SANTA CLARA - New 49ers Stadium (68,500) [Archive]

schlaflin

May 21st, 2010, 10:57 PM

Santa Clara council OKs 49ers stadium hotel tax, report for Yahoo campus
By Lisa Fernandez
lfernandez@mercurynews.com
Posted: 05/12/2010 09:49:49 AM PDT

The Santa Clara City Council voted yes on two crucial developments Tuesday night, giving the nod to a hotel tax if a proposed 49ers stadium is built and to the development of a massive new Yahoo complex.

In a 5-2 vote, the council agreed to create a tax district of eight hotels where guests would pay an additional 2 percent tax on the cost of the room, with the extra money going to help pay for the 68,500-seat stadium. That's on top of the current transient occupancy tax of 9.5 percent already levied on guests of any hotel in the city.

Council members Will Kennedy and Jamie McLeod voted no. They have been vocal about their concerns regarding public funding going to pay for a new $937 million stadium.

Economic study reports show the tax would likely generate $35 million, which would go toward the stadium. An additional $79 million of public contributions are earmarked for the project. The team and the National Football League say they are putting in about $493 million, and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority is putting in about $330 million.

The hotel tax increase would only take effect after the stadium is built and would not be created if Santa Clarans vote down the stadium measure June 8.

The eight hotels in the district are closest to where the new stadium would be built, on a parking lot near the Great America theme park. They "are expected to benefit significantly from the proposed football stadium, primarily from home game weekend
Advertisement
bookings in fall and winter, which is historically the slowest booking period for hotels located in a business district," according to economic findings from the city and the 49ers.

The hotels are Plaza Suites, Embassy Suites, Santa Clara Biltmore, Avatar, Santa Clara Marriott, Santa Clara Hilton, Hyatt Regency Santa Clara and Hotel Sierra. These hotels have 2,600 of the 3,800 hotel rooms, or 68 percent, in the city.

Also Tuesday, the hotel owners unanimously voted to support the new tax. They each voted per acre of land owned. Coincidentally, there are 49 acres.

In a separate matter, the council voted 7-0 to certify the environmental impact report and approve a development agreement for a 3-million-square-foot Yahoo campus, which would be the city's largest development ever. Plans to break ground on the project, and consolidate many of the smaller, leased Yahoo offices in Santa Clara, have not yet been announced.

Looks like the Niners are finally getting a new stadium.

GunnerJacket

May 25th, 2010, 06:26 AM

I'm still leery of the Authority money heading into this, but the two bay-area teams have real dumps for homes. So long as the taxpayers get their money back, I'm all for seeing the Niners (and the Raiders, too, eventually) getting a new home. Especially if they still suck on the field!!!

brewerfan386

May 27th, 2010, 11:23 PM

CBS 5 Poll: 49ers Stadium Passage Likely
May 25, 2010 7:04 pm US/Pacific

Voters in Santa Clara appear poised to approve the plan for a new stadium for the 49ers, according to an exclusive KPIX-TV CBS 5 poll released Tuesday, paving the way for the football team's move out of San Francisco.

The poll, conducted for CBS 5 by SurveyUSA, found 56% of likely voters indicated they were certain to vote yes on Measure J, while 40% were certain to vote no. According to the poll data, the measure is backed by a majority of men and women across all age groups, along with whites, Hispanics and Asians, Democrats and Republicans.

Early voting is available in Santa Clara, and among the 37% of those surveyed who said they had already voted, the stadium measure was passing by a 2-to-1 margin. However, pollsters noted that opposition to ballot measures such as this one typically increase as Election Day approaches.

A yes vote would appear to all but guarantee that the 49ers would move from San Francisco, where the team was born in 1946. The team ownership has said the San Francisco name would remain.

The team has long expressed a desire to leave aging Candlestick Park and relocate to the proposed Santa Clara site next to the Great America amusement park and adjacent to the team's headquarters. The 49ers have spent about $1 million in support of the proposal and received the backing of the National Football League.

Cedar Fair L.P., the owners of Great America, filed a lawsuit over the 49ers stadium proposal, claiming the environmental impact report was inadequate. That suit has yet to be settled.

The CBS 5 poll of 577 likely Santa Clara voters was conducted by SurveyUSA on May 22-24 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1%.

(© MMX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

:cheers1:

Archbishop

May 30th, 2010, 06:34 AM

Great news!

en1044

May 30th, 2010, 08:02 AM

Not a fan of the move.

nomarandlee

May 30th, 2010, 08:46 AM

^^ Me either, even as an outsider. Though I guess I prefer it to them moving to L.A.

It will be werid that most in the north bay and from San Fran will be in closer proximity to their Bay neighbor Oakland Raiders then the team that will display the city name off in Santa Clara.

Basincreek

May 31st, 2010, 08:55 PM

Yeah, but the Raiders have......shall we say a niche fan base. And the vast majority of Niners fans, myself included, live way far away from San Fran anyways.

ChuckWA

May 31st, 2010, 10:54 PM

Not a fan of the move.
Its a shame that a city like San Francisco is not willing to build a new stadium. If they built something resembling the new Meadowlands stadium they would probably get to host a Superbowl on a regular basis.

atmada

June 1st, 2010, 10:44 AM

looks so awesome! :eek:

pesto

June 1st, 2010, 11:02 PM

Mayor Newsom of SF has now explained that the 49ers are going to win the vote in Santa Clara but that it has no meaning since the stadium will never be built because of their inability to get financing. In a year or two the 49ers will crawl back to SF and beg to be allowed to play, along with the Raiders, in the fully-funded, fully-permitted Hunter's Point Stadium, which Newsom has planned and developed.

On the slim chance that he is not 100% correct, it really is time to face the reality that the new demographic in SF are not huge sports supporters and as a result the fan base has move to East Bay and South Bay. The Santa Clara Stadium has an excellent, central location and really outstanding train and light-rail connection, which Candlestick and Hunter's Point are lacking. SF seems well advised to focus on residential and high-tech in the proposed areas.

Moreover, Santa Clara negotiated the deal so well that the SC electorate is apparently going to pass it quite easily, which is surprising in a mid-sized suburb with no history of sports fanaticism (except maybe swimming and diving).

