ to Santa Clara if this is important symbolically.

Just as complete speculation: move title to the land and stadium to a jointly owned legal entity (or with different classes of voting control) with appropriate payments. This can serve to disguise any inequalities they remain. The enter into an operating agreement with each team, with fees adjusted to reflect initial non-stadium contributions to the project. Each team will outfit the stadium, vendors, etc. with their own logo as desired and be liable for operations on game day. Plus a mechanism for dispute resolution.
As you say, if the Giants and Jets can make it work, why not here?

That is a horrible looking stadium. The niners deserve better. I'd like to see a stadium that rivals one of the the best Premier League soccer stadiums.

That is a horrible looking stadium. The niners deserve better. I'd like to see a stadium that rivals one of the the best Premier League soccer stadiums.
This is because it doesn't have an unnecessary roof, and barbed wire to protect the out of town supporters? Maybe you should consider that we like open air stadiums. And we certainly don't need the roof.

This is my thinking as well. I don't have the specifics for how the "equality" will be reached and documented, but both for practical operating purposes and for symbolic "ego" purposes, it has to look like a shared facility. I had speculated before that the Raiders might move their HQ to Santa Clara if this is important symbolically.

Just as complete speculation: move title to the land and stadium to a jointly owned legal entity (or with different classes of voting control) with appropriate payments. This can serve to disguise any inequalities they remain. The enter into an operating agreement with each team, with fees adjusted to reflect initial non-stadium contributions to the project. Each team will outfit the stadium, vendors, etc. with their own logo as desired and be liable for operations on game day. Plus a mechanism for dispute resolution.
As you say, if the Giants and Jets can make it work, why not here?
Why don't we see if the Niners can pull it off all by themselves first? I like the thought of the ring of honor, and large murals of Bill Walsh, Jerry Rice, Billy Wilson and Hugh McElhenny, all mounted permanently. Not something that has to be removed whenever a team owned by a vampire wants to play.

OK with me. So then the Raiders go to Farmer's Field in LA? That will make for an interesting downtown experience 10 times a year.

This is because it doesn't have an unnecessary roof, and barbed wire to protect the out of town supporters? Maybe you should consider that we like open air stadiums. And we certainly don't need the roof.

I have no idea why the hell the geezer you are replying to thinks the 49ers should have a Premier League type stadium.
I also have no idea what the hell you are talking about when mentioning these stadiums covered in barbed wire and not being in the open air.:)
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/5000802723_727995a6d8_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5294/5483014845_d22f7f9e05_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5385592745_cf71007c09_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5098/5483009135_7a5fbec82d_z.jpg

Unfortunately there are trolls everywhere. Lets try not to feed them:cheers:

I have no idea why the hell the geezer you are replying to thinks the 49ers should have a Premier League type stadium.
I also have no idea what the hell you are talking about when mentioning these stadiums covered in barbed wire and not being in the open air.:
Then you should have stated why you think that the new Santa Clara Stadium is not like an EPL stadium, instead of making us guess what you were talking about. Which we still don't know.
But the typical UK critic starts off with how it is missing a roof, not realizing that this stadium will be built at the same latitude as Sevilla. And keep in mind that this venue will be thousands of seats larger than anything in the EPL except for Old Trafford.

Then you should have stated why you think that the new Santa Clara Stadium is not like an EPL stadium, instead of making us guess what you were talking about. Which we still don't know.
But the typical UK critic starts off with how it is missing a roof, not realizing that this stadium will be built at the same latitude as Sevilla. And keep in mind that this venue will be thousands of seats larger than anything in the EPL except for Old Trafford.

Uhm what?? I don't care whether it is like a Premier League stadium or not. You were replying to someone who did make a comparison...who wasn't me and who wasn't as far as I know from the UK.

The only opinion I have given on this stadium was about a year ago and was as follows.
Looks good to me. Non symmetry generally adds a bit of character.

I was just asking for people to not be tempted to answer ignorant points with equally ignorant responses like you did.

Uhm what?? I don't care whether it is like a Premier League stadium or not. You were replying to someone who did make a comparison...who wasn't me and who wasn't as far as I know from the UK.

The only opinion I have given on this stadium was about a year ago and was as follows.


I was just asking for people to not be tempted to answer ignorant points with equally ignorant responses like you did.
So your perfectly logical reaction was to dive into the middle, post an almost completely unintelligible response, and start calling me names? Brilliant. Please troll somewhere else.

So your perfectly logical reaction was to dive into the middle, post an almost completely unintelligible response, and start calling me names? Brilliant. Please troll somewhere else.

You wouldn't have got a response from me were it not for your stupid "barbed wire" remark.
My response which you seem not to understand was simply to show a few photographs of stadiums with no such barbed wire protection and a request for less stupid comments in the future. Couldn't be bloody simpler. Now back to the bleedin stadium. Cheers.

You wouldn't have got a response from me were it not for your stupid "barbed wire" remark.
My response which you seem not to understand was simply to show a few photographs of stadiums with no such barbed wire protection and a request for less stupid comments in the future. Couldn't be bloody simpler. Now back to the bleedin stadium. Cheers.
The last couple uses of "stupid" just got you reported.

The last couple uses of "stupid" just got you reported.

I probably won't lose too much sleep:)

I'm no weather expert, but it seems to me that in the UK, the winters aren't terribly cold but it rains a lot. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to have the majority of the seats covered at most EPL stadiums. As someone who has been to plenty of bad weather sporting events, getting drenched sucks. However, its much more common for winter precipitation to be in the form of snow here in the states. Other than the temperature, that isn't bad at all. It's actually pretty fun to be at a snow game.

The only city in the US I can think of that has a similar climate to that of London is Seattle. It rains a ton and it doesn't get cold enough to snow often, hence the roof at Quest Field very similar to a Euro Football stadium. That is function based though. I doubt they would have built that stadium in, say, Tampa.

Don't get me wrong, I like many of the Euro stadiums, but in general, there just isn't a need for roofs like that here. The weather in San Fran is relatively warm in the winter, it doesn't rain much there and with a wide open stadium like that, you get more than a upward view of the sky. You'll be able to see the mountains, the bay, the cities through the gaps. I imagine it will be breathtaking.

NO ROOF TALK PLEASE !

The Europeans may not be aware but college football attracts many, many more fans at the stadiums than does professional football. These stadiums are almost always uncovered in spite of Texas and Arizona heat in August and Michigan and Idaho cold in November. Crowds of 90k and more are common for many teams.

Among professionals (NFL), Green Bay, Chicago and others are famous for their cold playing conditions; many consider it simply a part of the game, distinguishing it from basketball and baseball (which stops when it rains).

The idea of covered stadiums is not embraced by fans generally, but, like artfiicial turf, is becoming more popular in the NFL.

This Will guy flies off the handle with anyone who dissents. Barbed wire and fences in the Premier League? Seriously...

I have no idea why the hell the geezer you are replying to thinks the 49ers should have a Premier League type stadium.
I also have no idea what the hell you are talking about when mentioning these stadiums covered in barbed wire and not being in the open air.:)
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/5000802723_727995a6d8_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5294/5483014845_d22f7f9e05_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5385592745_cf71007c09_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5098/5483009135_7a5fbec82d_z.jpg

Unfortunately there are trolls everywhere. Lets try not to feed them:cheers:

I take it "geezer" means something nice where you're from. So I'm not offended.

The Niners deserve to have a palace that rivals the Cowboys. It's a shame they have horrible owners. They should sell the team and build something where the old stadium is. Nobody wants to see them share some stadium w/ the Raiders.

I take it "geezer" means something nice where you're from. So I'm not offended.

I'm from London and it is a neutral term.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=geezer

I take it "geezer" means something nice where you're from. So I'm not offended.

The Niners deserve to have a palace that rivals the Cowboys. It's a shame they have horrible owners. They should sell the team and build something where the old stadium is. Nobody wants to see them share some stadium w/ the Raiders.

Interesting re "geezer". In the US you still usually say "old geezer" when you use the term and it universally means someone old.

SF (Candlestick) seems to have too many issues: poor demographics in SF, at the edge of the Bay Area, poor transit, no real plan on the table and unacceptable to Oakland. Unless there is something really hidden here, the Yorks are not selling and they are moving to Santa Clara.

The Raiders continue to be a mystery. Both AEG and Roski want a piece of the team if they go to LA; the City of Oakland is just broke and has too many issues (the child prostitution and drive-by murder uproars are not helping build momentum behind paying Al Davis anything or attracting sponsors for a new stadium).

Santa Clara allows for Al to retain ownership and get a brand new stadium with input into its design and facilities. The Niners obviously get some needed financial support and confidence from lenders.

And, for sure, no roof.

This Will guy flies off the handle with anyone who dissents.
Actually, I simply outed you as one who wanted the Niner stadium out of Santa Clara County no matter what, and were using erroneous info from a teabag website as "proof". You were the one who lost it.

Interesting re "geezer". In the US you still usually say "old geezer" when you use the term and it universally means someone old.

SF (Candlestick) seems to have too many issues: poor demographics in SF, at the edge of the Bay Area, poor transit, no real plan on the table and unacceptable to Oakland. Unless there is something really hidden here, the Yorks are not selling and they are moving to Santa Clara.

The Raiders continue to be a mystery. Both AEG and Roski want a piece of the team if they go to LA; the City of Oakland is just broke and has too many issues (the child prostitution and drive-by murder uproars are not helping build momentum behind paying Al Davis anything or attracting sponsors for a new stadium).

Santa Clara allows for Al to retain ownership and get a brand new stadium with input into its design and facilities. The Niners obviously get some needed financial support and confidence from lenders.

And, for sure, no roof.
I admit that having the Raiders on board makes financial sense, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. ANd then you have to think about logistics for the Raiders. I don't think they will want to keep their facility in Alameda, and there's no room across the street.

Side note: they just showed Tom Cable on the sideline at the Seahawks-Chargers game. He looked so relaxed, compared to under the vampire's gaze.

Actually, I simply outed you as one who wanted the Niner stadium out of Santa Clara County no matter what, and were using erroneous info from a teabag website as "proof". You were the one who lost it.
You showed the SCPF website to overstate things, but provided no evidence to the contrary. Your argument was built on the premise of the deal not being quite as awful for Santa Clara as had been previously thought. The only people not opposing the stadium are suburban superfans that would like a shorter drive on 8 Sundays a year.

You showed the SCPF website to overstate things, but provided no evidence to the contrary. Your argument was built on the premise of the deal not being quite as awful for Santa Clara as had been previously thought. The only people not opposing the stadium are suburban superfans that would like a shorter drive on 8 Sundays a year.

Are you saying that the Santa Clara stadium has no support? I'm too lazy to pull them up, but ALL of the polls showed it winning in every demographic (men, women, young, old, union, non-union, white, non-white, high income, low income, etc.). The SF demographic was expected to have rejected the stadium handily in a vote and had already rejected Candlestick by their buying patterns (very low numbers of season tickets from SF residents).

My apologies if I mis-understand you.

Are you saying that the Santa Clara stadium has no support? I'm too lazy to pull them up, but ALL of the polls showed it winning in every demographic (men, women, young, old, union, non-union, white, non-white, high income, low income, etc.). The SF demographic was expected to have rejected the stadium handily in a vote and had already rejected Candlestick by their buying patterns (very low numbers of season tickets from SF residents).

My apologies if I mis-understand you.

So are all of those mutually exclusive from football fans? It's only the most popular sport in the country and all...

So are all of those mutually exclusive from football fans? It's only the most popular sport in the country and all...

Sorry; I thought your comment was that only "suburban superfans" would be interested in a Santa Clara stadium. I didn't realize that you consider this coextensive with the whole country.

The general climate towards publicly-funded stadia in California is well-known. The measure was rammed through a special election with less than 15,000 votes in support. To claim this stadium or Santa Clara as some kind of great exception is simply disingenuous.

The general climate towards publicly-funded stadia in California is well-known. The measure was rammed through a special election with less than 15,000 votes in support. To claim this stadium or Santa Clara as some kind of great exception is simply disingenuous.

I have no idea if Santa Clara is a great exception or not. I'm just stating the facts of the vote. As I noted before, the measure passed with majority support even from traditionally non-sports fan groups (women, the elderly) even in the middle of a recession. When it became obvious that the measure was passing, the proponents actually cut back on their campaign spending and cancelled rallies and events.

The polls are very mixed in this area. From the latest polls I have seen, it is clear that SF and SD voters would reject stadiums built with city funds; LA is unclear; SJ shows a very strong majority favoring the downtown A's stadium.

SJ shows a very strong majority favoring the downtown A's stadium.
...a project which is hardly comparable to the 49ers deal

The general climate towards publicly-funded stadia in California is well-known. The measure was rammed through a special election with less than 15,000 votes in support. To claim this stadium or Santa Clara as some kind of great exception is simply disingenuous.
Boy, go away for a couple of days, and you miss one of the most ridiculous postings ever.
The measure was rammed through ...
With more than six months notice. :nuts:
... a special election ...
An election specified in the California Constitution since Eighteen-fifty is a "special election"? :lol: This was the primary for all of the statewide offices including Governor, all 53 congressional districts, and 60 of the 120 members of the legislature. :lol:
... with less than 15,000 votes in support.
Which was still almost 60% in favor. If Santa Clara did not want the thing, they would have shown up to vote 'no'. Despite the right wing nutjobs, most elections are still majority rule. :ohno:

And I'm the one who flew off of the handle here?

You showed the SCPF website to overstate things, but provided no evidence to the contrary. Your argument was built on the premise of the deal not being quite as awful for Santa Clara as had been previously thought. The only people not opposing the stadium are suburban superfans that would like a shorter drive on 8 Sundays a year.
Those "superfans" seem to be the majority of those who count. And who at this point have already shelled out more that $140 million in cash to the Niners, to reserve the best seats.

Boy, go away for a couple of days, and you miss one of the most ridiculous postings ever.
Are you new to the internet or just a fan of hyperbole?
With more than six months notice. :nuts:
Santa Clara city council meetings on the matter were brief and without much discussion, at least from what I read in the Merc. Politicians made up their minds going in, hoping that a big football stadium would make them important. The path to an election was eased, not just the vote itself. That's nothing unique to Santa Clara.
An election specified in the California Constitution since Eighteen-fifty is a "special election"? :lol: This was the primary for all of the statewide offices including Governor, all 53 congressional districts, and 60 of the 120 members of the legislature. :lol:
Yeah, I misremembered when it was held. Point to you.
Which was still almost 60% in favor. If Santa Clara did not want the thing, they would have shown up to vote 'no'. Despite the right wing nutjobs, most elections are still majority rule. :ohno:
Yeah, they should have. If you want to discuss voter apathy in our society, then start another thread on that.

And are you hinting at anti-stadium people as being "right wing?" By that logic, corporate welfare is what you are defending as "left wing?"
And I'm the one who flew off of the handle here?
You get pissed with anyone who disagrees with this thing actually being worthwhile, because you love the 49ers and you want them to play near your house no matter what.
Those "superfans" seem to be the majority of those who count. And who at this point have already shelled out more that $140 million in cash to the Niners, to reserve the best seats.
Wow, so they're almost halfway to that $1billion goal? Congratulations.

Although the NFL will get back to kicking in their own funds (per the new CBA) which is a big step in the right direction.

The craziness and violence at the Niner-Raider game is interesting in light of the proposal to share the stadium. But in the long-run it's got to be just a temporary blip. As long as they are not playing each other, there should be no issues.

If anything, it just discredits the stupid notion that one fanbase is a bigger threat to public safety than the other.

Not that there aren't crazies for every team, but if I'm wearing, say, a Green Bay Packers or Pittsburgh Steelers jersey, I think I would rather be at a 49ers game than a Raiders game.

Eh, pick your poison.

The general climate towards publicly-funded stadia in California is well-known. The measure was rammed through a special election with less than 15,000 votes in support. To claim this stadium or Santa Clara as some kind of great exception is simply disingenuous.

The Measure WAS rammed through using a special initiative (not a special election) which was COMPLETELY crafted, funded and sponsored by the SF 49ers!! The proponents carefully crafted the wording and the content to insure that it said what they wanted to say ... and were legally able to leave out the truth! The wording was challenged in court where the City Attorney proudly said that there is no requirement to publish THE COSTS of a project ... so it was RAMMED THROUGH without the voters being informed of the costs and impacts of the project.

And, the 49ers spent close to FIVE MILLION DOLLARS which was all their money except for less than $200 of money from actual voters. The opponents raised and spent less than $25,000. The opponents raised less than the 49ers spent on yard signs!! Let's see ... FIVE MILLION vs. TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND ... who do you think is gonna win? Duh ... money talks! If a SC stadium was such a great deal, why didn't the surrounding cities scream foul and insist on a piece of the action? Because it is NOT a good deal for the city!!

Money bought the vote ... and the outright LIES that were told did too!

The voters in Santa Clara did not make an informed vote because they were not given the truth on what they were voting for.

FACTS!! Less than 4,000 voters (the difference between the yes' and no's) committed HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS ($444 MILLION) to be spent by the City of Santa Clara and their agencies. Less than 15,000 voted YES, for the stadium ... and that is less than 10% of the citizens in the City of Santa Clara. All the "economic impact" figures that were spit about to get it based were based on economic impact on the region ... the region is NOT paying for the Stadium. A city of 120,000 is!
The Stadium is a joke! It is being forced to fit a 14-acre stadium on a 17-acre lot and be built with ZERO dedicated parking. Gridlocked access ... walks to and from your vehicle that is beyond Candlestick by orders of magnitude. And NEVER Monday, Thursday or Friday games … NEVER and Jed has agreed to this stipulation already!

There is lots more ... call the City Manager's office and get a copy of the 49ers' "Transportation Management Plan" ... it will be the best 50-pages you'll ever read. Print it out ... compare the charts and graphs and see why a stadium in Santa Clara CANNOT fit and never will! And, this report was BEFORE the attacks at Candlestick ... implementing the "new public safety" measures CANNOT even be done in Santa Clara.

The craziness and violence at the Niner-Raider game is interesting in light of the proposal to share the stadium. But in the long-run it's got to be just a temporary blip. As long as they are not playing each other, there should be no issues.

Not so fast ... there will be LOADS of issues surrounding the propsed Santa Clara site.

1) NO dedicated parking ... NONE, ZERO, ZILTCH.
This is going to cause a huge security and public safety issue. There are not enough officers on Santa Clara's force to ever be able to deal with a stadium ... not to mention controlling the tailgating, drinking, etc. With dispersed parking spread out for MILES from the Stadium - imagine just how long it will take for an officer to respond? IF one is available and IF they can get through the gridlock to respond. A nightmare waiting to happen.

2) Traffic is expected to be GRIDLOCK ...
And, this is from the 49ers' own report. Literally, ALL freeway access will be "pinch points" ... which means there will be more cars than capacity. Again, from their own report - getting out will take 1 3/4 HOURS! After walking up to 45-minutes to even get back to your car!

The 49ers are boosting 'mass transit' ... there is NONE! They are crowing about the 'centrally location' ... it is NOT! There may be freeways on the map, but you can't easily get there from here. And, don't forget the jet planes going DIRECTLY over the stadium - that will be nice, won't it?

And, these are just the low-lights ... wanna know more? Just ask, I'll be happy to share what the facts really are. And, these facts are available - these are not fairy tales, I'm sharing the facts that the 49ers paid FIVE MILLION DOLLARS to hide from the public and the voters in Santa Clara!

Not so fast ... there will be LOADS of issues surrounding the propsed Santa Clara site.

1) NO dedicated parking ... NONE, ZERO, ZILTCH.
This is going to cause a huge security and public safety issue. There are not enough officers on Santa Clara's force to ever be able to deal with a stadium ... not to mention controlling the tailgating, drinking, etc. With dispersed parking spread out for MILES from the Stadium - imagine just how long it will take for an officer to respond? IF one is available and IF they can get through the gridlock to respond. A nightmare waiting to happen.

2) Traffic is expected to be GRIDLOCK ...
And, this is from the 49ers' own report. Literally, ALL freeway access will be "pinch points" ... which means there will be more cars than capacity. Again, from their own report - getting out will take 1 3/4 HOURS! After walking up to 45-minutes to even get back to your car!

The 49ers are boosting 'mass transit' ... there is NONE! They are crowing about the 'centrally location' ... it is NOT! There may be freeways on the map, but you can't easily get there from here. And, don't forget the jet planes going DIRECTLY over the stadium - that will be nice, won't it?

And, these are just the low-lights ... wanna know more? Just ask, I'll be happy to share what the facts really are. And, these facts are available - these are not fairy tales, I'm sharing the facts that the 49ers paid FIVE MILLION DOLLARS to hide from the public and the voters in Santa Clara!

This is just ranting. Anyone who followed the proposals and votes know that it went through the usual hearings, votes and administrative reviews. The whole process went on for years with everyone receiving plenty of notice and there was substantial public debate, vocal opposition and finally an election. Not surprisingly, the 49ers spent money in favor of the proposition. There was little spending on the "no" side but this was because no significant organized groups opposed it, while local business groups and unions supported it. Local hotels agreed to higher taxes to help fund the stadium.

The traffic around any large stadium is likely to be poor at game time. SC will have far better traffic than any of the alternatives. It does have light-rail and 3 major freeways surrounding the area, and it is in an area that is lightly used on Sundays and evenings (low density housing and mid-rise commercial buildings). It is about as accessible to the Bay Area (SF, Peninsula, East Bay, South Bay) as any place. The Capitol Corridor trains come to the front door.

Parking is an interesting issue: the plan is to utilize the unused parking lots of the many surrounding tech companies as well as parking structures. This seems to be a good idea but it's unclear how it will work in practice.

This is just ranting. Anyone who followed the proposals and votes know that it went through the usual hearings, votes and administrative reviews. The whole process went on for years with everyone receiving plenty of notice and there was substantial public debate, vocal opposition and finally an election. Not surprisingly, the 49ers spent money in favor of the proposition. There was little spending on the "no" side but this was because no significant organized groups opposed it, while local business groups and unions supported it. Local hotels agreed to higher taxes to help fund the stadium.

I am not ranting ... I'm trying to rise above the 49ers' PR machine (and their millions) and finally share the truth. I followed the entire process for the years and years that it has gone on. You are correct about the notices and debate, but you are leaving out the fact that five of the seven council members totally controlled the distribution of information and voted for anything 49er-related and totally ignored the impact on the public and residents of Santa Clara. And LIED several times about the impact and benefits when pushed.

Again, if the deal was so great, why did the 49ers need to spend FIVE MILLION DOLLARS on it? If it was so great, wouldn't it sell itself? No, because they needed to own the election which they did with their money! They buried the opposition ... there were plenty of people against it, but the media was very difficult to shout over ... especially when they were the real voters ... not billionaires like the Yorks/49ers.

Unions supported it because they were paid to do so ... and believe that they will get some work out of it. They may, but the primary contractor is from TEXAS and the Yorks would not allow a local requirement in the contract either.

The traffic around any large stadium is likely to be poor at game time. SC will have far better traffic than any of the alternatives. It does have light-rail and 3 major freeways surrounding the area, and it is in an area that is lightly used on Sundays and evenings (low density housing and mid-rise commercial buildings). It is about as accessible to the Bay Area (SF, Peninsula, East Bay, South Bay) as any place. The Capitol Corridor trains come to the front door.

The traffic around the stadium will be AWFUL ... or more accurately, GRIDLOCKED! The light rail can handle 250 people at a time ... and they cannot add more cars nor more trains (per VTA's response to the EIR) ...

The freeways look close on a map ... but you will not be able to get to them ... all the access points will be "pinch points" per the 49ers
own Transportation Management Plan. The access and flow is what is important, not just how close it looks on a map. Unless one likes to be sitting in traffic for close to 2 hours and not move.

Parking is an interesting issue: the plan is to utilize the unused parking lots of the many surrounding tech companies as well as parking structures. This seems to be a good idea but it's unclear how it will work in practice.

Parking, "interesting issue"? It more like a monster waiting to attack. The only 'parking structure' is a shared parking garage for 1708 cars. There are more employees on game day then the 1708 spaces.

In light of the need for increased public safety, the Santa Clara site is even more unreasonable and unsafe too. There would be absolutely no way to police the drinking, nor the before/after tailgating. If there is an emergency, there will not be a way to even get to your location ... once someone figures out where you are and someone is available to dispatch. Parking will be dispersed for MILES from the stadium. And, with gridlock - getting there will be a challenge too.

Really, the Santa Clara site just does not work. Members of Santa Clara's city council are single-focused and are throwing the rest of the city under the team bus. Hopefully the fans will get the message and start to ask the right questions ... and run away from the idea of moving to Santa Clara too.

Santa Clara is not a viable solution ... and the fans deserve the truth once-and-for-all!

AT&T Park has very little parking around it and that neighborhood has yet to descend into anarchy and be drug off into the pits of hell or whatever.

AT&T Park has very little parking around it and that neighborhood has yet to descend into anarchy and be drug off into the pits of hell or whatever.

Not a clear picture nor a direct comparison - here's why:


AT&T Park has a capacity of 42,000 people.
Proposed SC Stadium ... capacity of 68,500 to 80,000 people.

Access: AT&T Park is served by more public transportation than any other ballpark in the country and is within walking distance of downtown and many city neighborhoods. Fans are able to take Muni Metro streetcars and trolley busses, BART (via an in-station link to Muni Metro), CalTrain, buses and ferries to the new ballpark. Those choosing to drive to the ballpark have easy access to AT&T Park via the Bay Bridge, Highways 101 and 280 and major San Francisco thoroughfares, including Third Street and the Embarcadero.

Access: SC Site ... AWFUL. There are no streetcars to take. No Bart. No CalTrain, no city buses, no ferries. And, no direct highway access. All highway/freeway access is via city streets that were not designed to handle the amount of traffic that the stadium will draw. ACE train is within a 15-minute walk ... and VTA Light Rail is in front of the site, but only has capacity of 250-people/train and trains cannot be enlarged nor doubled-up due to rail configurations (per VTA's response to EIR)

Parking: The Giants encourage the use of public transportation as the primary means of getting to the ballpark. Parking, however, will be provided to meet the demands of those who wish to drive to the ballpark. In addition to the 6,500 parking spaces that currently exist within a 5-10 minute walk of the ballpark site, the Giants provide up to 5,000 additional spaces dedicated for ballpark use.

Parking at SC Site: ZERO Dedicated parking! NONE! And, there are no spaces "within a 5-10 minute walk" either. AT&T Park actually HAS a parking lot ... SC Site has NONE! Parking is 100% dependent on local corporation's wanting to allow their parking to be made available for the 49ers' fan use.

AT&T info from: http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm
SC Site info from: 49ers' Transportation Management Study

These are facts ... and, a stadium in Santa Clara will cause "anarchy" to the residential neighborhoods that are very close to the site. Hence, a minimum of 31 police checkpoints and 4 road closures too and that was before the new need for additional police intervention on game days.

Santa Clara is not a viable site for a stadium ... and the fans deserve the truth!

^^
It looks like we have ourselves a "one note sally". :lol:

RR: I believe I recognize your handle from the local SC election sites. But the vote happened and the stadium proposal won (are 5 of the SC councilmembers and a majority of every demographic on the take and/or confused?).

The 49ers spent on the election. Obama and Bush and Clinton, etc., spent on their elections. Does this mean they were all "losers" and only got elected because of money? How about the MANY multi-millionaires that have lost right here in California in spite of huge spending? You may be underestimating the electorate. We all disagree on elections (my side loses most of them, it seems) but there's no point in screaming "fix" or "crooks" over and over.

Your traffic analysis is greatly exaggerated. Yes, there will undoubtedly be traffic at the stadium. I have sat over an hour at Candlestick and in Oakland and nearly 2 hrs. at the Rose Bowl and LA Coliseum, but that doesn't dissuade 100k people from showing up. The logistics for SC will be much better than the Rose Bowl or Coliseum and, contrary to what you say, 237, 101 and 880 are full-sized freeways close to the stadium. In addition, Lawrence, Lafayette and Gt. America can handle large amounts of north/south traffic and Tasman east/west traffic. And as noted, VTA and various rail lines are quite close; Caltrain connects easily to VTA. I really can't think of a stadium with better access. Again, I'm not arguing that traffic will be wonderful; but far less than many other stadiums.

Finally, there are NO residential sites "close" to the stadium. The nearest are several blocks away and VERY small. This is an area with a convention center, a regional amusement park, mid-rise hotels, office buildings and huge parking lots. It is mostly empty on weekends. For the second half of the season, even Gt. America is closed.

This is an area with a convention center, a regional amusement park, mid-rise hotels, office buildings and huge parking lots. It is mostly empty on weekends. For the second half of the season, even Gt. America is closed.

What if there's a U2 concert at the stadium on a weekday evening?

Will the nearby golf course serve as parking for U2 fans?

That's what happened at the Rose Bowl. The only way that they could accommodate 95,000 concert-goers was to allow them to park on the adjacent golf course.:tongue2:

Chances are that the Gt. America and Convention Center parking lots are available in the evenings. In any event, the Rose Bowl uses the golf parking lots regularly. I have parked on them many times. Stanford Stadium cordons off woodsy parks and open space for parking on game day as do many stadiums in smaller towns and for that matter festivals, fairs, etc. This is a problem with large crowds, but not a show stopper.

Concerts in the evenings don't strike me as an issue; the same parking lots are available. But if there isn't parking available for concerts that seems irrelevant as to football. U2 can always go to Oakland or Candlestick if their fans prefer large parking lots.

http://www.contractorsupplymagazine.com/wysiwyg/images/Products/News/49ers_stadium-large-2.jpg


http://img1.yardbarker.com/media/b/6/b6e258c9caa57d40a66c22e8e6fa36cfe319f878/xl/New-49ers-Stadium-HNTB.jpg?stamp=1312950733

Why dont they fill up those corners?

We have a tendency to open up an end or corners down to street level, so there is a physical connection between the interior and exterior, the stadium and the city. And so the gameday experience kind of spills out of the stadium, its really cool to see the stands filling up as you approach a stadium. It is the same with the horseshoe layouts that are quite common here

Why dont they fill up those corners?

Alot of the time its to let air flow in and out of the stadium. If you notice how windy it is in the bay area so has to not let the wind blow the ball around. Also what to make the stadium look nice too.

Alot of the time its to let air flow in and out of the stadium. If you notice how windy it is in the bay area so has to not let the wind blow the ball around. Also what to make the stadium look nice too.

It's generally true that there is strong wind in SF and to some extent in Oakland. But not so much in Santa Clara. There are definitely breezes from the Bay but strong wind is uncommon.

Many college stadiums are open on one end or built near hills or rises where fans can sit and look in. It creates a more personal experience. But unfortunately pro stadiums are getting more massive and corporate, which makes for easier control of the total environment. Dallas and NY are probably the most unfortunate examples of this trend.

It depends on the time of day. I used to play a lot of golf at Santa Clara Muni, which is less than a 1/4 mile from the proposed stadium. In the late afternoon/early evening, there is always a strong N/S wind coming off of the Bay. It never fails, especially in the summer. The wind in the afternoons is good for at least 1 extra club, and a lot of times 2 clubs, always coming from the North.

It's generally true that there is strong wind in SF and to some extent in Oakland. But not so much in Santa Clara. There are definitely breezes from the Bay but strong wind is uncommon.

Many college stadiums are open on one end or built near hills or rises where fans can sit and look in. It creates a more personal experience. But unfortunately pro stadiums are getting more massive and corporate, which makes for easier control of the total environment. Dallas and NY are probably the most unfortunate examples of this trend.

It's generally true that there is strong wind in SF and to some extent in Oakland. But not so much in Santa Clara. There are definitely breezes from the Bay but strong wind is uncommon.

Many college stadiums are open on one end or built near hills or rises where fans can sit and look in. It creates a more personal experience. But unfortunately pro stadiums are getting more massive and corporate, which makes for easier control of the total environment. Dallas and NY are probably the most unfortunate examples of this trend.

You can look into Cowboys Stadium from the outside. Even when its closed.

You can look into Cowboys Stadium from the outside. Even when its closed.

Good point. But the personal aspect seems to escape me, although I admit I've never been there.

Why dont they fill up those corners?

It's called cutting corners. :lol:

Also, on the 2% chance that the Olympics will come to the Bay Area, that's the place reserved for the cauldron. :lol:

Is groundbreaking already schedule for this Santa Clara stuff, or they are still trying to secure more funds on an overprice project...

Was hoping for an indoor stadium for Superbowl.

By Lisa Fernandez

lfernandez@mercurynews.com
Posted: 09/19/2011 07:05:50 AM PDT
Updated: 09/19/2011 10:21:44 AM PDT

A San Francisco real estate firm and the owners of the 49ers are buying the Great America theme park for $70 million in a deal that will end the park's lawsuit against the city of Santa Clara.