Incidentally, the proposed stadium in downtown SJ for the Athletics is also shown leading by large numbers. That vote is likely to be in November.

nomarandlee

June 1st, 2010, 11:22 PM

Mayor Newsom of SF has now explained that the 49ers are going to win the vote in Santa Clara but that it has no meaning since the stadium will never be built because of their inability to get financing. In a year or two the 49ers will crawl back to SF and beg to be allowed to play, along with the Raiders, in the fully-funded, fully-permitted Hunter's Point Stadium, which Newsom has planned and developed.

On the slim chance that he is not 100% correct, it really is time to face the reality that the new demographic in SF are not huge sports supporters and as a result the fan base has move to East Bay and South Bay. The Santa Clara Stadium has an excellent, central location and really outstanding train and light-rail connection, which Candlestick and Hunter's Point are lacking. SF seems well advised to focus on residential and high-tech in the proposed areas.
.

So if Newsome thinks that a Hunters Point stadium is all a go then what is the argument over? I would think that the 49ers would rather play in the Hunters Point location than the Santa Clara one. Or do they? I didn't see what transit connections the Santa Clara site offered.

Is it basically over squabbling over how much the city will chip in? Do the 49ers want full revenue stream control over the facility when the 49ers play?

pesto

June 2nd, 2010, 08:57 PM

The 49ers considered SF for some time but finally became committed to Santa Clara with LA as the fall-back when no progress was made in SF. They have been putting millions into the Santa Clara vote.

It appears that Newsom has no real plan and is trying to make a political happy face (Hunter’s Point has zero transit, road issues and questions re pollution and local crime). Santa Clara has VTA rail (connecting South Bay); and Amtrak from East Bay, Sacto and Modesto; all stop right at the stadium. There is also Caltrain to the whole Peninsula but this requires a change of trains.

But the main point is that the 49er offices have been in Santa Clara for years and now the bulk of their fans are in the South Bay. SF is not where the fans or corporate sponsors are any more.

murina

June 9th, 2010, 10:45 PM

This stadium took another step forward.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/09/SPCM1DSAN3.DTL&type=49ers

The 49ers are hoping to play in Santa Clara in 2014.

al74

June 9th, 2010, 11:32 PM

I really don´t like it, it looks like and old stadium

Basincreek

June 10th, 2010, 12:46 AM

Yep, measure passed.

http://www.49ersnewstadium.com

crazyalex

June 10th, 2010, 12:53 AM

I really don´t like it, it looks like and old stadium

agree and maybe they just want classic style stadium

pesto

June 10th, 2010, 01:29 AM

Agreed that the design is nothing special, but not bad either. I just don't think that stadium design is a big motivator for spending money in most US cities. The coldness and lack of grace of some of the supposed "super" stadiums may have turned off people and nostalgica, comfort and convenience seem to be the new keys to a successful venue.

Benn

June 10th, 2010, 06:51 AM

It certainly doesn't look like $937 million

slipperydog

June 12th, 2010, 07:37 AM

It certainly doesn't look like $937 million'

True, but again, remember where it is being built.

Benn

June 13th, 2010, 02:35 AM

jay stew

June 13th, 2010, 09:46 AM

Santa Clara 49ers?

540_804

June 13th, 2010, 06:05 PM

Even so Minnesota is talking about a retractable roof stadium the same size for a $100 million cheaper, and the roof is $215 million, so more than $300 million difference for essentially the same thing? And its not like this is in downtown San Fran this is way out in Santa Clara.

Doesn't the Minnesota plan involve reusing portions of the Metrodome? That may be the source of some of the price difference.

Benn

June 14th, 2010, 12:06 AM

The Ellerbe Becket proposal the City and state favor does. But not really with the most current one from HKS the Vikings favor, though there are very few details beyond some very conceptual renderings. Also with how much stadium Dallas just got for $1.1 billion I would feel a little short changed as a Niners fan.

brewerfan386

June 14th, 2010, 09:03 AM

49ers still have tough yards left to finish stadium deal

By Howard Mintz
Bay Area News Group
Posted: 06/11/2010 12:35:49 AM PDT
Updated: 06/11/2010 12:35:49 AM PDT

The day after winning big at the ballot box, San Francisco 49ers President Jed York said he was unfazed by the obstacles to securing almost $500 million in financing and tapping into hundreds of millions of dollars more needed to build a new stadium in Santa Clara.
But two NFL executives and others who follow stadium deals said Wednesday that there are no guarantees the 49ers can line up the money to break ground on a 68,500-seat, $937 million stadium next to the Great America theme park.
Some of the league's most storied franchises, including the Dallas Cowboys and New York Jets and Giants, have been unable to sell the naming rights to their new stadiums — a major source of funding in the 49ers' plan. And perhaps more important, the NFL's hoped-for contribution to the project could hinge on the dicey possibility of the 49ers sharing the new stadium with the Oakland Raiders.
"Even though they won this election, they are going to have a hard time getting this project financed," said one NFL executive familiar with stadium issues.
For starters, the team must get financial backing for much of its $493 million share of the project in tight economic times. In addition, that share has always been dependent on the NFL kicking in with significant help, as the league has done with other stadium projects in recent years — and the NFL's fund for such projects is depleted. "They are counting on money that's not really there right
Advertisement

now," said another NFL executive.Moreover, the NFL, while it does have options to replenish a stadium fund, has made it clear that it would prefer the 49ers and Raiders to share a stadium. The league could link the level of any financial aid to the two rivals figuring out a way to navigate differences and join forces in Santa Clara. Two teams would generate more money for the city, but also double the potential traffic and noise headaches on game days.
The 49ers face other resistance, including resolving long-running conflicts with Cedar Fair Entertainment. The corporate owners of Great America have warned the city and the 49ers that they have not addressed concerns about lease violations and other threats to business from an NFL stadium.
But money is what really stands in the way for the 49ers.
League officials were not available to comment Wednesday on the team's prospects of getting NFL aid. Executives familiar with the process, however, say the NFL has various ways to aid teams building new stadiums, even with the depletion of the so-called "G3" fund, which helped finance the Giants' and Jets' joint new stadium.
At the same time, the NFL could exert its influence and make it a much sweeter deal for the 49ers and Raiders if they agree to share the stadium. "The NFL is not going to dictate that two teams share a stadium," one NFL executive said. "But the NFL could make the financial assistance far more attractive to two teams sharing a stadium than for a one-team stadium."
That is a tangled scenario at a time when the Raiders are exploring ways to build a stadium of their own in Oakland. While congratulating the 49ers on the election win, Amy Trask, the Raiders' chief executive, played down the sharing possibility Wednesday, only reiterating her position that the Raiders had an "open mind" about sharing a stadium with the 49ers somewhere in the Bay Area.
York, meanwhile, told the San Jose Mercury News that there have been no active discussions with the Raiders, even though the deal with Santa Clara permits the 49ers to bring in a second team. And York is confident that the team can not only persuade the NFL to help once the league reaches a new collective bargaining agreement, but also secure financing from investors.
"If we didn't feel comfortable with that number, we wouldn't have worked for 3 1/2 years on Santa Clara and spent close to $4 million winning an election," he said.
Santa Clara voters on Tuesday backed the stadium deal by approving Measure J with 59.6 percent of the vote. The measure locked in a $114 million public contribution toward the stadium.
Even if the 49ers get the rest of their financing in order, there is still an additional $330 million gap that must be closed to pay the construction total. Under the terms of the deal, a city-run stadium authority will be established to operate the stadium and raise that money, from getting naming rights to the stadium to selling seat licenses and luxury boxes.
But that, too, is no easy task.
While teams such as the Arizona Cardinals and Indianapolis Colts not so long ago attracted naming rights deals exceeding $100 million, more recently the Cowboys and Giants and Jets have been unable to sell naming rights to new stadiums. And the Jets have been struggling in recent months to sell seat licenses.
Roger Noll, a Stanford University economist who has studied the 49ers stadium deal, said in an e-mail exchange Wednesday that the 49ers' "main problem" is getting NFL money and raising revenue from naming rights and seat licenses.
Still, one NFL executive said the economic climate should be better for the 49ers as they approach stadium construction than it has been for those other teams. Even Jamie McLeod, one of two City Council members opposed to Measure J, said the debate over that $330 million figure is over.
"Now we have to figure out a way to make it happen and do it in a way that protects the city," she said.
Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan said the city will get the stadium authority rolling soon. But everyone agrees that the outcome of this part of the stadium battle will unfold over a long period of time, and there may be as much suspense over the result as there was during the Measure J campaign.
San Francisco officials are watching closely, still clinging to hopes the financial part of the deal will fall through and the 49ers will consider a proposed stadium project at Hunters Point.
"I think they are going to hit a few stumbling blocks," said former 49ers President Carmen Policy, who is advising the developer of the San Francisco project. "The realities of financing a project like that in today's day and age are going to come home to roost."

Come on NFL just fund the darn building already! :bash::ohno:

pesto

June 14th, 2010, 07:42 PM

Useless article; probably a plant from the the city of SF or the Hunter's Point developers. It's mostly generalities about the bad economy and retread quotes from opponents of the stadium. At the end of the day, all it says is that the 49ers have to go about arranging financing now. Does the author figure they haven't been thinking about this for the last 5 years?

Just last week the stadium opponents were saying that a yes vote would make the 49ers rich at the expense of the people of Santa Clara and that the stadium would bankrupt the city? When the voters dismissed that lie, the new lie is that Santa Clara was "too smart" and left the 49ers facing a hopeless financial situation.

Given the huge corporate presence on the Peninsua and South Bay, financing does not strike me as a real problem. I think they might be able to sell seats as well, given that they still have the same fans from the Bay Area (with shorter average commutes) plus thousands in additional corporate boxes that will be snapped up. I'm talking about Google, Intel, HP, Oracle, Cisco, Apple, 200 VC's, law firms, financial advisors, marketing, PR, recruiters, technical services, not to mention areospace, defense, biotech, etc. Lots of football fans and lots of money.

eljeferino

June 17th, 2010, 07:49 AM

While I'm not a huge fan of the design, as a 49ers fan it is imperative they get a new stadium asap. They've become one of the lowest revenue-generating teams because of Candlestick and in order to compete with the big spenders, they need this new stadium badly.

And while it may not be San Francisco, the team headquarters has been in Santa Clara for a while now so it makes sense. also consider over 90% of 49ers fans come from the San Francisco Bay Area, and not actually from the city of San Francisco. The 40 mile move south won't be an issue.

The cost does seem quite high for the pedestrian design, but being built right by Silicon Valley is no cheap task.

Tom Hughes

June 17th, 2010, 12:22 PM

That appears to be an astronomical price for this stadium. If, as some have stated this is due mainly to high land prices, I would seriously consider the merits of moving at all. This stadium appears to be very basic.... it even states that the lower tier holds 45,000 alone, and these shallow raked tiers are generally very cheaply constructed seats..... meaning the largest proportion of seats are at budget cost surely. This doesn't equate to the final cost given. Therefore, it would be interesting to see a full breakdown.

I realise sport is a completely different animal in the US, but I can't get my head around relocating teams to completely different areas. It seems bizarre to just leave your roots/history/identity in one fell swoop.... is there no value associated to these over there?

Archbishop

June 17th, 2010, 03:56 PM

It's barely a move. They are just going from San Francisco to Santa Clara. Santa Clara is just 40 miles away from San Francisco.

RaiderATO

June 17th, 2010, 06:27 PM

They're moving closer to their fan-base and into what appears to be a more accessible area. This isn't really a move.

pesto

June 17th, 2010, 11:57 PM

In a way, this IS a move in that the SJ area has developed much more than SF in recent years. It's analogous to the NY teams moving to LA and SF but on a smaller scale (and probably without a name change). These kinds of moves make a lot more sense in a country where population started in one corner and has over time moved south and west in huge numbers. In the Bay Area it started in SF and Oakland and has spread south and east.

Another factor for moves is the large number of mid-sized cities that find it attractive to lure teams that are not doing well economically in older cities that have not kept up in population. Not good for the fans in the old town, but a lot more reasonable than having teams in, say, Syracuse or Canton, and none in Houston or Dallas.