Santa Clara Mayor Jamie Matthews told this newspaper that the York family -- owners of the 49ers -- is investing in the purchase with JMA Ventures. He said he didn't know the amount of the York's investment.

The team did not immediately have a comment about the York's partnership in the deal, and Jed York did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

A news release from JMA said only that an "entity" connected with the 49ers has been working with the company and "is expected to partner" with JMA in the purchase.

"The acquisition will position the park for future long-term growth and clears the way for the new stadium project to move forward, " JMA said in the release.

Santa Clara owns the Great America theme park property and leases it for $5 million a year to Cedar Fair, which bought the park in 2006 and has had a contentious relationship with the city over parking and other issues related to the future stadium, which would be built next-door to the amusement park. The council must approve the purchase, but no date has been set for an action. Matthews also hinted the city may consider increasing the rent.

Cedar Fair, based in Sandusky, Ohio, expects to use the cash proceeds from this sale to reduce its senior secured debt, according to a statement.

JMA could begin operating the park in the final three months of the year. The company says it will retain all employees and continue their benefits.

JMA says the sale will erase the need for a lawsuit against the city, which Cedar Fair had filed over a myriad of reasons, including the loss of parking.

In a statement, JMA CEO Todd Chapman said: "JMA was never a part of the lawsuit, so I do not believe it is appropriate for us to comment on it. However, we do support the new stadium and will not maintain the litigation against the project."

Cedar Fair also did not support the citywide measure to build the stadium.

As far back as 2009, Cedar Fair was also looking for buyers; until the deal fell through, they were considering selling its amusement empire to Apollo Global Management for $2.5 billion.

JMA may be best known for its properties including: Alpine Meadows, Homewood Mountain Ski Resort and West Shore Café and Inn in the Lake Tahoe area, Fairmont Heritage Place at Ghirardelli Square, and Waterbar and EPIC Roasthouse restaurants on San Francisco's revitalized Embarcadero waterfront.

Matthews called the deal "amazing" and "great news" for the park and the city.

"The amusement park has been an important part of our city for many years," Matthews said. "We are excited about creating a premier family entertainment destination for Northern California."

For its part, Cedar Fair executives said in their own statement that the sale was done with mixed emotions.

"Our decision to divest of our California's Great America park was not an easy one," said Dick Kinzel, Cedar Fair's chief executive officer. "This is a quality park that has terrific employees and serves a strong market.''

That said, Kinzell added, that as executives reviewed their "portfolio of parks," they determined that "divesting a smaller park'' like Great America "created compelling business opportunity that we couldn't pass up.''

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_18928012?nclick_check=1

Hey cool, now they can ruin something else that people love...

I hope the Santa Clara deal collapses and that overrated team stays in SF or Oakland.

Why dont they fill up those corners?

Unfortunately most of the British have no idea of how hot the weather can be in the US. American stadiums are built with a breeze in mind during the late summer and early fall games temperatures can easily reach over 40 C or over 90-100 F during the afternoons. Likewise most Americans have no idea of how wet the weather can be in the UK. Why the British have roofs to stay dry. Keep in mind some American stadiums have roofs in rainy US locations such as Seattle.

Besides its great for the fans inside a stadium to see a city skyline or for the fans outside a stadium to see inside a stadium. Furthermore, the most uncomfortable seats of a stadium are the corner seats. While there are seats to sit your fanny, room and space for your feet is squeezed.

Most Americans don't know the word Fanny means a girls private parts and not there bottom.

Most Americans don't know the word Fanny means a girls private parts and not there bottom.

Some brits seem to have trouble with the "there, their, and they're" rules

Some brits seem to have trouble with the "there, their, and they're" rules
They also have trouble with the idea that the language differs between the countries.

http://www.contractorsupplymagazine.com/wysiwyg/images/Products/News/49ers_stadium-large-2.jpg


http://img1.yardbarker.com/media/b/6/b6e258c9caa57d40a66c22e8e6fa36cfe319f878/xl/New-49ers-Stadium-HNTB.jpg?stamp=1312950733

Not really a fan of the design. It's as though they just fused Lincoln Financial Field and Ford Field together.

I think the thing I really don't like is all of the suites being stacked on one side. I understand why they design it that way, so they can get the seating closer to the field like Soldier Field in Chicago, but it doesn't really do that in this design. The seating along the sidelines still seems rather far from the field.

I hope the Santa Clara deal collapses and that overrated team stays in SF or Oakland.
Won't happen. If on the odd chance that the deal collapses, the Niners are out of the Bay Area. BTW, where did you get the confused idea that the team is "overrated"?

Not really a fan of the design. It's as though they just fused Lincoln Financial Field and Ford Field together.

I think the thing I really don't like is all of the suites being stacked on one side. I understand why they design it that way, so they can get the seating closer to the field like Soldier Field in Chicago, but it doesn't really do that in this design. The seating along the sidelines still seems rather far from the field.
The stack of suites concept actually started at Philips Arena in Atlanta, and the Niners are making no bones about copying the idea. The idea is to avoid the outrageously high upper levels seen at Staples Center, Raymond James Stadium, and Mt. Davis in Oakland.
The rest of the seating will be much closer, but not like Soldier Field, which many observers think is kind of a joke of a design. And the field won't be quite as wide as the artwork suggests. The drawings were intended to give a rough idea of how the stadium would look, not show the exact proportions.

It depends on the time of day. I used to play a lot of golf at Santa Clara Muni, which is less than a 1/4 mile from the proposed stadium. In the late afternoon/early evening, there is always a strong N/S wind coming off of the Bay. It never fails, especially in the summer. The wind in the afternoons is good for at least 1 extra club, and a lot of times 2 clubs, always coming from the North.
I'm starting to wonder if the wind is going to be worse here than at Candlestick. The media will have a field day when they figure out how windy it is there.

The wind should be fine

By Mike Rosenberg
mrosenberg@mercurynews.com
Posted: 09/25/2011 04:13:51 PM PDT
Updated: 09/25/2011 10:34:16 PM PDT

Jack Hill has ridden his Texas-size work ethic to a reputation as The Man who Gets Difficult Things Done -- from getting Kenny Chesney a hot tub two hours before a concert to building sports palaces for billionaires.

After building new homes for Dallas' four pro sports teams, he faces what may be his biggest challenge: Scoring a new stadium for the 49ers. And the Niners, having failed since the 1990s to replace Candlestick Park, are in desperate need of a quarterback who can finish the job.

The York family this month entrusted the 56-year-old Hill as their go-to guy and owner representative in building the 49ers' $987 million stadium in Santa Clara, with CEO Jed York saying Hill "knows what the future of stadium design looks like." He'll be a general manager of sorts for the project, coordinating with the team's front office, the designers and engineers, and the city.

They Niners' owners lured the Texan away from the Lone Star State, where he spent the last two decades as the deputy for billionaire pro sports titans like Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and the NBA team's former owner, Ross Perot Jr., and even one who would become president: George W. Bush, who once owned baseball's Texas Rangers.

His latest offspring is the $1.2 billion Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, the behemoth known for its 60-yard-long Jumbotron video screen. Along with the accolades, Hill also took a hit earlier this year when a few hundred ticket holders were turned away from the Super Bowl because temporary bleachers at the new stadium weren't installed in time.

Whatever it takes

Before that project, he built the American Airlines Center for the Mavericks and Stars and the Rangers Ballpark in Arlington. He's also managed construction of Miller Park for the Milwaukee Brewers and 300-plus Dallas school projects funded by a $1 billion bond program.

"I think he's got to be one of the best in the business," said Cowboys Executive Vice President Stephen Jones, Jerry's right-hand man. "There's nothing that he wouldn't do to get the job done. There were many times when I think he didn't go home during crunchtime."

Brad Mayne, the CEO of the American Airlines Center, called him a "servant leader," someone who treated the owners the same way as engineers but led by working long hours and leaving his ego at home. He added: "It's really hard to explain just how good Jack Hill is."

"He had that pride inside of him and he was going to make everything perfect," said Bruce Hardy, who managed the Cowboys' old stadium for 25 years before handing the keys for the new home field to Hill. "He'll look at (the 49ers project) like he's building his own home. I don't think it's a job, it's his way of life."

Hill is sort of a hired gun for building stadiums, which is his passion, although he has at times stayed on to manage them for a year or two before moving on.

There is no shortage of skeptics who doubt the 49ers stadium -- slated for the 2015 season kickoff in a parking lot next to the Great America amusement park -- will ever get built, as the team still needs more than $700 million in financing before construction can begin in January 2013. But Hill said he's "extremely confident," citing how impressed he's been with how organized everyone seems to be and the amount of work that's already been done.

"You can always tell how a project is going to go by how it starts out," Hill said. "And it's started out extremely well, so my expectation is that it'll continue to build."

Passion for projects

His friends describe Hill as unassuming, and it only takes a brief conversation with the Fort Worth, Texas, native to figure that out. But he does like to talk about the process of building a stadium, and it's that passion for new projects that persuaded him to leave briefly for Milwaukee a decade ago and now to move from the ultraconservative state to live in the bleeding heart Bay Area for the first time. The key in building stadiums, he says, is the same as it is on the field: teamwork.

"I'm just here to move the project along. There are a lot of quarterbacks," said Hill, a big sports fan himself.

Yet being in such high-profile positions -- dealing with billions of dollars and the fate of projects that carry the interest of millions of fans -- Hill has not been able to escape headlines, and they haven't always been positive.

In 2009, stories surfaced that he was arrested for drunken driving after a minor crash following a George Strait concert that doubled as the Cowboys Stadium opening, leading state alcohol authorities to investigate stadium operations, though they found no violations. He eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 15 days in a sheriff's work program. Hill didn't want to talk about the arrest.

Then early this year, about 400 outraged ticket holders were shut out of the Super Bowl at the state-of-the-art stadium when a contractor who reported to Hill failed to safely install the extra seats. Some fans are now suing and the controversy was a black eye for the league's signature event.

Local media later uncovered city documents showing city officials had warned Hill five months before the big game that he needed to submit plans for the extra seats, but they weren't filed until three weeks before kickoff. He then resigned a few months after the game, but both he and the team insisted it had nothing to do with the Super Bowl flap. Hill declined to comment, citing the ongoing lawsuit.

"At the end of the day my passion is development of these projects," he said. "I enjoy the creative process, being able to walk out the door every day and seeing something constructed. You love to see the fans' (and players') reaction when they see it for the first time."

Contact Mike Rosenberg at 408-920-5705.

The many stadiums of Jack Hill

Current: Owner's representative for 49ers' planned $987 million stadium in Santa Clara
2009 to 2011: General manager for Cowboys Stadium, the new $1.2 billion home for the Dallas Cowboys
2005 to 2007: Owner's representative for building Cowboys Stadium
Mid-2000s: Worked on 300-plus Dallas school campus projects as part of a $1 billion bond program
Early 2000s: Owner's representative for building Dallas' $412 million American Airlines Center, where the Mavericks and Stars play
Late 1990s: Owner's representative for building the Milwaukee Brewers' Miller Park
Early 1990s: Owner's representative for building Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, Texas

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_18975536

Julia Prodis Sulek
jsulek@mercurynews.com
Posted: 09/27/2011 04:03:18 PM PDT
Updated: 09/27/2011 10:20:51 PM PDT

If you've got the big bucks to buy a luxury suite at the newly designed 49ers stadium in Santa Clara, you can afford to be picky.

Instead of a small round dining table, do you prefer an elevated harvest table with a polished quartz top that still will give you a clear view of the 50-yard line? Done. Want lounge furniture instead? No problem.

Ground won't be broken for the new stadium for more than a year on a parking lot next to the Great America amusement park, but 49ers officials are already in hot pursuit of potential buyers to help fund construction expected to cost nearly $1 billion. Like viewing a model home before a subdivision is built, members of the media on Tuesday were given tours of a full-scale model suite -- complete with a pair of flat screen TVs, theater-style seating and porcelain tiles (Italian, of course.)

A 9-foot "touch wall" created by HP allows potential owners to touch an image of the suite or seat location and -- voilà! -- see a virtual view of the field from there.

"Anybody who's anybody is going to have one," said Kevin Moore, a Santa Clara city councilman who attended the event, adding that many successful companies already have signed up for suites.

The 49ers promise the luxury boxes in the new stadium will be as nice as any in new stadiums across the country. And while the suites at Candlestick have been refurbished since they were built in the early 1960s, many are about half the size of the new ones with barely any entertaining space. Unlike Candlestick, the new suites will be outfitted with designer finishes and full-size refrigerators. And instead of having to use a phone to call a server or write your drink order on an old-fashioned piece of paper, if you feel like another beer, just touch the screen in your new luxury box and it will be delivered.

Preview center

Joe Montana, who is planning to build a hotel next to the stadium, his former teammate Jerry Rice and other former players already toured the model, as well as many of the rich and famous who already own suites at Candlestick.

John McVay, who retired from the 49ers administration in 1996 after presiding over five Super Bowl winning seasons, also took a tour. "When people get to see it, they will embrace it," said McVay, 80. "It's been a long time coming."

The "preview center" where the model suite is being shown (and cost $2.5 million to build) is in leased space on the fifth floor of Santa Clara's Techmart, just down the Great America Parkway from the stadium site.

Visitors were then escorted through the "timeline tunnel" of photos and interpretive signs dating to the days at Kezar Stadium and including a photo of Dwight Clark's "The Catch." They were beckoned further by a large, illuminated model of the new stadium. When the HP screen is touched, lights turn on in the stadium model, whether in a particular suite or the rooftop garden (which might be open for standing-room-only fans.)

So far, about $173 million worth of suites has been sold since the model opened nearly a year ago, including $40 million worth in the past two months alone. Officials refuse to reveal a price tag on any suite or even hint at a range, but reports are swirling that they run from $160,000 per season to $500,000 per season with long-term leases. The nearly 500 square-foot suites do come with 16 seats, however.

Super Bowl site?

Come January, season ticket holders will also get to tour the preview center and choose their seats in the new stadium, which -- if all goes according to plan -- is expected to open for the 2015 season.

"What we're building is a physical manifestation of what the 49ers represent and what Silicon Valley represents," Paraag Marathe, the 49ers' chief operating officer, said Tuesday.

With confidence in new head coach Jim Harbaugh, who has started the season with two wins and one loss, the stadium reflects the team's ambitions: It's big enough, they say, to be worthy of hosting a Super Bowl.

Except for the most expensive suites, most of the 165 suites will be located in a "suite tower," a separate, solar-powered building that will face the semicircle of grandstands as well as the 50-yard line. But unlike the ring of glassed-in suites currently at Candlestick, the new suites will have something that the suite owners are clamoring for -- something that every other average ticket holder gets without paying extra. At the new stadium, the suites will open to patios so they can sit outside and watch the game, just like everyone else.

Contact Julia Prodis Sulek at 408-278-3409.

HOW SUITE IT IS

Suites will have open patios and will seat up to 16 fans.
Each will feature full-size refrigerators, flat-screen TVs and touch-screen ordering of food and beverages.
Cost reportedly will be from $160,000 to $500,000 a season.
About $173 million worth of boxes have already been purchased.
The preview center will open in January for fans to choose their own seats.

About $173 million worth of boxes have already been purchased.

What!?!

What!?!
They've been on sale for several months now. That represents the total value of the lifespan of contracts for either boxes or club seats. That figure is likely close to 50% of the amount the Niners can realize, which puts that maximum at about $350 million. Add to that $150 million from the league, $110 million from Santa Clara redevelopment, and ~$50 million for 2015 season tickets, leaves the Niners needing to come up with an additional $340 million or so from naming rights and (shudder) financing.

But the good news is I would put the chances of this getting built at about 85-90%.

Should build a roof, whats weather like in Bay area in January.

Should build a roof, whats weather like in Bay area in January.

If they don't need a roof on Candlestick, why the hell would they need one in Santa Clara?

Should build a roof, whats weather like in Bay area in January.

Another ignorant fool, A roof for what? It's a football stadium in an area with mild weather all year round. We don't need one in Buffalo, they sure as hell don't need one in San Francisco.

Another ignorant fool, A roof for what? It's a football stadium in an area with mild weather all year round. We don't need one in Buffalo, they sure as hell don't need one in San Francisco.