Tom Hughes

June 18th, 2010, 01:23 AM

It's barely a move. They are just going from San Francisco to Santa Clara. Santa Clara is just 40 miles away from San Francisco.

That would be akin to Everton or Liverpool FC moving to Manchester...... a complete non-starter on every level. Although I realise distances are measured on a different scale over there, I still wonder what is to happen with the current local fanbase who have kept the club/team/franchise alive for so many years..... or is it genuinely the case that the bulk of the fanbase is elsewhere? Is there an efficient mass transit system to take them to the new venue? Liverpool for instance have a national/international fanbase with far more fans living outside the city than in it, yet the highest concentration will always be in the city/metropolitan area itself, and it is these that will fill most of the seats most regularly. Does Santa Clara really posses a greater number and concentration of 49ers fans? I've been to SF many times, but can't profess to know much about its teams and their history etc.

Archbishop

June 18th, 2010, 01:55 AM

weava

June 18th, 2010, 02:54 AM

Someone from San Francisco would know better than me, but I believe that the 49ers have their fanbase way more spread out over the Bay Area and Northern California region than the Raiders who are mostly just in Oakland. Also, like pesto said, Santa Clara is very close to San Jose which is about to top 1,000,000 people in the city, so it will open up the team to a whole new big city as well. I am not sure if BART extends to them though.

I woudn't consider that opening up a new city. Americans are huge NFL fans, many teams have statewide or regionwide fanbases. I'm assuming that the 9ers built a big fanbase that stretched well beyond SJ when they were winning superbowls. Build a winning team and people will drive 100s of miles to see them so moving 40 miles is nothing for only 8 home dates per year. I know my team,the KC chiefs has many of the fans come from 100-200 miles away to the games. The county with the largest number of KC season tickets holders is johnson in Kansas, its in another STATE.

en1044

June 18th, 2010, 03:54 AM

That would be akin to Everton or Liverpool FC moving to Manchester...... a complete non-starter on every level. Although I realise distances are measured on a different scale over there, I still wonder what is to happen with the current local fanbase who have kept the club/team/franchise alive for so many years..... or is it genuinely the case that the bulk of the fanbase is elsewhere? Is there an efficient mass transit system to take them to the new venue? Liverpool for instance have a national/international fanbase with far more fans living outside the city than in it, yet the highest concentration will always be in the city/metropolitan area itself, and it is these that will fill most of the seats most regularly. Does Santa Clara really posses a greater number and concentration of 49ers fans? I've been to SF many times, but can't profess to know much about its teams and their history etc.

It would be nothing like the moves you gave examples of. 40 miles really isnt a huge distance, especially in California. We dont have multiple teams in a city like London, for example. One city, one team. Because of that, everyone who lives in the city or the suburbs is going to be a fan of the team. The same group of people that have been supporting the 49ers all these years are going to be the same group of people that supports them now.

RaiderATO

June 18th, 2010, 05:02 AM

I still wonder what is to happen with the current local fanbase who have kept the club/team/franchise alive for so many years.....

They will drive 45 min. further south, or in many fans' cases, they'll drive 45 min. less and avoid SF altogether.

http://www.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=San+Francisco,+California+94124+(Candlestick+Park)&daddr=37.395944,-121.97225&hl=en&geocode=Fd5tPwId6Ye0-CHYDmbXh3ch4g%3BFeidOgId5tm6-A&mra=ls&sll=37.547844,-122.191315&sspn=0.579244,1.142578&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=10

It can cater to more of the bay area, and San Jose has more room to grow than SF does. Also, judging on stereotypes, the population of San Jose is more apt to attend NFL games than the SF citizenry.

krudmonk

June 18th, 2010, 05:09 AM

the Raiders who are mostly just in Oakland.
No.

eMKay

June 18th, 2010, 05:12 AM

They are essentially moving from San Francisco to San Jose. That's like the N.Y. jets moving from Queens to Meadowlands. Or the Detroit Lions moving from Pontiac to....Detroit.

It's a non issue really. The Buffalo Bills have thousands of fans drive from Toronto and Rochester, I'm sure a team with the history the 49ers have draw from an even wider area.

murina

June 18th, 2010, 05:28 AM

The 49ers fan base is probably at least 100 mile radius. I know several people who have 9er season tickets who live more than 100 miles from the current stadium. Come to think of it, I know a Hawaiian (lives on Oahu) who has 49ers season tickets!

There is precious little public transportation to the current stadium, but there is some public transportation close to the new site.

As far as 49er fans are concerned, this is like moving the stadium across the street. It is a totally different way of life than in the UK!

goonzy

June 18th, 2010, 06:37 AM

Okay, as a natural San Franciscan born/raised and also a big "Niner" fan here is my take on the issue:

If the 49ers actually move to Santa Clara I will no longer consider myself a 49er fan. Why?
Because they will no longer be in San Francisco, they would actually be located in the Santa Clara Valley AKA Silicon Valley AKA San Jose AKA 408 AKA South Bay. The thing about the Bay Area is that it is split up into 4 regions. SF is not considered in the same region as Santa Clara and thats what the big fuss is about. But whats the SF region you ask? Well, greater SF consist of the City, the Peninsula and Marin in local term.
Greater San Francisco region: AKA West Bay AKA Golden Gate AKA 415/650

If the 49er stadium was located within this region. There would not be a big deal.

rantanamo

June 18th, 2010, 08:02 AM

welcome to the rest of the US 9er fans. Cowboys haven't played in Dallas since the 60s. Giants haven't played in NY since the 70s. Skins in D.C. since the 80s. Dolphins in Miami since the 80s. This isn't a dense country. Fanbases are more than just the city they rep. You may not consider it your region in the same way Fort Worthians try to seperate themselves from Dallas, but its your region and there may be more fans of your team there than in what you consider your region.

en1044

June 20th, 2010, 06:41 AM

weava

June 20th, 2010, 07:08 AM

Moving this team away from SF just doesnt seem right. Santa Clara is pretty far away from Candlestick, enough to warrant taking the "San Francisco" name off of the team. It just cant be there. The Bay Area has many different identities, and Santa Clara is just not one I can associate with the 49ers. Will fans still show up in droves? Of course. But if they move, they have to change the name.