Everybody knows it's colder in the Bay Area in January than it is in Green Bay, Chicago, New York, Buffalo, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. :lol:

Should build a roof, whats weather like in Bay area in January.
Generally it is daytime high temperatures between 50 and 60F (10 and 16C), with some smaller chance of rain showers. About once every 10 years or so the Santa Clara Valley will get a dusting of snow, which will not last as long as 12 hours before melting.

Everybody knows it's colder in the Bay Area in January than it is in Green Bay, Chicago, New York, Buffalo, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. :lol:

But what about the unbearable summer heat? In July and August, Santa Clara can soar into the 70's.

Actually, Santa Clara may have about the best weather of any pro stadium in the country. Mild summers, mild winters, moderate rain with almost all of it between November and March.

For Super Bowls, Santa Clara is legitimately a little on the cool and rainy side. Definitely not LA, SD, Phoenix, Miami, etc. But not the Great Lakes either.

But what about the unbearable summer heat? In July and August, Santa Clara can soar into the 70's.

Actually, Santa Clara may have about the best weather of any pro stadium in the country. Mild summers, mild winters, moderate rain with almost all of it between November and March.

For Super Bowls, Santa Clara is legitimately a little on the cool and rainy side. Definitely not LA, SD, Phoenix, Miami, etc. But not the Great Lakes either.
Now, now. You should quit sugar-coating the weather. It can reach the 80s here. I've been to some games at Candlestick where the shade would have been welcome. Although this is nothing like the game I saw in Tempe in '99. Monday night, Steve Young's last game, 99F(37C) at kickoff, down to about 94(34) when it ended. That stadium is all aluminum, like a really big frying pan.

And the weather for Super Bowl XIX was pretty good, if a tad foggy.

Reminds me of day games at Candlestick in the early 1980's, when the Giants were really down and attendance was in 4 figures. You could move as the game progressed to always stay in the sun. That way you only needed two layers to keep the wind off you.

Back then they issued the Croix de Candlestick: you got a medal if you stayed to the end of an extra-inning night game. You also got frostbite if you didn't have protection.

btw, today Santa Clara is 73 and partly cloudy; let's play football!

Reminds me of day games at Candlestick in the early 1980's, when the Giants were really down and attendance was in 4 figures. You could move as the game progressed to always stay in the sun. That way you only needed two layers to keep the wind off you.

Back then they issued the Croix de Candlestick: you got a medal if you stayed to the end of an extra-inning night game. You also got frostbite if you didn't have protection.

btw, today Santa Clara is 73 and partly cloudy; let's play football!
I still have my Croix de Candlestick. Sat through some miserable night games trying to get one, and the night I got it, it was 75 degrees and they shot through 10 innings in about 2:35.

Another ignorant fool, A roof for what? It's a football stadium in an area with mild weather all year round. We don't need one in Buffalo, they sure as hell don't need one in San Francisco.
Its called Superbowl.

More potential events at the venue as well.

More potential events at the venue as well.

Using that logic every NFL stadium should be domed.

This is the great fallacy I see with Farmer's Field in LA: they assume that adding a roof will bring more Super Bowls and more convention business. But developers in every city in the country are arguing that and meanwhile convention business continues to shrink and cities to lose money. This is classic government-think: if business is shrinking, pour more money into it.

btw, when Roger Goodell made his trip to Santa Clara he hinted (as he does at every stop where a new stadium is being discussed) that there could be multiple Super Bowls. Specifically, Super Bowl "49" was targeted. All this with NO roof in the plans.

Its called Superbowl.

More potential events at the venue as well.
They already held one Super Bowl (XIX) in the south bay, and didn't need a roof. The NFL has specifically stated that the new stadium for the Niners will meet all of the qualifications for a Super Bowl, after they add about 8,500 temporary seats.

No mention of a roof.

Specifically, Super Bowl "49" was targeted.
Sadly, that won't happen. Super Bowl XLIX will likely be on either February 1st or 8th, 2015. And the stadium is not due to open until July of that year.

Oh well. Would have been fun.

Reminds me of day games at Candlestick in the early 1980's, when the Giants were really down and attendance was in 4 figures.

I looked it up from '80-'85 the Giants averaged about 950,00 fans a season. The highs were in '82 & '83 when they hit 1.2 million.

From '86 to '89 they averaged 1.7 million a season with 2 million in '89.. what's this got to do with the new Niners stadium?..nuthin.

sorry for the off topic MLB talk..

80s? LOL

I looked it up from '80-'85 the Giants averaged about 950,00 fans a season. The highs were in '82 & '83 when they hit 1.2 million.

From '86 to '89 they averaged 1.5 million a season with 2 million in '89.. what's this got to do with the new Niners stadium?..nuthin.

sorry for the off topic MLB talk..

The average attendance, was about 11k it seems, but of course the actual people at the game is far below this. In any event, many day games attracted far less than this average.

Nothing to do with the Niners except that the Santa Clara Stadium has far better weather than Candlestick in the summer, which may be what some out of towners are thinking of when they question the lack of a roof or open corners.

For Super Bowls, Santa Clara is legitimately a little on the cool and rainy side. Definitely not LA, SD, Phoenix, Miami, etc. But not the Great Lakes either.

If they can do something as asinine as have the Super Bowl in the middle of a vast parking lot in New Jersey, in February 2014, I don't see why this stadium can't host it as well.

I'm going to seriously laugh my ass off if they get the kind of weather that caused Philly to postpone that game they had last season.

If they can do something as asinine as have the Super Bowl in the middle of a vast parking lot in New Jersey, in February 2014, I don't see why this stadium can't host it as well.

I'm going to seriously laugh my ass off if they get the kind of weather that caused Philly to postpone that game they had last season.

I am sort of sympathetic to this argument as well. Certainly the SF based college bowl games have sometimes had quite cold and rainy weather, and it is certainly possible to get that in Santa Clara that time of year. But you won't get the conditions that you might get at the conference championship games in, say, Green Bay or Chicago, among many others.

I am sort of sympathetic to this argument as well. Certainly the SF based college bowl games have sometimes had quite cold and rainy weather, and it is certainly possible to get that in Santa Clara that time of year. But you won't get the conditions that you might get at the conference championship games in, say, Green Bay or Chicago, among many others.
Or Super Bowls in New Jersey ...

By Lisa Fernandez
lfernandez@mercurynews.com
Posted: 10/03/2011 06:28:56 AM PDT
Updated: 10/03/2011 01:47:50 PM PDT

At a time when football stadium security is high on the minds of Bay Area fans, the city of Santa Clara is refusing to release a staff report on the best stadium security around the nation.

An attorney who helped revise the state's open meeting law said the denial violates open meeting laws and that its secrecy is ridiculous because no stadium even exists yet.

But in a letter to this newspaper, interim City Attorney Elizabeth Silver denied a public records request seeking the 38-page "interoffice memorandum" prepared in 2009 by Steve Lodge, the police chief at the time who retired last year. Lodge is earning $100 an hour as a consultant to help the city provide public safety at the future $987 million San Francisco 49ers football stadium when it is slated to open in 2015.

The memorandum, which Lodge presented verbally two years ago to the City Council in a closed-door session, apparently highlights security procedures of stadiums around the country.

Concern over stadium security reached a peak in the Bay Area in late August with an outbreak of violence at Candlestick Park between fans at a 49ers-Raiders exhibition game. Two men were shot in the parking lot, and one man was savagely beaten in a bathroom. A day after the attacks, NFL executives vowed to crack down on drunk fans, limit tailgating, stop booze sales late in the day and sack future annual exhibition games between the two hometown football teams.

In an interview shortly after the Candlestick melee, Lodge confirmed that a security report existed. However, he said he didn't want to make it public, fearing that the details and logistics of police staffing at stadiums around the country -- information that he and his sergeants discovered through travel and interviews -- would be harmful to those cities.

The city attorney's letter backs up Lodge. Silver wrote that the document that "assesses the city's police security measures and strategies necessary to provide complete law enforcement services for a proposed stadium" can by law be exempt from disclosure.

The city attorney concluded, "in this case, exempt materials are inextricably intertwined with nonexempt materials and therefore no part of the document can be disclosed."

Terry Francke, who founded CalAware, a group dedicated to fostering compliance of the public's right to know, vigorously disputes the city's denial to release this information. Francke also helped revise the Brown Act in 1994, and is an attorney who has headed the California First Amendment Coalition.

Francke said the stadium security report should have never been presented in a closed session.

The only reason a public agency can close its doors regarding security fears is if it can "reasonably assert it is vulnerable to terrorist or criminal acts," he said. And the threats here, are certainly not "armored car heists, prison breaks or other carefully calculated capers," Francke said. Rather, he said, they are "spontaneous eruptions of excessive levels of alcohol, testosterone or both."

Francke added that the city of Santa Clara can't protect information in other cities; it's up to that city to assert fear of a terrorist or criminal act.

The police chief "does not have the legal authority to commit to withholding from his own community information it has a right to ... on the security measures taken by other communities," Francke said.

Additionally, Francke said, this information never should have been presented behind closed doors because the stadium hasn't been built yet. When it has, he said, only then may Santa Clara have legal grounds to keep such information private.

"No terrorist or criminal mischief maker could possibly take steps against a stadium owned by Santa Clara based on what is being withheld here," Francke said, "because no such stadium exists."

But Assistant City Manager Carol McCarthy said the city council "adheres to the requirements" of all public records acts and open meeting laws.

Concerning the stadium, she said the council met in closed session "only to provide direction to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment" for city property where the proposed stadium would be located.

McCarthy added that the city denied this newspaper's request to see the stadium security report based on "candid conversations" with other police departments about the "challenges they have faced with their stadiums" and "we expect people will understand that in order to be effective, public safety details cannot be shared."

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_19025328

by Ernie Pomin

The talk and speculation surrounding the San Francisco 49ers new stadium has been quite the circus act thus far, but signs pointing to actual development have started to arise, beginning with the start of make-ready work around the new stadium's location.

The building process is set to begin in early 2012 with make-ready work (construction terminology); a series of projects to prepare the area for the actual construction of the 68,500-seat venue near Great America Amusement Park on the corner of Tasman Drive and Centennial Boulevard.

The work will consist of things like utility relocations, a new pump station, construction of bridges and other important tasks. It's expected the construction of the stadium will be ongoing over three years, and it will create a positive economic impact in the area, though the entire project will cost around $1 billion.

"Of course, relocation of power structures, installation of sewer lines and the preparation of other infrastructure to support the building are not as exciting as our unveiling of the Preview Center last week," said the stadium's project coordinator Jack Hill. "This is a critical component in the process, and we are ready to launch in early 2012."

The timeline for the stadium's construction is expected to be released at a Stadium Authority board meeting later this calendar year.

http://bayarea.sbnation.com/san-francisco-49ers/2011/10/6/2473544/49ers-santa-clara-stadium-make-ready-work-set-to-begin-at-stadium

Is this new stadium being built on a fault line?

Interesting to see how Al Davis' passing will affect the Raiders relocation. His popularity (or lack thereof) and ego made him hard to deal with, so either an LA or Santa Clara move may be greased a bit. Roski and AEG were looking for an interest in the team, so this may make it easier.

Interesting to see how Al Davis' passing will affect the Raiders relocation. His popularity (or lack thereof) and ego made him hard to deal with, so either an LA or Santa Clara move may be greased a bit. Roski and AEG were looking for an interest in the team, so this may make it easier.
Watching the Raiders is almost like the old sport of Kremlin-watching. And now that the pseudo-Stalin is gone, we can only guess at the power struggles behind the scenes.
The Raiders are officially a partnership (as required by the league), but Al's share was incorporated, thus dodging some regs. For a long time, his title has been "President of the General Partner". His wife and son now become the owners of his share and title, and the son is the designated heir-apparent, but it remains to be seen if he becomes the Kim Jong Il, or disappears like Stalin's kids. I would assume that some signs of the transition will become apparent soon, but I still haven't figured out what became of Franklin Mieuli's 10% chunk of the Niners.
And I would like to say that while I often castigated Al, he was a major reason for the success of the game today.

My guess is they will sell the team.

My guess is they will sell the team.
Why?

I really don't follow Al's family finances but "death" taxes are often a factor in liquidating some or all of illiquid holdings. They may also not have either Al's stubbornness or interest. And there will certainly be lucrative offers on the table.

As for Santa Clara, I would guess that the heirs would have less objection to "rooming" with the Niners.

I really don't follow Al's family finances but "death" taxes are often a factor in liquidating some or all of illiquid holdings. They may also not have either Al's stubbornness or interest. And there will certainly be lucrative offers on the table.

As for Santa Clara, I would guess that the heirs would have less objection to "rooming" with the Niners.
Now I'm reading that his wife and son are not interested in holding onto the team in the long run. From a Yahoo story I just read:
Davis’ death Saturday morning creates a mountain of questions throughout the NFL and perhaps paves the way for the league to return to Los Angeles, where Davis once saw the future and then had to abandon it.

In the immediate, Davis’ wife, Carol, and son, Mark, are expected to assume control of the team. However, numerous sources around the NFL believe that neither will want to keep control of the team in the long run and are expected to sell relatively soon.

“Al tried to float the idea that Mark would run the team, but most people look at that as Al’s dream, not a reality,” an owner said earlier this year. “I don’t see any way Mark holds onto the team. He’s just going to cash out.”

NFL owners are scheduled to meet Tuesday in Houston. The Raiders were on the way to that city Saturday to play the Texans.

I've learned more about the guy in the last 24 hours than I knew before. The above quote is at the tail end of this article:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_al_davis_respect_100811

will101, do you have any idea how much of the Raiders Al Davis owned?

will101, do you have any idea how much of the Raiders Al Davis owned?
First, imagine the most elaborate and thorough legal disclaimer in either this or any nearby universes. Now double it. That is my disclaimer here. :speech:

Seriously, this is almost entirely speculative (and the percentages very rough): 47%. Al started with 10% when he bought into the Raiders in 1966. Even though one Wiki article claims that the heirs of all eight original partners still own chunks, we know that Wayne Valley sold the entirety of what was then 24% to Al in 1976 or 1978. Before that time his share was up to 25% (so he had to have bought out some others by then), so that makes the total about 49%. Somewhere along the line he had picked up another 18%, to get to 67% by 2007, when he sold 20% to three venture capital bigwigs for $150 million.

FWIW, the rumor mill claims that $150 Mil went to operating expenses, as the Raiders have been blacked out in most of their games since 1980, and luxury box sales have been a disaster, leaving the team with some serious cash flow issues.

Oh, and you guys can just call me Will.

Thanks Will..you da' man...

Just win baby!

Thanks Will..you da' man...

Just win baby!
No prob. Most of this Al stuff is fun to research in the abstract. Yesterday we won by 48-3. :banana: :smug:

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/kgo/cms_exf_2007/news/sports/pro/football/kgo-stadium-model-4-080311-448.jpg


http://archpaper.com/uploads/santa_clara_01.jpg

I don't see no black and white on those pictures. And where's the eye-patch and the memorial to Al Davis? I'm thinking that Roski in LA would cut the Raiders a better deal.

Looks nice.

Looks nice.

Looks a bit cheap and meccano like to me.

SF deserves better.

^^^^ OH OK But I like it. Better than the stick tho

I don't see no black and white on those pictures. And where's the eye-patch and the memorial to Al Davis? I'm thinking that Roski in LA would cut the Raiders a better deal.
I realize that you're just giving me a hard time on this, but if the worst case scenario happens, and we do have to share with them, adjustments can be made. LED technology could used to change the color scheme from red/gold to black/silver at the flick of a switch. Likewise the pix of Jerry Rice, Bill Walsh and Ronnie Lott can become Fred Biletnikoff, John Madden and Willie Brown easily. The tech level here will be a couple of notches above anyplace else.

^^^^ OH OK But I like it. Better than the stick tho
It's definitely light years better than the ridiculously ugly place built by the team with the pentagram that shall remain nameless. Simple, functional and well thought out. The delight is in the details.

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/kgo/cms_exf_2007/news/sports/pro/football/kgo-stadium-model-4-080311-448.jpg
This is a nice pic, but I'm still trying to figure out where they will add 8-10,000 seats for the Super Bowl or World Cup. The logical spot is on the top level at either end, but that will block the scoreboards. The only other possibility is the gap between the main stand and the suite tower. There must be a plan somewhere.

Edit: I meant 'gaps' between the main stand and suite tower.

Partly a hard time, but the issues are somewhat legit. Won't the Raiders want some kind of area that is a memorial to Al Davis? Do you do a Davis statue and Bill Walsh statue? Will the seats be red and/or gold? The electronics can change, but somethings not so easily.

At Industry (Grand Crossing) I can imagine a deal like they rename the city "Raidertown", the main street is Al Davis Pkwy., and you can build memorials, pirate-themed restaurants and amusement parks, hotels, etc., and fly the Jolly Roger 24/7.

Partly a hard time, but the issues are somewhat legit. Won't the Raiders want some kind of area that is a memorial to Al Davis? Do you do a Davis statue and Bill Walsh statue? Will the seats be red and/or gold? The electronics can change, but somethings not so easily.

At Industry (Grand Crossing) I can imagine a deal like they rename the city "Raidertown", the main street is Al Davis Pkwy., and you can build memorials, pirate-themed restaurants and amusement parks, hotels, etc., and fly the Jolly Roger 24/7.
It's all based on the assumption that we will need a partner to pay for the thing. And so far the answer is no. IIRC groundbreaking is 15 months from today, which is a long time to complete the funding, and get the ducks in a row. The Raiders can have a shrine to Al in CoI.

I would love to see Santa Clara turn out to almost like a Forty Niner theme park. You could have interactive displays on Kezar and Candlestick. Memorials for the Morabito brothers, and for the coaches and players who have passed away. Promos for Niners not yet in the hall but deserve it, like Buck Shaw, Frank Albert, Billy Wilson, Len Rohde and Roger Craig.

nice!

I missed this a couple of weeks ago. Mostly a blog rehash, but some good points.

by David Fucillo

The passing of legendary Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis creates a void for the Raiders, but also could have monstrous implications in the stadium projects enveloping Northern and Southern California. For SoCal, the Raiders remain a candidate for whichever of the two stadium projects gets completed. The AEG group has been considering a variety of teams but part of the issue is taking on a controlling ownership stake. This was something Al Davis would not agree to, but his passing opens that back up for debate.

For Northern California, the 49ers stadium project is moving along at a pretty solid pace as the team has sold numerous luxury suites and has hired a company to find a purchaser for naming rights. However, finances remain an issue depending on those naming rights and how many people will be willing to fork over personal seat license fees.

That has led to some discussion about the 49ers and Raiders sharing a stadium. Al Davis was an opponent of such an idea, but his passing likely opens the door for further discussions on the subject. If the two teams shared a stadium, while it increases the overall cost, it lowers the per team cost significantly. Additionally, it opens the door for greater league funding through the former G3 Fund.

The next six to nine months could prove incredibly fascinating with the Raiders sitting at the heart of this situation. They could conceivably "hold the keys to the kingdom" when it comes to getting stadiums built in California.

http://bayarea.sbnation.com/san-francisco-49ers/2011/10/10/2481356/al-davis-death-49ers-santa-clara-stadium-deal

is it me or does the proposal for the new stadium look a bit dated? i dont hate it, but i dont love it either.

So many box levels, why bother having seats anymore, just make it all boxes. It doesn't even rain in the fall in SF.

is it me or does the proposal for the new stadium look a bit dated? i dont hate it, but i dont love it either.

It is an odd mixture of retro with modern high-tech amenities. It seems to be influenced by the retro look of ATT in SF.

But that's how I fell about practically all stadiums: don't love them, don't hate them.

As for boxes, I suppose that this economically reasonable, since it allows there to be more cash-flow up-front from sales of boxes. Given the large number of huge companies in SJ/Silicon Valley these should be easy to peddle.

is it me or does the proposal for the new stadium look a bit dated? i dont hate it, but i dont love it either.
Function over form. As long as it's the best stadium, not necessarily the prettiest.

I look at it, and find myself comparing it to 'the competition'. If you compare it to places like MetLife, Raymond James or Cowboys Stadium, the fans in the top level will be light years closer to the action. The boxes will be closer than at Soldier Field. No pesky roof to make me feel like I'm stuck in a shopping mall, listening to groups of teenagers giggle. And so forth. I'm pleased with it.

And, compared to Candlestick, it is the prettiest.

So many box levels, why bother having seats anymore, just make it all boxes. It doesn't even rain in the fall in SF.
The same number of boxes as the other new places, just placed more efficiently.

And the nearest major city is San Jose. Nicer weather than San Francisco.

It is an odd mixture of retro with modern high-tech amenities. It seems to be influenced by the retro look of ATT in SF.
That's an interesting point. Definitely food for thought. Now I'm going to spend the rest of the week comparing them, in the back of my mind.

But that's how I fell about practically all stadiums: don't love them, don't hate them.
Them's fightin' words in these here parts, pardner. >(

As for boxes, I suppose that this economically reasonable, since it allows there to be more cash-flow up-front from sales of boxes. Given the large number of huge companies in SJ/Silicon Valley these should be easy to peddle.
Apparently the up front total is now around $200 million. Another hopeful sign, but still waiting for the naming rights deal. They must have offers and a short list by now. And the team's renewed success has thrown a bit of a wild card into the hand. Trip to the playoffs, $40 million more? Conference championship game, 60? And a sixth trophy? The corporate CFOs might almost be rooting for a losing streak.

[QUOTE=will101;85061273]That's an interesting point. Definitely food for thought. Now I'm going to spend the rest of the week comparing them, in the back of my mind.


Them's fightin' words in these here parts, pardner. >(


Yeah, I know you're supposed to be passionate about stadiums but I don't really get that into it. I'll just stick to being passionate about the teams.

But I do know that a covered stadium is not even in the running. It's just a big concert or livestock hall.

^^

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/kgo/cms_exf_2007/news/sports/pro/football/kgo-stadium-model-4-080311-448.jpg

I love it and don't get some of the angst about the design. Its very open in the plazas. If its not freezing and doesn't rain much, I don't see a problem with that. I like that it gets the suites out of the way, while not putting them too far. It has a green roof. I love the corner plazas. Plazas in stadiums that are open to the bowl are quite spectacular in person. Also, you have unique bowl layout. I think some are freaking out because the plazas aren't wrapped in glass.

Function over form. As long as it's the best stadium, not necessarily the prettiest.

I look at it, and find myself comparing it to 'the competition'. If you compare it to places like MetLife, Raymond James or Cowboys Stadium, the fans in the top level will be light years closer to the action. The boxes will be closer than at Soldier Field. No pesky roof to make me feel like I'm stuck in a shopping mall, listening to groups of teenagers giggle. And so forth. I'm pleased with it.

And, compared to Candlestick, it is the prettiest.

anything compared to candlestick is the prettiest lol

I like this stadium. I like the open corner plazas, I like that the suites are only on one side making the upper deck lower around the rest of the stadium...

The only thing I don't like will be the team that will play there. :lol:

I don't want to split hairs here, guys.

But I don't know anything about the city of Santa Clara, other than it is a small city located on the South Bay in the heart of Silicon Valley.

But is Santa Clara a suburb of San Jose? Or, during the Niners home games, can people say "Santa Clara" without non-Bay Area residents responding with "Where?"

You know- Here in Cowboys country, people say "Dallas" instead of "Arlington" because non-Texans have never heard of Arlington, Texas.

I don't want to spit hairs here, guys.

But I don't know anything about the city of Santa Clara, other than it is a small city located on the South Bay in the heart of Silicon Valley.

But is Santa Clara a suburb of San Jose? Or, during the Niners home games, can people say "Santa Clara" without outsiders responding with "Where?"

You know- Here in Cowboys country, people say "Dallas" instead of "Arlington" because non-Texans have never heard of Arlington, Texas.
Santa Clara is suburb of San Jose, and I don't think many people outside of the Bay Area know where it is. The stadium site is less than a mile from San Jose city limits.

I don't want to split hairs here, guys.

But I don't know anything about the city of Santa Clara, other than it is a small city located on the South Bay in the heart of Silicon Valley.

But is Santa Clara a suburb of San Jose? Or, during the Niners home games, can people say "Santa Clara" without non-Bay Area residents responding with "Where?"

You know- Here in Cowboys country, people say "Dallas" instead of "Arlington" because non-Texans have never heard of Arlington, Texas.
Most fans have heard of Arlington, because the Rangers have been there since 1972 (unless someone claims they are 100% ignorant of baseball). That's when I first heard of it. It's the non-fans that have no idea.

And the Niners have had their training facility in Santa Clara for over 20 years, so there has already been a bit of a heads-up.

The question is, how far is Santa Clara from San Francisco. I know San Jose Sharks draw fans from San Francisco as well.

The question is, how far is Santa Clara from San Francisco. I know San Jose Sharks draw fans from San Francisco as well.

It's quite far. The BART doesn't even reach the South Bay.

A couple of points:

The question is NOT how far Santa Clara is from SF, because SF is a tiny percentage of those attending the games. The 49ers pointed out years ago that the SF demographic is not a good one for sports, and that at Candlestick they have more fans from Sacramento (80 miles away) than from SF. For the record, SF is about 40 miles from Santa Clara stadium.

BART does not go to Santa Clara, but then again it also did not go to Candlestick. Santa Clara has both lightrail connections to the South Bay and trains to the East Bay and Sacramento area. Candlestick had no rail connections. The lightrail connects to Amtrak, which serves the entire Peninsula (SF, San Mateo, Palo Alto, etc.).

And the Niners have had their training facility in Santa Clara for over 20 years, so there has already been a bit of a heads-up.

I'm a Niners non-fan. So I've never heard of Santa Clara until I saw this thread.:tongue2:


The question is NOT how far Santa Clara is from SF, because SF is a tiny percentage of those attending the games. The 49ers pointed out years ago that the SF demographic is not a good one for sports

I think that's true. The population in SF is actually lower than that in the San Jose area.

It's quite far. The BART doesn't even reach the South Bay.

Doesn't matter NYC subway doesn't reach Meadowlands.

A couple of points:

The question is NOT how far Santa Clara is from SF, because SF is a tiny percentage of those attending the games. The 49ers pointed out years ago that the SF demographic is not a good one for sports, and that at Candlestick they have more fans from Sacramento (80 miles away) than from SF. For the record, SF is about 40 miles from Santa Clara stadium.

BART does not go to Santa Clara, but then again it also did not go to Candlestick. Santa Clara has both lightrail connections to the South Bay and trains to the East Bay and Sacramento area. Candlestick had no rail connections. The lightrail connects to Amtrak, which serves the entire Peninsula (SF, San Mateo, Palo Alto, etc.).
And out of a total Bay Area population of around 7.5 million, slightly over 800,000 live in San Francisco, while 1.8 million live in Santa Clara County, where the new stadium will be built.

This is from Matier & Ross, two guys in the Comicle who specialize in muckraking and leaking scandals in Sacramento and SF City Hall. But don't always get things right. Which means, take this with a grain of salt.

Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross, Chronicle Columnists
San Francisco Chronicle October 31, 2011
The 49ers are telling Santa Clara officials to expect a financial plan soon for the team's billion-dollar stadium - raising hopes for a groundbreaking on the project by late next year.

"We are hoping to approve (the finances) before the end of the year," City Councilwoman Lisa Gillmor told us. In fact, the team appears so confident of coming up with the money - even in these lean times - that it wants to speed things up and shoot for a 2014 opening, instead of the current target of 2015.

"That might be a possibility," Gillmor said.

The real challenge, however, may come in January when the Niners expect to put about 60,000 seat licenses on sale. Prices haven't been set.

Asked about the new date, Niners spokesman Steve Weakland said he would have to get back to us. We're still waiting.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/30/BA5J1LNTD8.DTL#ixzz1cNEomcJd

I'm a Niners non-fan. So I've never heard of Santa Clara until I saw this thread.:tongue2:



I think that's true. The population in SF is actually lower than that in the San Jose area.

Well you should have heard of Santa Clara. :lol: They're famous all around Santa Clara County.

This is from Matier & Ross, two guys in the Comicle who specialize in muckraking and leaking scandals in Sacramento and SF City Hall. But don't always get things right. Which means, take this with a grain of salt.

Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross, Chronicle Columnists
San Francisco Chronicle October 31, 2011
The 49ers are telling Santa Clara officials to expect a financial plan soon for the team's billion-dollar stadium - raising hopes for a groundbreaking on the project by late next year.

"We are hoping to approve (the finances) before the end of the year," City Councilwoman Lisa Gillmor told us. In fact, the team appears so confident of coming up with the money - even in these lean times - that it wants to speed things up and shoot for a 2014 opening, instead of the current target of 2015.

"That might be a possibility," Gillmor said.

The real challenge, however, may come in January when the Niners expect to put about 60,000 seat licenses on sale. Prices haven't been set.

Asked about the new date, Niners spokesman Steve Weakland said he would have to get back to us. We're still waiting.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/30/BA5J1LNTD8.DTL#ixzz1cNEomcJd

Are they saying they can break ground late in 2012 and open in August, 2014? I would be impressed. Remodelling my house took longer than that and that involved about 800 sq. ft.

(This one should bring out the trolls.)

By Mike Rosenberg

mrosenberg@mercurynews.com

Posted: 11/12/2011 04:15:09 PM PST
Updated: 11/12/2011 09:41:06 PM PST

After years of anticipation, Santa Clara and the 49ers are finally ready to start spending serious money toward building a new stadium.

City leaders expect to approve $10 million in current and future tax funds Tuesday, but the money won't pay for any bleachers, locker rooms or goal posts. Instead, it will support a five-month project to begin in January that will include everything from moving utilities to installing sidewalks -- all the work required to make the site next to Great America set for stadium construction at the start of 2013.

"Although it's not the big grand opening, it's sort of a soft groundbreaking," Mayor Jamie Matthews said. "This is the first step toward getting that stadium built."

In football lingo: What's coming is the coin flip and national anthem to start the game.

The bulldozers, backhoes and workers at the site are also the most tangible proof yet that the city and team are close to actually building the stadium, which has seen its share of delays and doubters.

"It's another sign, and a major step in the process, that the stadium is coming online," said Steve Weakland, a 49ers spokesman.

While city leaders are spending a mere fraction of the $987 million cost of the project, $10 million is no small chunk of change for the cash-strapped government. The city has to borrow at least $6 million from the team since it doesn't have enough tax funds to complete the work on its own.

But the expense could also be a gamble. Critics doubt that the 49ers and city will find the remaining three-fourths of the money to bankroll the stadium by the end of next year, as planned.

If the stadium never gets built, naysayers argue, the city would have spent $10 million for unnecessary prep work.

"We'll have made some investments and done some work that arguably was not a good use of funds," said Councilwoman Jamie McLeod, who has questioned the stadium plan. "It's not my optimal way to go, but I think we're close enough (to financing the stadium) that it's not something that I take major issue with."

Councilwoman Lisa Gillmor, a project supporter, says it's money well spent regardless because it would make the site appealing for a different developer -- not that she expects it to come to that.

"The next step will be breaking ground on the stadium," Gillmor said.

Weakland said the team is comfortable making the loan to the city to help meet Santa Clara's $40 million maximum taxpayer commitment toward the stadium, which voters approved last year. It's still unclear whether the team would charge interest on the loan, or how the city would pay it back, as the two sides are still negotiating a detailed financing plan for the project, which is due out next month.

Most of the funds for the actual stadium will come from loans the team secures, the NFL, sponsorships, and advanced sales of tickets and suites. The 68,500-seat home field is slated to open in 2015.

The city expects to send out a 355-page description of the prep work to construction companies next month, with shovels to hit the ground after the New Year, a quick turnaround for such an expensive development.

The work also includes grading, paving and striping; installation of water facilities, storm drains, and sewer and electric lines, and additional parking. Construction impacts to the area, such as noise and traffic, are expected to be moderate and confined to the area near Tasman Drive. An additional $2 million in work will follow later next year.

In another stadium issue to be discussed at Tuesday's City Council meeting, officials expect to assign a city planner to a new job handling only stadium issues, at an expected annual salary of about $136,000. The council also will schedule separate hearings in early December to go over the expected financing plan and to approve the sale of the amusement park to a firm partially funded by the 49ers.

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_19323672

Stunning reasonableness on the part of Councilwoman Jamie McLeod. She doesn't really approve the spending of the money until financing is in place, but it is so close that she doesn't have an issue with going ahead. This is the kind of comment that reasonable people make in the real world, as opposed to people who just want headlines.

I am guessing that the potential bidders have been looking over the site for some time and could bid today if they had to. Hopefully the work starts January.

There is very little housing anywhere in the area, so I wouldn't expect much in the way of complaints. But you never know.