Its not the same as in Dallas, NY, DC or Miami. They all play either right outside the city or in an area where you cant really tell where one city ends and the other begins. Santa Clara is very much removed from San Francisco.

Its much more than a "move across the street."

Ok, Santa Clara, Home of the SAN FRANSICO BAY 49ers, there is your solution. It would be no different than the Tampa Bay Rays being in St. Pete, across the bay from the city of Tampa.

rantanamo

June 20th, 2010, 12:51 PM

I have spent many summers with family in San Francisco and have seen many games at Candlestick, and I share goonzy's opinion on this.

Moving this team away from SF just doesnt seem right. Santa Clara is pretty far away from Candlestick, enough to warrant taking the "San Francisco" name off of the team. It just cant be there. The Bay Area has many different identities, and Santa Clara is just not one I can associate with the 49ers. Will fans still show up in droves? Of course. But if they move, they have to change the name.

Its not the same as in Dallas, NY, DC or Miami. They all play either right outside the city or in an area where you cant really tell where one city ends and the other begins. Santa Clara is very much removed from San Francisco.

Its much more than a "move across the street."

Do you really think most 49er fans are in San Francisco. This isn't about city identity. The team isn't moving to Sacramento. Like I said, welcome to the rest of the country.

And its not the same as Dallas? You're talking about identity. You realize people in Fort Worth don't associate themselves as part of DFW to the point they feel they have an entirely different culture? That's why its not about city identity.

dfwabel

June 21st, 2010, 04:50 AM

Someone from San Francisco would know better than me, but I believe that the 49ers have their fanbase way more spread out over the Bay Area and Northern California region than the Raiders who are mostly just in Oakland. Also, like pesto said, Santa Clara is very close to San Jose which is about to top 1,000,000 people in the city, so it will open up the team to a whole new big city as well. I am not sure if BART extends to them though.

In general, you cannot tell where Santa Clara ends and San Jose begins. As a city, there is more population in Santa Clara/San Jose than San Francisco. Plus, the proposed stadium is adjacent to the team's training complex where they have been since the days of Bill Walsh.

As for BART, it does not extend to Santa Clara County. It is proposed for it to do so, but it will be connected via the East Bay (Alameda County) and would be completed by 2018 at the earliest. The route would not go to the stadium, but would connect with VTA (Santa Clara County's light rail) in Milpitas.

Since the NFL's G3 funding is dried up, the story on the previous page is correct as the team needs to find private financing to move forward.

en1044

June 22nd, 2010, 09:48 AM

Do you really think most 49er fans are in San Francisco. This isn't about city identity. The team isn't moving to Sacramento. Like I said, welcome to the rest of the country.

And its not the same as Dallas? You're talking about identity. You realize people in Fort Worth don't associate themselves as part of DFW to the point they feel they have an entirely different culture? That's why its not about city identity.

No its nothing like Dallas. Cowboys Stadium is what? 20 miles outside Dallas? And smack dab in the middle of a huge metropolitan area?

Santa Clara is almost 50 miles outside San Francisco. And because of the geographic limitations you have to drive down the peninsula to get there. I've already been talking with my uncle who lives in San Mateo and he is NOT happy with this move at all, just like most people there. I guess I could consider myself an unofficial resident of the area too, and Im not happy either. Santa Clara is so far away from a lot of people that the whole idea is just dumb. And there are a lot of people in the city and just south who are HUGE 49er fans.

Its about more than city identity. Its convenience too.

en1044

June 22nd, 2010, 09:51 AM

Ok, Santa Clara, Home of the SAN FRANSICO BAY 49ers, there is your solution. It would be no different than the Tampa Bay Rays being in St. Pete, across the bay from the city of Tampa.

Yeah but St Pete is still in the same general area. Santa Clara is not.

pesto

June 23rd, 2010, 11:56 PM

I think a few points need to be clarified. The 49ers have less than 10 percent of their fan base in SF and about 25 percent in Santa Clara County. The average current ticket holder will have a shorter commute to the game AFTER the move (per the 49ers) and of course many new South Bay fans will buy tickets. The simple fact is that the SF demographic is not sports oriented and hasn’t been for some years. It may sound odd, but they are moving into an area of stronger fan interest and loyalty and sheer quantity.

If you are from outside the area, you get the impression that SF is the big city in the Bay Area because it has the concentration of tourist attractions. But San Jose is actually larger in people and the great growth is going on well to the East and South. The huge corporations are in San Mateo County and especially Santa Clara County, not in SF.

It is not accurate to say that Santa Clara is not 49er country. The 49ers have had their headquarters and practice facilities in Santa Clara (adjacent to the new stadium) for many years. They are part of the same metropolitan areas as SF, SJ, Oakland and many other cities and more central to that area than SF.

The move greatly simplifies and consolidates operations for them and allows them to stop having to deal with a very difficult city (SF) to get things done. Their old stadium was not built for football and was generally considered in the bottom 2 or 3 in the NFL but SF had put off doing anything for more than 10 years. SF voters would not have supported any kind of city assistance for a 49er stadium.

krudmonk

June 24th, 2010, 05:39 AM

They should be the California 49ers anyway. Nobody panned for gold in San Francisco. It's like the Trail Blazers playing in Kansas City. That was just a pit stop.

pesto

June 24th, 2010, 07:27 PM

The name is going to be an entertaining discussion for some time since die-hard SF people want to "take-back" the name if they move and die-hard SJ people want "San Jose" or "South Bay" or some such (I think the Guadalupe River is the city limit, so the stadium is about 1/4 mile outside the SJ city limits). I think most people want to keep "SF" in the name but there are the Golden State Warriors, who chose to stay generic.

The renderings of the stadium do not use "SF" or "San Francisco" in any visible location, or at least none that I saw, so it looks like the 49ers are trying to play this neutral for the time being.

MS20

June 27th, 2010, 07:31 AM

You know whats great? Symmetrical stadiums. The lopsided feel of that design hurts my head. A nice bowl stadium would be great

rantanamo

June 27th, 2010, 10:38 PM

You know whats great? Symmetrical stadiums. The lopsided feel of that design hurts my head. A nice bowl stadium would be great

you know what's a little boring? Symmetrical stadiums.