Stunning reasonableness on the part of Councilwoman Jamie McLeod. She doesn't really approve the spending of the money until financing is in place, but it is so close that she doesn't have an issue with going ahead. This is the kind of comment that reasonable people make in the real world, as opposed to people who just want headlines.
Except that she was the strongest opponent of the project on the council. One of the folk claiming that the city would be on the hook for half a billion, or some other idiotic figure. If one of the council members that had voted for the stadium had made that comment I would agree with you. But she's talking out of both sides of her mouth.

Could be. But she may have had legitimate issues during the negotiation process. At any rate, she sounds reasonable and pragmatic now.

Except that she was the strongest opponent of the project on the council. One of the folk claiming that the city would be on the hook for half a billion, or some other idiotic figure. If one of the council members that had voted for the stadium had made that comment I would agree with you. But she's talking out of both sides of her mouth.
"She opposed my team's stadium, that stupid idiot!"

Oooh, I'll bet she's secretly a fan of a rival team, right???

Could be. But she may have had legitimate issues during the negotiation process. At any rate, she sounds reasonable and pragmatic now.
Sorry to sound snarky, but I've spent too many years watching politics in the Bay Area to be anything but suspicious, when someone suddenly turns "reasonable and pragmatic".
:shifty:

This means that they have a line of credit. It does not mean that they have to use it.

But it does mean that it's going to get built. :banana:
By Mike Rosenberg
mrosenberg@mercurynews.com
© Copyright 2011, Bay Area News Group
Posted: 12/02/2011 06:40:37 PM PST
Updated: 12/03/2011 02:54:42 AM PST

At long last, the 49ers' turbulent drive for a new home in Silicon Valley is reaching the end zone.

The NFL team and Santa Clara announced Friday that they have captured all the money needed to build a proposed $1 billion football stadium next to the Great America theme park -- the largest and final obstacle needed before construction can start.

"It's like first-and-goal from the 9-yard line," said Ron Garratt, a consultant helping lead the project for the city. "We think we're going to score from here."

The funding deal was spelled out in a development contract that caps two-and-a-half years of closed-door negotiations between city and team leaders and essentially completes a planning process that began when the team announced interest in abandoning San Francisco five years ago.

Goldman Sachs, U.S. Bank and Bank of America have agreed to loan the city and team a combined $850 million to pay for the lion's share of the construction, which could start as soon as next year. But critics are alarmed by a major shift in the funding plan that emerged Friday: The city will take on more than twice as much debt as was promised to voters, even though the 49ers vow they won't leave the city holding the bag.

Revenues from the stadium, such as ticket sales, stadium naming rights and the team's rent, are supposed to pay back most of the loans. The rest will come from the NFL, which is expected to chip in $150 million; the city's redevelopment agency, which will contribute $40 million; and a local hotel tax expected to generate $35 million.

"This makes it a reality," said Mayor Jamie Matthews. "For all the people who thought it would be impossible to get financing in this environment, we got three of the biggest banks. Next to the groundbreaking, this is the biggest event."

The price of the 68,500-seat, coliseum-style home field has jumped from $987 million to $1.02 billion, largely because of tweaks to stadium design, more refined construction estimates and inflation.

But city and team leaders are betting the stadium will create so much profit that they will be able to pay off the loans in about 25 years using only money generated by the stadium. If their estimates don't pan out, the 49ers would be on the hook to pay the difference through higher rent payments to the city. The team would also fork over any extra construction costs that may come up. The city's general budget can't be touched, according to the deal.

The 49ers are expected to make a significantly higher profit at a new stadium, but the team hasn't released those figures.

"This is not about the profits of the team, it is about securing the future of the franchise in the Bay Area in the long term," said team CFO Larry MacNeil. "Candlestick (Park) is just not a sustainable model for the 49ers."

In addition to the loans, the 49ers will contribute $150 million to building the stadium, largely through luxury suites they have already sold. The final $20 million is expected to come from various revenues expected before construction starts, such as season ticket sales.

The two sides are now so confident in their funding prospects that they are "motivated" to start building the stadium as soon as mid-2012, with a chance it could be completed in 2014. Conservatively, they still expect to start building by January 2013 and open for the 2015 season.

49ers CEO Jed York has already approved the 75-page deal and the City Council is expected to follow suit Dec. 13, cementing a "formal commitment" from both sides.

The plan does not spell out the likelihood of the Raiders also playing games in Santa Clara, as the teams continue to discuss moving in together. If the Raiders joined the project, the city could see millions more in funding from the Oakland team and the NFL.

The deal calls for the 49ers to pay the city about $30 million per year to lease the city-owned land, a large increase from the previous estimate of $5 million.

The team would operate the stadium year-round, and take on operating costs during the six months of the season. The city would pay for the cost to run the stadium during the offseason, and the two entities would split the revenues from non-NFL events such as concerts, which would carry a $4 ticket surcharge. It's still unclear whether they'd charge a tax on NFL games.

The lease would last 40 years, with options to extend the deal an additional 20 years.

The financing deal is a far cry from the one voters approved, when they were told the team and NFL would pay about half the cost and the city's stadium arm would pay about one-third.

"It appears on first glance that this is not what we agreed to," said project opponent Debbie Bress, a Santa Clara resident. "The amount is over $1 billion, the amount the 49ers are paying is very small. It continues to be irresponsible and swayed toward the advantage of the 49ers."

Officials cited the profitability of the NFL, the team's popularity and the real estate market in Silicon Valley as rationales for the banks to agree to the loan.

The city will hold public hearings at City Hall at 7 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday to talk about the "disposition and development agreement" and hear what residents have to say. The banks will be on hand to provide a presentation, too. Though the city manager's office negotiated the deal, the overwhelmingly pro-stadium council participated in the talks and is set to approve the contract in 10 days. The $10 million prep-work on the site will begin in January.

Paying for the $1.02 billion 49ers stadium

$450 million: Bank loan to the city's stadium authority
$400 million: Bank loan to the 49ers, who pass the loan on to the city's stadium authority
$150 million: 49ers' payments, mostly from luxury suite sales
$20 million: City's stadium authority payments, from existing stadium revenues

Source: City of Santa Clara. The stadium authority is a separate city entity created to safeguard the city's budget, and handles costs, revenues for the stadium.

The link is here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_19460039

:soon: :soon: :soon: :soon:

This is big news, even if there are a few nits to pick re financing.

From a quick review there seems to be little chance of the Niners failing to make their payments, so the city involvement seems more like extra security for the banks (which is not surprising, since B of A was facing bankruptcy last week if their credit rating was downgraded and Goldman would have suffered as well; fortunately the Europeans bailed them out with moves to lower interest rates and the fed followed suit.)

Hopefully this gets some steam going behind the sale of suites and tickets. It seems like the Quakes and A's will be hitting the market in these items soon as well, so the market could be somewhat cautious. But still, if you're big tech how can you miss this opportunity.

Get the shovels!

Well, like I said, this is just a line of credit. The description has the Niners contributing $150 million to start, and they already have over $200 million in suite sales money to use. This is also devoid of any naming rights, PSLs or (for lack of a better phrase) G-3 money. I would be shocked if as much as $400 million was actually borrowed, even in a short term loan.

This is also a big deal with the NFL. Those banks are the sort of big money outfits Goodell & Co. drool over, and the chance to do business with them must have the guys breakdancing in the hallways. Even if they do flirt with "bankruptcy" now and then. In college we had a discussion once about how a bankruptcy filing could be good business strategy.

And I think that it was important to get this deal done, and out in public view, as soon as possible. While I'm sure that there is no malice intended, the Niners are in competition with the Quakes and A's for construction funds, and they will soak up a lot more of the available dollars than those two teams will. So the sooner they get underway, the better.

And on a personal note, I've been walking around with this big grin all morning. But I'm not using the 'dance' emoticon until the actual official groundbreaking. So some of the other ones will have to do, for now.
:carrot: :righton:

Well, like I said, this is just a line of credit. The description has the Niners contributing $150 million to start, and they already have over $200 million in suite sales money to use. This is also devoid of any naming rights, PSLs or (for lack of a better phrase) G-3 money. I would be shocked if as much as $400 million was actually borrowed, even in a short term loan.

This is also a big deal with the NFL. Those banks are the sort of big money outfits Goodell & Co. drool over, and the chance to do business with them must have the guys breakdancing in the hallways. Even if they do flirt with "bankruptcy" now and then. In college we had a discussion once about how a bankruptcy filing could be good business strategy.

And I think that it was important to get this deal done, and out in public view, as soon as possible. While I'm sure that there is no malice intended, the Niners are in competition with the Quakes and A's for construction funds, and they will soak up a lot more of the available dollars than those two teams will. So the sooner they get underway, the better.

And on a personal note, I've been walking around with this big grin all morning. But I'm not using the 'dance' emoticon until the actual official groundbreaking. So some of the other ones will have to do, for now.
:carrot: :righton:

I suspect that Wolff was aware of this loan commitment because he has been letting out hints that the A's are going to be moving and building a stadium real soon, and the Quakes are issuing press releases as well.

Personally, I'd like to chat with a certain former mayor of SF who claimed that there was zero chance of them getting funding and that they would be crawling back and begging to play at Mission Bay or some such.

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/giantsooner/niners_stadium4.jpg
Don't know if it was said before but this stadium has some elements of Puskas Stadium in Hungary.
But wow can't believe a city of 120,000 is into getting into putting up that much money- esp. for a team that is 45 min. away. Hope it works out.

Don't know if it was said before but this stadium has some elements of Puskas Stadium in Hungary.
But wow can't believe a city of 120,000 is into getting into putting up that much money- esp. for a team that is 45 min. away. Hope it works out.
The whole idea is the city will not pay any of the construction costs. But you need to start construction while everything is cheaper. And the team is representative of a metro area of eight million.

I suspect that Wolff was aware of this loan commitment because he has been letting out hints that the A's are going to be moving and building a stadium real soon, and the Quakes are issuing press releases as well.

Personally, I'd like to chat with a certain former mayor of SF who claimed that there was zero chance of them getting funding and that they would be crawling back and begging to play at Mission Bay or some such.
I'm sure that you are aware that the project for the Quakes is (somewhat) underway. If I was Wolff I would stagger the A's stadium, simply to avoid people selling seats in three new stadiums at once.

And Newsom was just playing to the crowd; you know that. Since his constituency has changed, his tune surely has, too. He's being groomed for exclusive addresses in Washington.

I'm sure that you are aware that the project for the Quakes is (somewhat) underway. If I was Wolff I would stagger the A's stadium, simply to avoid people selling seats in three new stadiums at once.

And Newsom was just playing to the crowd; you know that. Since his constituency has changed, his tune surely has, too. He's being groomed for exclusive addresses in Washington.

I can see the argument for waiting, but on the other hand you want people to remember that you're in the game, and that this is their chance to entertain 81 times a year. And you don't want to linger in Oakland an extra year longer than you absolutely have to after you are approved and have announced. Lew seems to be pushing to get the land together and has bought another downtown hotel, which sounds like someone with plans.

This also helps the Raiders since they now have a roughly quanfitiable option to show the LA sites and let them try to match.

I'll address your points later. Right now I'm just sitting here with a huge smile on my face, and wondering about the cost of redesigning to accommodate the new DIVISION CHAMPION BANNER!

:dance:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19482475

The SC city council looks ready to approve the 49er stadium deal. It was expected to be easy since council members had been involved in the negotiations directly to make sure the package was acceptable.

As noted, the only real exposure for the city is if the 49ers and NFL go broke. This is, of course, far less likely than either the lenders (B of A, Goldman Sachs) or the city going broke. And the upside is new revenues, hotel and restaurant business, and a construction boom in the area.

Without sounding like a booster, it's hard to pick on this deal. I would guess it is a huge winner for each side.

http://blog.49ers.com/2011/12/13/new-stadium-construction-loan-approved/

The Santa Clara City Council voted unanimously to approve the building of the 49er stadium and accept the loan terms. You would think a unanimous vote would just about seal the deal.

Groundbreaking is in Spring. The stadium will be expandable for Super Bowls and will also hope to host international soccer and college football.

So that bumps it up to what? A dozen events per year?

So that bumps it up to what? A dozen events per year?

Sounds about right. They're not creators of constant street life and that's why you don't put them downtown.

But if you want to speculate, in theory there is the Raiders, some concerts, a bowl game, and a few soccer matches with large draws. And Santa Clara football if the program revives.

btw, there's a big ole sign on Tasman now with a picture of the stadium and saying Future Home of the 49ers.

btw, there's a big ole sign on Tasman now with a picture of the stadium and saying Future Home of the 49ers.

Right now, I just can't wait to find out which Silicon Valley conglomerate will be willing to fork over the cash to put its name on this new masterpiece.:D

Right now, I just can't wait to find out which Silicon Valley conglomerate will be willing to fork over the cash to put its name on this new masterpiece.:D

Top employers in Santa Clara are Intel or Kaiser Permanente according to Wikipedia.

We already have HP Pavilion and Cisco Field in San Jose. I'd put my money on Intel.

Right now, I just can't wait to find out which Silicon Valley conglomerate will be willing to fork over the cash to put its name on this new masterpiece.:D

Cisco (proposed A's stadium), HP and Oracle already have stadiums in the Bay Area so they are improbable. But the remaining locals are quite a group.

Yahoo has buildings very near the stadium. Apple is huge in Cupertino, which borders on Santa Clara, so maybe "The Apple Orchard". Intel, eBay and hordes of internet companies are nearby plus many other US, Japanese and Korean giants are in the area. The possibility of a smaller company (relatively speaking) can't be ruled out either. I can see bidding on this getting pretty aggressive.

Top employers in Santa Clara are Intel or Kaiser Permanente according to Wikipedia.

We already have HP Pavilion and Cisco Field in San Jose. I'd put my money on Intel.

It doesn't have to be a sponsor specifically based in Santa Clara. As pesto stated, there are hoards of hi-tech companies in the South Bay area. And there are plenty of NFL stadiums that have been named after organizations that are based nowhere near the teams' home cities (i.e. Sun Life Stadium).

But for what it's worth, I too have been betting on Intel.;) I can imagine that Intel jingle being played throughout the concourses.:lol:

Cisco (proposed A's stadium), HP and Oracle already have stadiums in the Bay Area so they are improbable. But the remaining locals are quite a group.

Yahoo has buildings very near the stadium. Apple is huge in Cupertino, which borders on Santa Clara, so maybe "The Apple Orchard". Intel, eBay and hordes of internet companies are nearby plus many other US, Japanese and Korean giants are in the area. The possibility of a smaller company (relatively speaking) can't be ruled out either. I can see bidding on this getting pretty aggressive.

Yahoo! Field, the Apple Orchard, Google-Plex, Facebook Field...

Any one of them is good for a LOL.:)

Does this look similar to the proposed Los Angeles Stadium in Industry, CA?

Does this look similar to the proposed Los Angeles Stadium in Industry, CA?

There is a render of it in the first post of this thread

btw, there's a big ole sign on Tasman now with a picture of the stadium and saying Future Home of the 49ers.

Can any of you South Bay residents here take a picture of that sign and post it in this forum?:) I'd love to see it.

Does this look similar to the proposed Los Angeles Stadium in Industry, CA?

Roski's stadium is built into a large hill in the middle of nowhere.

One side is certainly similar in design:

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/2239/05260949ersvu02.jpg

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/8229/nflstadiumlosangelesusa.jpg

It doesn't have to be a sponsor specifically based in Santa Clara. As pesto stated, there are hoards of hi-tech companies in the South Bay area. And there are plenty of NFL stadiums that have been named after organizations that are based nowhere near the teams' home cities (i.e. Sun Life Stadium).

But for what it's worth, I too have been betting on Intel.;) I can imagine that Intel jingle being played throughout the concourses.:lol:



Yahoo! Field, the Apple Orchard, Google-Plex, Facebook Field...

Any one of them is good for a LOL.:)

It probably won't be a top tier company since they already have enough brand equity to begin with. Even though the former Facebook CFO was hired by the team earlier this year even as a former venture capitalist, he wasn't successful in getting all the private financing on their side of the original Measure J as their Chief Strategy Officer.

As for the financing, it now seems like a bait and switch by the city to their public. I also did not realize that there are only eight hotels and some 3,500 rooms subject to the hotel tax. That's a small number.

Yahoo! Field, the Apple Orchard, Google-Plex, Facebook Field...

The Apple Core?

Can any of you South Bay residents here take a picture of that sign and post it in this forum?:) I'd love to see it.



Roski's stadium is built into a large hill in the middle of nowhere.

There's already a picture at
http://sfist.com/2011/12/08/meanwhile_in_santa_clara.php

Roski's stadium is in the middle of nowhere, but also in the middle of 16M fans. Depends how big a circle to draw.

It probably won't be a top tier company since they already have enough brand equity to begin with. Even though the former Facebook CFO was hired by the team earlier this year even as a former venture capitalist, he wasn't successful in getting all the private financing on their side of the original Measure J as their Chief Strategy Officer.

As for the financing, it now seems like a bait and switch by the city to their public. I also did not realize that there are only eight hotels and some 3,500 rooms subject to the hotel tax. That's a small number.

The hotels are the largest ones in the immediate area, which are the most likely to benefit from increased visitors (rooms and food service). Interestingly, they did not oppose the tax since they saw the benefits for themselves.

New hotels and restaurants are proposed for the area, although there may be only 10 or so football games a year. As Krudmonk says, we probably shouldn't overstate the impact of this stadium to the local economy unless some additional uses are found. While it will the only first quality football stadium in the Bay Area, Candlestick and O.com (or whatever it's called) will still host concerts until they are torn down.

Not sure about the "bait and switch". The amount of the credit line is greater than the amount that will be drawn down. In effect, the "rent" paid by the Niners is an amount tailored to cover principle and interest payments. Approval was unanimous, including some councilmembers who had previously questioned the economics of the deal. Hard to criticize the deal.

One side is certainly similar in design: The tower-o-suites is definitely a prevailing trend when possible. Let's the owners deal with the wealthier clientelle in a more efficient manner, and from security and access standpoints tends to yield more effective flows for the visitors, as well. Let's face it, suite occupants and general fans are very different sets of fan groups, and so on many levels you're better off clearly seperating the two.

Curious to see the evolution of these designs, and whether or not we'll see twists on the theme similar to what they do in many Latin American Countries where even less of the stadium seems geared to general seating.

The tower-o-suites is definitely a prevailing trend when possible. Let's the owners deal with the wealthier clientelle in a more efficient manner, and from security and access standpoints tends to yield more effective flows for the visitors, as well. Let's face it, suite occupants and general fans are very different sets of fan groups, and so on many levels you're better off clearly seperating the two.

Ah, the prawn sandwich brigade. Not sure what you call those type of people is the USA, though? :dunno:

Ah, the prawn sandwich brigade. Not sure what you call those type of people is the USA, though? :dunno:
The whine and cheese crowd.

In conversations with multiple high-ranking sources during the league meetings, most believed the San Diego Chargers and St. Louis Rams had the greatest likelihood of moving to Los Angeles, with a growing sentiment that eventually the Oakland Raiders will join the San Francisco 49ers at the new facility 49ers ownership is seeking to break ground on in Santa Clara this spring.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82526f1d/article/khan-would-pay-25m-to-exjags-owners-charity-if-team-moves

2 NFL teams sharing the same stadium?!

^^ It's good enough for the Giants and Jets. ;)

AC Milan/Inter
Lazio/Roma
1860/Bayern

But different "cities" :D

But different "cities" :D

I don't see a city in Lazio's name.

But different "cities" :D

I believe the Niners will be keeping "SF" in their name.

However, "Oakland Raiders of Santa Clara" sounds awkward.:tongue2:

I believe the Niners will be keeping "SF" in their name.

However, "Oakland Raiders of Santa Clara" sounds awkward.:tongue2:
They can call themselves "Oakland Raiders of Anaheim" for all I care. If they come to Santa Clara also, there had better be a double truckload of security for their games. Their fans will always know in the back of their minds that this started out life as a Forty Niner stadium. One or two of the Raider folk might not react very well to that.

And how would they handle the suite owners? Do they only own the suites half of the time? Does someone run through all 170+ suites and change the motif from cardinal to black, and back again?

And my question of what if there is a riot on Sunday, and the Niners play on Monday night, is still open.

But different "cities" :D
So? We're Americans. We never get anything right. But we're OK with that.

What about a new stadium for the Raiders in Oakland?

And as far as i know the rivalry between 49ers and Raiders is quite big.

The whine and cheese crowd.Yep. Completely different lot from the rest of us, who scrap and save to manage a few hundred a year for sporting tickets.

My big fear is that the economics of big time sports is shifting to greater dependency on this market, which seems a bit unstable IMO. I'll trust the number crunchers to know what they're doing, but I fear it will only hasten the growing disconnect between the average fan and the players/teams.

What about a new stadium for the Raiders in Oakland?Under Al Davis the Raiders moved a couple time and have bilked Cities before, burning many bridges between them and politicians how would readily support an NFL venue. The arm-twisting they pulled to get the monstrous stand added to Oakland Coliseum would feel all the more insulting to only turn around now and demand new digs. Plus the Bay Area can only handle so many stadium investments at a time.

No doubt the Raiders will be left in arguably the weakest NFL stadium once the Niners move, but will they have the connections and resources to make an attractive deal? As of today I don't see it any time soon.

And as far as i know the rivalry between 49ers and Raiders is quite big.Bit different though in that the teams are in different leagues and don't play regularly. In one sense that's heightened the tension as the fan bases can ever claim some sense of superiority based on qualitative such and such, but it also leaves it rather mooted as an expression of cultural taste between the two communities. While it's not truly this simple, the conventional portrayal is that Niners fans are the wealthier "cultural" crowd from San Francisco while Raiders fans are the blue collar folk from gritty Oakland. Niners are the upstanding gentlemen of Montana, Clark, Rice, etc, while Raiders were known more for brutish defenders and affable characters like Ken Stabler.

To be sure, the teams have used this to their advantage marketing-wise, as well, even if they don't openly avow so.

Anyone else watch Monday Night Football last night? A transformer blew out at Candlestick causing 2 blackouts (one was right before the game and the other was during the 2nd quarter). It delayed the game for about 20 minutes and another 20 minute delay during the 2nd quarter. It looked pretty cool actually on TV.

S5a8V1VkIj4
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/images/201112/20111219pd_blackout1_500.jpg
http://blog.sfgate.com/49ers/wp-content/blogs.dir/2277/files/candlestick-park-blackout/steelers-49ers-football-jpeg-04501.jpg
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-111219-49ers-811p.photoblog900.jpg
http://www.kare11.com/images/640/360/2/assetpool/images/111219105041_mnf_blackout_01_640.jpg

^^

Someone needs a new stadium...

^^

Someone needs a new stadium...

It almost seemed orchestrated. The Niners have SC and the banks in line; now it's just getting the NFL to approve the move and kick in some funds. Suddenly on national TV the lights fail not once but twice (nice and early so the east coast can catch it).

I can imagine Goodell: "I don't ever want another national game from that frickin' stadium while I'm commissioner: is that understood?"

The Apple Core?

Since Farmer's Insurance already has the blimp flying to the games, maybe they could name both the LA and Santa Clara Stadiums. They could be called "The North Forty" and "The South 10".

It almost seemed orchestrated. The Niners have SC and the banks in line; now it's just getting the NFL to approve the move and kick in some funds. Suddenly on national TV the lights fail not once but twice (nice and early so the east coast can catch it).

I can imagine Goodell: "I don't ever want another national game from that frickin' stadium while I'm commissioner: is that understood?"

You know....that actually makes sense.

Yep. Completely different lot from the rest of us, who scrap and save to manage a few hundred a year for sporting tickets.

My big fear is that the economics of big time sports is shifting to greater dependency on this market, which seems a bit unstable IMO. I'll trust the number crunchers to know what they're doing, but I fear it will only hasten the growing disconnect between the average fan and the players/teams.
I feel you. It's been happening for years, and getting worse.

When I was growing up, my dad would take take our family of four to a few A's and Giants games a year, a couple of Warriors games, and at least one Raiders or 49ers game. We were a middle class family, and this was the norm for most of the families that we knew.

Now that I have a family of my own, I find it impossible to provide my kids the same sports experiences as I had when I was growing up. I'm a middle class white collar professional while my dad was a middle class blue collar worker, so you would think that it should be possible. The last time I took my own family of 4 to a Sharks game it ran me over $250 after all was said and done with the cost of tickets, parking, and concessions. Sadly, that's not something I can afford on a regular basis.

The teams nowadays are catering to these big money guys who sit on their hands and who could care less about the teams they are watching, while shutting out real fans. I'm shaking my head thinking about it. :ohno:

Now that I have a family of my own, I find it impossible to provide my kids the same sports experiences as I had when I was growing up. I'm a middle class white collar professional while my dad was a middle class blue collar worker, so you would think that it should be possible. In speaking with many older family and friends it seems sporting events before the 80's were priced comparable to a movie, as a quick distraction for a couple hours and priced so that you'd come back often. Now the teams are trying to make every game a major event, competing against theme parks for a full day of family fun. It's assumed you'll either invest in 1-2 games or partner with folks on the season's tickets, and they're appealing to a more populous nation, so they can essentially afford to get away with it.
The teams nowadays are catering to these big money guys who sit on their hands and who could care less about the teams they are watching, while shutting out real fans. I'm shaking my head thinking about it. :ohno: I don't even mind this from either side, even if the atmosphere of an event can sour with too much business clientele. Different strokes for different folks. I do think the economics are a bit disconcerting, however, because of the sensitivity to what is now a smaller market. If a team loses a few fans among the masses it won't adversely impact their bottom line, but if you can't lure the volume or $ out of the suite-owning crowd you risk losing a great deal. Just look at how many teams have moved/want to move venues almost exclusively to hook more money from this crowd. (Jax, Min, Atl...)

Since Farmer's Insurance already has the blimp flying to the games, maybe they could name both the LA and Santa Clara Stadiums. They could be called "The North Forty" and "The South 10".
I may be slow tonight, but I don't get it.

I was watching the game too when the stadium became the "Black Hole of San Francisco ". They did talk about old the stadium was and what the new stadium would look like when the lighters were off.

See trying to pay for sporting events on the other side of the world has the same view has we do in England. To watch a non-league soccer team (5th tier) which my local team play in at the moment its £18 ($28.32)
To watch a Premier league game is about £28.00 ($44.08) and thats the cheap seats. We don't even have a Premier League game aired on free to air (free tv in the uk is another thread) Never had and can't see it happening anytime soon.

I was watching the game too when the stadium became the "Black Hole of San Francisco ". They did talk about old the stadium was and what the new stadium would look like when the lighters were off.

See trying to pay for sporting events on the other side of the world has the same view has we do in England. To watch a non-league soccer team (5th tier) which my local team play in at the moment its £18 ($28.32)
To watch a Premier league game is about £28.00 ($44.08) and thats the cheap seats. We don't even have a Premier League game aired on free to air (free tv in the uk is another thread) Never had and can't see it happening anytime soon.

I've got it!

Occupy World Stadiums! Demand that the government provide free tickets and VIP Packages (2 drinks, color progam, bobble-head doll) to everyone! Fund it with a new tax on the top 1 percent of athletes! :lol:

I may be slow tonight, but I don't get it.

Since you asked, this is mostly failed humor. "North Forty" of course refers to the quarters that were given under the Homestead Act; but it also treid to refer to the Forty Niners and to the relaively large area for the Santa Clara Stadium.

South 10 refers to the smaller DT LA area. You also have Interstate 10 going by the stadium, but it goes east-west. Maybe "South 110" would have been better, since it also fronts the stadium.

Oh, well, they can't all be winners.

Since you asked, this is mostly failed humor. "North Forty" of course refers to the quarters that were given under the Homestead Act; but it also treid to refer to the Forty Niners and to the relaively large area for the Santa Clara Stadium.

South 10 refers to the smaller DT LA area. You also have Interstate 10 going by the stadium, but it goes east-west. Maybe "South 110" would have been better, since it also fronts the stadium.

Oh, well, they can't all be winners.
It was a nice try. Remember, more than half of the jokes written for 'Young Frankenstein' had to be dumped, because they didn't work.

I've got it!

Occupy World Stadiums! Demand that the government provide free tickets and VIP Packages (2 drinks, color progam, bobble-head doll) to everyone! Fund it with a new tax on the top 1 percent of athletes! :lol:

Great Plan. Now all we need to do is workout what sharpe ball were going to play with

I like the design of this stadium. I like the stacking of the suites on one side like Ford Field. They also bring the fans closer to the action than other stadiums. The exterior leaves a bit to be desired, but this stadium plan seems to have a nice functional design.

I like the design of this stadium. I like the stacking of the suites on one side like Ford Field. They also bring the fans closer to the action than other stadiums. The exterior leaves a bit to be desired, but this stadium plan seems to have a nice functional design.
Something has been bugging me, and the other day it just clicked: this location, while not as bad as Candlestick, can be fairly windy. I wonder if there is some provision for wind screens, as the various gaps could make life unpleasant for spectator and player alike. Although it could add to the home entertainment value ...

Something has been bugging me, and the other day it just clicked: this location, while not as bad as Candlestick, can be fairly windy. I wonder if there is some provision for wind screens, as the various gaps could make life unpleasant for spectator and player alike. Although it could add to the home entertainment value ...
Yup. I gets real gusty out in that area, since it's so close to the Bay. Most people don't realize this because they have this notion of Santa Clara being inland. Some people might be in for a real surprise when they attend their first games there.

I have workdd in Mlipitas, North SJ and North Sunnyvale over the years and it's quite true that areas like Shoreline in Mt. View and the north end of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale can get very windy.

But this is not that close to the shore. In any event, the windiness is usually in the summer when there are great heat differentials between the ocean, bay and inland areas. I don't believe this will be an issue after September, and not much of an issue ever. Of course, storms occasionally come through, but that's true everywhere.

But I'd be interested in hearing if others think that there would be much wind. Certainly better to address it before building begins.

^^ Well there will certainly be less wind than Candlestick Point.

I dont want to offend somebody but this stadium looks ugly,clunky and way too expensive for the price without roof and without special design

Allianz Arena in Munich cost 390 mio €...
http://shop.fcbayern.de/cat_images/zoom/zoom-7478-fc-bayern-Poster-Allianz-Arena-Innenraum-360-.png
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Allianz-Arena.blue.red.jpg/250px-Allianz-Arena.blue.red.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allianz_Arena&usg=__6dznE7sHiUdzJ8bVDKgck2OWdO0=&h=189&w=250&sz=16&hl=de&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=EvVGCCxAEX5owM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=159&ei=8NMIT7MHzIO1BqKk0aID&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dallianz%2Barena%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D629%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=714&vpy=367&dur=2206&hovh=151&hovw=200&tx=81&ty=86&sig=116534853282259990079&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0

Allianz looks like a glowing, inflatable bedpan, though.

I dont want to offend somebody but this stadium looks ugly,clunky and way too expensive for the price without roof and without special design


Who needs a big, ugly friggin' roof? This is California. We get sunshine in the fall and winter and like to bask in it, not sit in an ugly cavern feeling cold. :nuts:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4090/5180855002_256237fa3b_b.jpg

I dont want to offend somebody but this stadium looks ugly,clunky and way too expensive for the price without roof and without special design

Allianz Arena in Munich cost 390 mio €...
http://shop.fcbayern.de/cat_images/zoom/zoom-7478-fc-bayern-Poster-Allianz-Arena-Innenraum-360-.png
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Allianz-Arena.blue.red.jpg/250px-Allianz-Arena.blue.red.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allianz_Arena&usg=__6dznE7sHiUdzJ8bVDKgck2OWdO0=&h=189&w=250&sz=16&hl=de&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=EvVGCCxAEX5owM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=159&ei=8NMIT7MHzIO1BqKk0aID&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dallianz%2Barena%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D629%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=714&vpy=367&dur=2206&hovh=151&hovw=200&tx=81&ty=86&sig=116534853282259990079&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0

That look doesn't work for every market. Partial roof not needed. Much more open plan should be taken advantage of by architects who are aware of their surroundings.

I have workdd in Mlipitas, North SJ and North Sunnyvale over the years and it's quite true that areas like Shoreline in Mt. View and the north end of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale can get very windy.

But this is not that close to the shore. In any event, the windiness is usually in the summer when there are great heat differentials between the ocean, bay and inland areas. I don't believe this will be an issue after September, and not much of an issue ever. Of course, storms occasionally come through, but that's true everywhere.

But I'd be interested in hearing if others think that there would be much wind. Certainly better to address it before building begins.
I used to work around the corner from this site when PALM had their offices there. I also used to play a lot of golf across the street at Santa Clara Muni. In the afternoon, it is guaranteed to be windy. The wind comes from the North because of the Bay. Usually 1-2 club wind, sometimes more. If you are familiar with golf, that is some strong wind.