MS20

June 28th, 2010, 06:24 AM

you know what's a little boring? Symmetrical stadiums.

Nah.

This stadium is hideous. Dont build a stadium if its not going to be symmetric, or worse making it look like its half completed

carlspannoosh

June 28th, 2010, 05:08 PM

Looks good to me. Non symmetry generally adds a bit of character.

Archbishop

June 28th, 2010, 10:17 PM

There's a reason no one designs bowl stadiums anymore.

nanor

June 28th, 2010, 10:54 PM

Why don't they just build a new stadium on the site of Candlestick Park? They could share with the Raiders for a season or two during construction.

EDIT: Sorry just found out. Ignore me.

pesto

June 29th, 2010, 12:05 AM

nanoor: no money, no interest. As has been mentioned before, the fans and money are now in Santa Clara County and East Bay, and the SF residents are not interested in kicking in funds.

Candlestick also has very poor auto access and no transit. Much the same problems for Hunter's Point, which is the new site that SF is pushing.

brewerfan386

July 4th, 2010, 02:08 AM

Whats the latest on the stadium?

The_Big_O

July 9th, 2010, 01:40 AM

ummmmm this thing is uuuuuugly!!!!!! candlestick looks better than this thing

Benn

July 9th, 2010, 05:07 AM

Looks good to me. Non symmetry generally adds a bit of character.

Goes back to the whole Renaissance vs Baroque; whether we want static perfect symmetry or the movement and the balance balance of unequal parts. Both can be achieved effectively, but its really whats the flavor of the day for a given society.

pesto

July 9th, 2010, 09:58 PM

or how about full-tilt rococo, ala some German chapels? Would be an interesting change from other stadiums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OttobeurenAbbey-basilika.jpg

dfwabel

July 9th, 2010, 10:58 PM

Whats the latest on the stadium?
Measure J passed, but the team still has to find financing for their part. The NFL's loan program is tapped out on funds. With a work stoppage possible for 2011, it will be more difficult to get financing.

Plus, Cedar Fair may still bring another suit against the city and team.

krudmonk

July 10th, 2010, 07:31 AM

This is a key issue. Not even half of the funding is accounted for. Let's hope this overpriced, understyled monstrosity is never built.

carlspannoosh

July 10th, 2010, 02:36 PM

Goes back to the whole Renaissance vs Baroque; whether we want static perfect symmetry or the movement and the balance balance of unequal parts. Both can be achieved effectively, but its really whats the flavor of the day for a given society.

I agree sort of. In a world full of cookie cutter multi purpose stadiums, variety meant less symmetry as was the case in the US.
In Britain it was normally the other way round with stadiums generally being a hotch potch mix of stands being built and expanded over many years. This meant that the more bowl like symmetrical stadium actually became a way to be different from the norm. The more uniform style has effectively now become a soccer style cookie cutter and so asymmetry is back in vogue.
The difference is that the ideal stadium for soccer tends to limit options when compared to American football. For example open no roof designs are not ideal for soccer and so in Europe they are not really an option.

brewerfan386

January 7th, 2011, 01:00 AM

Anything new about this project?

dfwabel

January 7th, 2011, 01:27 AM

Anything new about this project?

The 49ers are still having issues trying to find financing for its share. In addition, they signed a lease with the city/county of SF through 2014.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16930814?nclick_check=1

Axelferis

January 7th, 2011, 12:42 PM

i don't like at all the design :ohno:
only there you have this type of shape of stadiums! I can't imagine the development of this for the world.

Darloeye

January 7th, 2011, 02:55 PM

That would be akin to Everton or Liverpool FC moving to Manchester...... a complete non-starter on every level. Although I realise distances are measured on a different scale over there, I still wonder what is to happen with the current local fanbase who have kept the club/team/franchise alive for so many years..... or is it genuinely the case that the bulk of the fanbase is elsewhere? Is there an efficient mass transit system to take them to the new venue? Liverpool for instance have a national/international fanbase with far more fans living outside the city than in it, yet the highest concentration will always be in the city/metropolitan area itself, and it is these that will fill most of the seats most regularly. Does Santa Clara really posses a greater number and concentration of 49ers fans? I've been to SF many times, but can't profess to know much about its teams and their history etc.

Its more a move from newcastle to washington(uk). I like the stadium but when you look at the stadium they play it anything is going to be better. It looked goodhas a baseball stadium but because it has been added to over the years its just ugly now :cheers:

pesto

January 7th, 2011, 07:49 PM

Its more a move from newcastle to washington(uk). I like the stadium but when you look at the stadium they play it anything is going to be better. It looked goodhas a baseball stadium but because it has been added to over the years its just ugly now :cheers:

Might be worth repeating that most of the sports fans in the Bay Area are in South Bay (SJ) or East Bay (Oakland, Fremont and inland). SF city is about 10 percent of season ticketholders. Team management claims that the average fan will have a SHORTER commute to the Santa Clara stadium.

My opinion: The stadium is perfectly adequate. Almost all stadiums are generic; even the retro ones. "Cutting edge" nowadays usually means adding some absurd thematic component ("Let's make it look like a boat!"). Makes them look like they belong in a theme park.

KingmanIII

January 7th, 2011, 08:56 PM

i don't like at all the design :ohno:
only there you have this type of shape of stadiums! I can't imagine the development of this for the world.
Many people over here (myself included) think this is a butt-ugly design, too.

will101

January 30th, 2011, 11:08 PM

The 49ers are still having issues trying to find financing for its share. In addition, they signed a lease with the city/county of SF through 2014.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16930814?nclick_check=1

Originally they were supposed to break ground on this right about now. The labor dispute is one of the reasons why the entire time line has been postponed a year. Current plan is for construction starting about a year from now, with the stadium ready for the 2015 NFL season. Just to hedge their bets, the Niners have a series of one year options at Candlestick through 2023, but the team would prefer not to exercise any of them.

And rumors have been flying about which Silicon Valley mega corporation would be willing to shell out up to $500 million for the naming rights. With Cisco tied in with the A's, and HP already on the home of the Sharks, that leaves only about 40 possibilities. Some feel that Apple is ready to step up on this, but we will have to wait a while to find out for sure.

And the NFL has assured the Niners that their stadium fund will be able to pitch in before 2015, as there are about 8 teams paying back into the fund right now.

And I plan on posting a lot of pix when construction starts. That's *if* the forum can handle such an "ugly" stadium. :bash:

will101

January 30th, 2011, 11:27 PM

Looks good to me. Non symmetry generally adds a bit of character.

The place will be symmetrical on a plane through the 50 yard line. As is Ford Field in Detroit and Phillips Arena in Atlanta.

And the design will definitely undergo some minor revisions. Especially when they realize just how breezy it will be there. Not quite as bad as Candlestick, but very noticeable.

Richo83

January 31st, 2011, 06:53 AM

will101

January 31st, 2011, 09:36 AM

This stadium looks like a game of pickup sticks. I also don't like the size, at 68.5k its too small and looks ugly. I'm convinced that they had cheaper better options but that's just my outsider's view.

As for the move, can anyone explain to me why there are so few sf fans, and why some people in this thread have claimed that sf doesn't have the demographic to support a team, but sj does?

That look is on purpose. The Niners want a wide open and airy stadium, to counter the dark and dingy look of Candlestick. There is also room to add ~10,000 seats for the long-promised Super Bowl. The smaller capacity is also on purpose, to guarantee the continued string of sellouts, which dates from the fifth game of the 1981 season.

There is no "cheaper better option". Buildings in California have to be built three times stronger than most other places. Something we learned the hard way. Seismic requirements dictate a lot of how something is built. LA doesn't adhere to the standards as strictly as we do, which is probably why a major earthquake down there usually has 10 times as much damage as ones up here.

San Francisco is a moderately sized city, surrounded on three sides by water, so the population will never grow much above 800,000. And while in one sense it is close to the center of the 8,000,000 people of the Bay Area, the transportation options are very limited, and The City itself is more and more comprised of old money and wealthier Asian immigrants. Whereas San Jose is now the 10th largest city in the country, part of Silicon Valley and the world center for high tech. This is now the jobs center of the Bay Area, and the folks here are more inclined to spend their money. Right now 40% of the Niner season ticket base comes from Santa Clara County's 1.8 million people, and a similar number go see the Giants at the Phone Booth and make the trek to Oakland for the Raiders, A's and Warriors.

Richo83

January 31st, 2011, 11:05 AM

will101

January 31st, 2011, 03:53 PM

That's fine but surely for close to a billion dollars the size could be better, they could add some cladding and just class up the place a bit more? The stadium to me doesn't look open and airy it looks half finished and a ripoff. At 68.5k it still puts SF in the bottom half of stadium sizes. The thing which may save this is the large corporate section which may bring in money.

We don't know that they won't "... add some cladding and just class the place up a bit more ...". When the Giants planned AT&T Park, the design drawings had a very similar feel to them. But when the park opened, there were dozens of odds and ends built that were not in the drawings, and have turned a 'nice' ballpark into easily the best one in baseball.

The Niners have made it clear that the entire project has three goals: build a home for the team that will last for decades in an area prone to sometimes quite violent earthquakes; offer the very finest in corporate amenities; and give the loyal fans the most enjoyable venue possible.

As I said before, the 68,500 figure is deliberate. The Niners like having the tickets difficult to come by. The recent run of losing seasons has caused the old season ticket waiting list to evaporate, and there have been times where it was possible the game would not sell out. A season ticket is cash in advance (which earns interest), as is a $100 deposit on a possible future season ticket (the waiting list required a deposit). And empty seats look bad on TV.

And the capacity will only be 644 below the new league median. Since the Niners expect close to a tenfold increase in corporate income, this will not be an issue. Right now Candlestick Park is in the bottom five in luxury box income. The Niners expect to be in the top five in five years.

And, if push comes to shove, there is room for temporary seating. Or permanent expansion.

Here's an idea, why doesn't Oakland and SF ground share? It seems both clubs have bad football stadiums, could kill two stadiums with one stone so to speak. Is it too far distance to be covered by one ground? Given matches are only held by each team 8 times a season there doesn't seem that much of a chance of overlap. And Oakland fans surely would travel to SJ is they don't have to use one of the worst stadiums/arenas in professional US sports.

The Oakland Coliseum is not a bad place to watch football, despite some of the tales that have gone by. Yes, it's a mid 60s design, and Mount Davis is horribly ugly. And it's a lousy place to watch baseball. But the construction that gave us Mount Davis also completely refurbished the older section of the stadium, and you can't beat the location, transit access and amount of parking. It's a nice football stadium.

And having them share would be similar to a sharing arrangement between, say, Chelsea and Arsenal, or Rangers and Celtic, Barcelona and Madrid, etc. Most of the time they are our neighbors and friends, but on game day they become a hideous plague. (I have two good friends who hold Raider season tickets. :lol:) Sports in the US has never had violence issues on the level that Europe has become known for, but that could be a start.

Gondolier

January 31st, 2011, 04:05 PM

Here's an idea, why doesn't Oakland and SF ground share? It seems both clubs have bad football stadiums, could kill two stadiums with one stone so to speak. Is it too far distance to be covered by one ground? Given matches are only held by each team 8 times a season there doesn't seem that much of a chance of overlap. And Oakland fans surely would travel to SJ is they don't have to use one of the worst stadiums/arenas in professional US sports.

That is/was actually Plan B should the Santa Clara site NOT happen. The only problems are: (1) they were looking for a new site for the combined Raiders/49ers stadium; and (b) initial funding again. Everybody in CA in strapped for cash. Oakland has been forced to lay off like 40 street cops...and now they are going to start to build another playpen for a few wealthy men?

Screw those football teams. Let them rot in their substandard stadia--especially after the Yorks screwed the Bay Area's 2016 Olympic plans!! I hope Santa Clara never gets built--even if it may not get included in a 2026 World Cup bid!!

will101

January 31st, 2011, 04:16 PM

Screw those football teams. Let them rot in their substandard stadia--especially after the Yorks screwed the Bay Area's 2016 Olympic plans!! I hope Santa Clara never gets built--even if it may not get included in a 2026 World Cup bid!!

Quit holding back, and tell us how you really feel.