Just heard that there's another referendum to stop the Stadium!! HOORAY!! Maybe I'll go down and sign!!

That look doesn't work for every market. Partial roof not needed. Much more open plan should be taken advantage of by architects who are aware of their surroundings.

Ok probably a roof is not necessary in hot places. But a roof is good for a close and special atmosphere. Especially in night games. And as i know american football games arent played in spring or summer, so for a club of the north a roof??




http://www.muenchenblogger.de/files/imagecache/ic_scale_420/Allianz-Arena.blue_.red_.jpg
https://www.ratestogo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/traf1.jpg

New Meadowland would look so much better with a roof. I dont get why this stadium was so expensive, it looks cheap

http://www.tailgating.com/userfiles/image/maps%20page/new_meadowlands.jpg

As far as i know.
At most US stadiums the land cost are included. While at many european stadiums the land cost are not included. Sometimes its free.

The US stadiums use more steel (faster) and IMO the quality (especially at the luxury areas) is better.

And maybe also the workers get more in the USA.


And yes, SF do not need a roof. And roof / nor roof is quite important for the game. Wind etc.?!

much larger club areas in most NFL and MLB stadiums. Nicer concourses than I've seen in most international stadiums here. Many more areas for activity during the game. Notice that the international stadiums that are more similar are also similarly expensive. Not a coincidence.

And a big thing. Partial roofs do not keep cold or heat out. They are good at keeping sunlight out and precipitation. We in Texas already know this from Texas Stadium. It was like a refrigerator in the cold and like a stagnant, humid swamp when it was really hot. Even before the top section of suites enclosed the stadium. Notice that the city with England like weather(Seattle) is the city with the partial roof NFL stadium and MLB stadium with a retractable roof that simply covers, but doesn't completely enclose. Many of the teams that do play in snowy areas have fanbases that relish the snow. Watch a game in Green Bay or New England during a snowstorm. The fans seem to be that much crazier.

Sitting in the cold, rain, and snow is part of American Football. It just is.

I dont want to offend somebody but this stadium looks ugly,clunky and way too expensive for the price without roof and without special design

Allianz Arena in Munich cost 390 mio €...
http://shop.fcbayern.de/cat_images/zoom/zoom-7478-fc-bayern-Poster-Allianz-Arena-Innenraum-360-.png
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Allianz-Arena.blue.red.jpg/250px-Allianz-Arena.blue.red.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allianz_Arena&usg=__6dznE7sHiUdzJ8bVDKgck2OWdO0=&h=189&w=250&sz=16&hl=de&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=EvVGCCxAEX5owM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=159&ei=8NMIT7MHzIO1BqKk0aID&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dallianz%2Barena%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D629%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=714&vpy=367&dur=2206&hovh=151&hovw=200&tx=81&ty=86&sig=116534853282259990079&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0

This stadium is an old cookie cutter multipurpose from the 70's. This was hot back then, but isn't anymore.

Just heard that there's another referendum to stop the Stadium!! HOORAY!! Maybe I'll go down and sign!!

Why?

I used to work around the corner from this site when PALM had their offices there. I also used to play a lot of golf across the street at Santa Clara Muni. In the afternoon, it is guaranteed to be windy. The wind comes from the North because of the Bay. Usually 1-2 club wind, sometimes more. If you are familiar with golf, that is some strong wind.

That must have been back in the 3Com spin days. I did a ton of work for them back then.

You overstate the wind. In the middle of summer on a golf course, yes; not so much otherwise. In general the weather is very mild and very pleasant afternoons from Sept to Nov. December can get cold, but not like Chicago, Green Bay, NY/NJ and many others. Neither wind nor cold are going to be issues as a general rule.

I absolutely oppose roofs for any stadium in California. Much more appropriate in Europe where the weather is bad pretty much all the time.

As far as i know.
At most US stadiums the land cost are included. While at many european stadiums the land cost are not included. Sometimes its free.

The US stadiums use more steel (faster) and IMO the quality (especially at the luxury areas) is better.

And maybe also the workers get more in the USA.

And yes, SF do not need a roof. And roof / nor roof is quite important for the game. Wind etc.?!

robbery4774..I hope you read this^^. All true. Every word.

The roof discussion has been beat to death in this forum. That's old news. Real old. Americans like the sunshine. That's how we roll.

You have no idea the cost of land & labor in the NY-NJ metro area do you? And if you've ever been to the Meadowlands(I have) trust me it's not cheaply built or cheap by any means.

We brits like the sunshine too. We just don't have it has much by california but the roof talk is old and pointless. Still think the tv bosses had a hand in asking some of the teams not to put roofs on their new stadiums cos of the shadows of the roof blocking the pictures of the game making it look aweful.

That must have been back in the 3Com spin days. I did a ton of work for them back then.

You overstate the wind. In the middle of summer on a golf course, yes; not so much otherwise. In general the weather is very mild and very pleasant afternoons from Sept to Nov. December can get cold, but not like Chicago, Green Bay, NY/NJ and many others. Neither wind nor cold are going to be issues as a general rule.

I absolutely oppose roofs for any stadium in California. Much more appropriate in Europe where the weather is bad pretty much all the time.
I don't know man. I worked there for over 4 years. On most days, at lunch I was outside jogging. I played golf at Santa Clara Muni at least once a week for about 10 years, sometimes more. I played in the fall, winter, and whatever season, and there was always a lot of wind. The golf course is right across the street from the parking lot where they are putting the stadium.

My colleagues play in a corporate tennis league at the the tennis club that is part of the golf course, which runs through the fall. They b!tch and complain all the time about how windy it is there and how it affects their tennis matches.

I didn't say it needed a roof or dome. Just stating my experiences in the area.

But I guess you know more than me and I'm overstating. What do I know?:ohno:

Sorry, if this is a repost, but here's a nice HD flyover of the new stadium:

http://youtu.be/4cDuOYCVtBs

Ok probably a roof is not necessary in hot places. But a roof is good for a close and special atmosphere. Especially in night games. And as i know american football games arent played in spring or summer, so for a club of the north a roof??




http://www.muenchenblogger.de/files/imagecache/ic_scale_420/Allianz-Arena.blue_.red_.jpg
https://www.ratestogo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/traf1.jpg

New Meadowland would look so much better with a roof. I dont get why this stadium was so expensive, it looks cheap

http://www.tailgating.com/userfiles/image/maps%20page/new_meadowlands.jpg

NOTHING about Metlife Stadium says "cheap".

.... I really don't understand why you people have this fetish for roofs. WE DON'T NEED THEM.

NOTHING about Metlife Stadium says "cheap".

.... I really don't understand why you people have this fetish for roofs. WE DON'T NEED THEM.

I think some of the new translucent roofs are a plus such as St. James Park in Newcastle or Stade des Alpes in Grenoble, France but many times this penchant by some European forumers for these ugly roofs which are totally aesthetically nondescript and just add darkness as much as anything is rather odd to me.

This stadium is an old cookie cutter multipurpose from the 70's. This was hot back then, but isn't anymore.
Allianz Arena is not multipurpose it's only for football and no other events.
Are you kidding me, this stadium is so perfectly build that even when you sit on the highest in the corner you still see perfectly.

I dont like "most" american stadium because they aren't build for making every place good for looking, but for making it good looking for the people who pay the most. I don't like how these two stadiums are divided into upper and lower class. But surely you have one of the greatest stadiums and arenas in this world. ;-)
http://jamesmuspratt.com/images/131.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/5088195827_ced690c129.jpg

And this is how it should be in my opinion:
http://www.extradeportes.com/futbol-f1-tennis/rod-laver-arena-ep_1249257i.jpg
http://www.primesport.com/Content/Images/Venues/venue_104263.jpg
http://blog.robinsonsequestrian.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/New-Wembley-Nov-06.JPG

Honestly i reall like MetsLife :)

Its quite normal to seperate normal seats, VIP seats and executive suites.

And honestly most luxury parts (Lounges, suites etc) are from the USA.

I dont want to offend somebody but this stadium looks ugly,clunky and way too expensive for the price without roof and without special design

Allianz Arena in Munich cost 390 mio €...


Seismic Design Velocities for Munich:
Ss = 0.26, S1 = 0.10

Seismic Design Velocities for Santa Clara:
Ss = 2.55, S1 = 1.08

In layman's terms, the design earthquake for the new Niner's stadium is 10X that of Allianz Arena. I'd call that a special design consideration. That is also a very big reason why it is impractical to have a roofed stadium in California. That much weight, that high up, with indirect support below much of it will produce insane resultant seismic forces. Farmer's Field will have a relatively light roof so it won't be as big a problem there, but the only reason they want one is to make the facility a true mutlipurpose venue. All they want the Niner's stadium to be is a football stadium.

I don't know man. I worked there for over 4 years. On most days, at lunch I was outside jogging. I played golf at Santa Clara Muni at least once a week for about 10 years, sometimes more. I played in the fall, winter, and whatever season, and there was always a lot of wind. The golf course is right across the street from the parking lot where they are putting the stadium.

My colleagues play in a corporate tennis league at the the tennis club that is part of the golf course, which runs through the fall. They b!tch and complain all the time about how windy it is there and how it affects their tennis matches.

I didn't say it needed a roof or dome. Just stating my experiences in the area.

But I guess you know more than me and I'm overstating. What do I know?:ohno:

No offense. I conceded there is some wind, especially on a golf course in the summer months when the "bay air conditioner" is working. But not so much inside a stadium in the Fall.

In any event, the designers should certainly take it into account. But a roof strikes me as unnecessary since ATT, Stanford, Berkeley, SJS, etc. have uncovered facilities. Even Candlestick primarily had wind problems on the hottest summer days (that is, when it was hot inland and windy at the Stick from the ocean air being sucked in by the heat).

I think some of the new translucent roofs are a plus such as St. James Park in Newcastle or Stade des Alpes in Grenoble, France but many times this penchant by some European forumers for these ugly roofs which are totally aesthetically nondescript and just add darkness as much as anything is rather odd to me.

Sports Direct Arena

Allianz Arena is not multipurpose it's only for football and no other events.
Are you kidding me, this stadium is so perfectly build that even when you sit on the highest in the corner you still see perfectly.


I wasn't talking about your stadium, I was talking about Old Candle Stick. Allianz is a brilliant stadium but I dont think it would cut it in America.

From various sources: a new SC group is circiling a petition to get the city council to reverse their decision. The Niners are taking a low profile but the electricians union (IBEW) is hiring up to 20 "interceptors" to clarify misstatements made by the people out getting signatures (I suppose this means setting up a booth next to them at shopping malls). I guess the IBEW is serious about 1B projects using its workers.

FLASH: Moody's drop Santa Clara's credit rating to D-. Dooms the new stadium!!

^^ For real?

^^ For real?
Nope. Not a thing about it in the news.

So how does one report another person for trolling? "Knitemplar" is deliberately posting false information.

From various sources: a new SC group is circiling a petition to get the city council to reverse their decision. The Niners are taking a low profile but the electricians union (IBEW) is hiring up to 20 "interceptors" to clarify misstatements made by the people out getting signatures (I suppose this means setting up a booth next to them at shopping malls). I guess the IBEW is serious about 1B projects using its workers.
And there is already a legal challenge to the claims made on the petition. In 1999 the Court of Appeals ruled that false or misleading claims on a petition is grounds for removing the petition from the ballot. Not entirely ironically, the case in question was San Francisco Forty Niners v. Nishioka, where a group tried to get the agreement where San Francisco would have contributed $100 million to the new stadium at Candlestick Point overturned. False claims were made on that petition, and a judge ordered it removed.

Various legal groups have stated that this is a similar situation, based on claims by the "Santa Clara Plays Fair" group.

http://www.santaclaraweekly.com/2012/Issue-2/misleading_language_may_doom_stadium_agreements_challenge.html

Yeah, disagreeing, even if it's poorly reasoned, is one thing but posting false information is just plain trolling.

The general response seems to be that there are legal issues with the anti-stadium petition.

The more relevant analog is to Cisco Field, where Selig is saying that he wants to see the Giant's surrogate litigation with SJ settled as part of the overall decision. This presumably would happen only if the Giants get a big enough pay-off, which could drag out the process.

Yeah, disagreeing, even if it's poorly reasoned, is one thing but posting false information is just plain trolling.

The general response seems to be that there are legal issues with the anti-stadium petition.

The more relevant analog is to Cisco Field, where Selig is saying that he wants to see the Giant's surrogate litigation with SJ settled as part of the overall decision. This presumably would happen only if the Giants get a big enough pay-off, which could drag out the process.
And the Giants are probably frightened by looking at what happened to the Orioles, whose attendance took a 20-25% hit when the Expos moved south and became the Nationals. It's not a direct correlation, but there are similarities.

And the Giants are probably frightened by looking at what happened to the Orioles, whose attendance took a 20-25% hit when the Expos moved south and became the Nationals. It's not a direct correlation, but there are similarities.

It is an interesting analogy. As I recall, none of the two teams cities (LA, Chicago, NY) has "territorial" rules within its area. But Baltimore and DC are quite near to each other (about the same as SF and SJ), and some now argue they are part of the same metropolitan area.

But the non-analogous point is that Oakland is MUCH closer to SF than SJ is. This considerably weakens the logic of the the A's "invading" Giants territory since they are moving further from SF proper and further from ATT.

And the Giants are probably frightened by looking at what happened to the Orioles, whose attendance took a 20-25% hit when the Expos moved south and became the Nationals. It's not a direct correlation, but there are similarities.

I am sure the consistent poor play of the Orioles did nothing to contribute to that either.......

The O's drop in attendance has very little to do with the Nationals and more to do with 14 straight losing seasons and an owner that everyone hates. Baltimore and DC are two completely different cities and each metro area has plenty of people and plenty of money. There are very very few people that consider themselves from the Baltimore/Washington area, it's almost always one or the other.

Although it probably won't make a difference because Oakland and SF already exist. Peter Angelos did a lot of posturing and received an unbelievable TV package from MLB when the Nationals came to town. If the Giants complain enough, they'll probably get something out of this.

But the non-analogous point is that Oakland is MUCH closer to SF than SJ is. This considerably weakens the logic of the the A's "invading" Giants territory since they are moving further from SF proper and further from ATT.
But we both know that SJ is where the money is, and that is what this battle is really about.

But back to the Niners, do you think their success this season will assist in ticket sales and a naming rights deal? Nobody forecast this level of success before the season.

But we both know that SJ is where the money is, and that is what this battle is really about.

But back to the Niners, do you think their success this season will assist in ticket sales and a naming rights deal? Nobody forecast this level of success before the season.

My guess is that they would pretty much have sold out regardless but this is a serendipity (love that word). Football is an all day event once every two weeks for 16 weeks, so even SF, Sacto, or North Bay fans are not going to drop their season packages. And a bunch more tech corps will buy or expand their holdings. Same would apply for the Raiders, if they come along.

Different issue for the A's, where the fans have to sign up for 81 times a year.

But we both know that SJ is where the money is, and that is what this battle is really about.

But back to the Niners, do you think their success this season will assist in ticket sales and a naming rights deal? Nobody forecast this level of success before the season.
I agree. Most the Giants fan come from the South.

NFL approves $200 million loan for 49ers stadium

By BARRY WILNER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.

INDIANAPOLIS — NFL owners have approved a $200 million loan to help the San Francisco 49ers build a stadium south of Santa Clara.

Owners approved another part of the funding package on Thursday. The team and Santa Clara announced in December that they'd received an $850 million loan to cover most of the estimated $1 billion cost.

The rest of the cost will be covered by the league's loan, a hotel tax and Santa Clara's redevelopment funds.

The 49ers have to address their current Candlestick Park lease with the city of San Francisco. It hopes to have the new, 67,000-seat stadium open for the 2015 season.


http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120202/WIRE/120209898/1350?Title=-NFL-approves-200-million-loan-for-49ers-stadium

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120202/WIRE/120209898/1350?Title=-NFL-approves-200-million-loan-for-49ers-stadium
This is excellent news. Not only does this confirm the hoped-for NFL money, but provides an extra $50 million. They are now down to less than 60% of the total cost needing to be financed, with naming-rights agreements and PSLs for "normal" seats yet to come.

And significantly less ammo for the local groups specializing in forecasts of the imminent collapse of the sky.

Shows that money can be had if you have a product and a business plan and someone competent in charge.