Seriously, blaming the Yorks for the 2016 debacle is foolish at best. Hunter's Point is an unbelievably bad place to put a stadium. It would literally have the worst access on the planet. And it should have been obvious after the way that the USOC shot down our brilliant 2012 proposal they were never going to give the Olympics to the Bay Area. The Yorks could see that, and decided to move on.

Gondolier

January 31st, 2011, 04:29 PM

Quit holding back, and tell us how you really feel.

Seriously, blaming the Yorks for the 2016 debacle is foolish at best. Hunter's Point is an unbelievably bad place to put a stadium. It would literally have the worst access on the planet. And it should have been obvious after the way that the USOC shot down our brilliant 2012 proposal they were never going to give the Olympics to the Bay Area. The Yorks could see that, and decided to move on.

Good or bad, I thought SF had a better shot than Chicago. Plus, there was a way to counter the chilly Hunter's Point area for a "Summer Games." Parkas and windbreakers would've been a major earner for the Organizing Committee.

Anyway, maybe all that is moot but I hope those football teams sit at the bottom of the rankings. I certainly don't need them.

pesto

January 31st, 2011, 07:22 PM

will101 has said it just about perfectly, so just some stray comments.

Not only for Santa Clara but for the LA stadium proposals (or SJ baseball for that matter) smaller is better, especially if disproportionately large numbers of corporate suites can be sold. Sell outs build a buzz and allow more flexibilty in broadcasting deals.

Packers, Bears, Steelers and Ravens don't have the newest or architecturally most interesting stadia, but no one seems to care as long as they win. Conversely, the Giants and Cowboys are catching heat from fans in spite of billion dollar stadiums.

It's hard to picture either SF or Oakland keeping a football team unless the city pays for it. The growing areas for people, companies and money are in south Peninsula, SJ, Fremont and away from the Bay, east of Oakland. SF has few large companies while Silicon Valley has HP, Google, Intel, Apple, Facebook, Oracle, AMD, Cisco, Yahoo, Adobe, McAfee, etc., and huge facilities for just about every US, European or Asian tech co. Money probably talks more than it should but in this case it ties in to where the people are as well.

Richo83

February 1st, 2011, 05:59 PM

We don't know that they won't "... add some cladding and just class the place up a bit more ...". When the Giants planned AT&T Park, the design drawings had a very similar feel to them. But when the park opened, there were dozens of odds and ends built that were not in the drawings, and have turned a 'nice' ballpark into easily the best one in baseball.

Agreed, at&t works, I don't think this does. I echo the levels of disappointment shown by others. This has to change from the original plans for it to improve to a standard for it to be respected. I get Yanks don't like roofs, but you can have a good open stadium without a roof and not make it look like it's half finished.

The Niners have made it clear that the entire project has three goals: build a home for the team that will last for decades in an area prone to sometimes quite violent earthquakes; offer the very finest in corporate amenities; and give the loyal fans the most enjoyable venue possible.

Call me armchair amateur architect, but that stick frame doesn't look amazingly solid in the face of possible crushing earthquakes. Cladding may not just hold aesthetic purposes here. As for decades, I feel this stadium will outlive its usefulness anyway. In 20 years time I feel this stadium will be known as the ugly small stadium built for a ridiculous sum of money. In fact, that's what it already is.

As I said before, the 68,500 figure is deliberate. The Niners like having the tickets difficult to come by. The recent run of losing seasons has caused the old season ticket waiting list to evaporate, and there have been times where it was possible the game would not sell out. A season ticket is cash in advance (which earns interest), as is a $100 deposit on a possible future season ticket (the waiting list required a deposit). And empty seats look bad on TV.

I get supply and demand. What I don't get is SF's mindset that they have to shoot so low. With LA's 75k, meadowlands, cowboy stadium and even the vikings stadium all pitched at 70k+, this seems too low. 61.5k is ridiculously low for Chicago, and 68.5k is too low for a side pooling from SJ and SF.

And the capacity will only be 644 below the new league median. Since the Niners expect close to a tenfold increase in corporate income, this will not be an issue. Right now Candlestick Park is in the bottom five in luxury box income. The Niners expect to be in the top five in five years.

And, if push comes to shove, there is room for temporary seating. Or permanent expansion.

Don't get me wrong, I like some of the stats on this stadium, specifically the no of corporate boxes. But SF should think larger than 68.5k. Call me naive but if SF want to become a major footballing player, they need to start thinking bigger than filling out a 68.5k stadium 8 times a year. Heck, Minnesota might build a bigger stadium.

The Oakland Coliseum is not a bad place to watch football

I'm sorry but (no offense btw) the Coliseum the stadium which has half of its seats in a curve? That's gotta suck for viewing pleasure. Hey look at our stadium for a rectangular code shaped like a D!

And having them share would be similar to a sharing arrangement between, say, Chelsea and Arsenal, or Rangers and Celtic, Barcelona and Madrid, etc. Most of the time they are our neighbors and friends, but on game day they become a hideous plague. (I have two good friends who hold Raider season tickets. :lol:) Sports in the US has never had violence issues on the level that Europe has become known for, but that could be a start.

Okay not to sound like a football snob but this isn't even close. For starters, the fact that SF is willing to play in SJ shows the club identity isn't as strong as say a Barcelona or Celtic. Tottenham fans are throwing a massive riot about moving to a slightly lower suburb which is nevertheless in the same city and is above the river.

Yet you're willing to move the stadium to a completely different city, because well, most of your fans don't live in the same city which the team is named after, and because your club decided to move all the club's facilities outside the team's city because for some reason being based in San Francisco wasn't important to the club of San Francisco 49ers.. Sorry if I question the equivalence of the 49ers to say a Chelsea, whose fans literally refuse the club to move from Stamford Bridge without being forced to literally change the team's name.

Celtic and Rangers and Madrid and Barcelona have issues which Oakland and SF (tehe) just don't have. You don't hear Oakland raiders fans calling 49er fans Francoist sons of lovely mothers. You shouldn't complain either but facts are facts.

I just don't buy the argument that somehow these two clubs have such a history (so much that Oakland is possibly being shipped off to LA, can you imagine Arsenal being shipped off somewhere else? Didn't think so) that they can't share. It was only 15 years ago that the raiders weren't even based in Oakland, now they apparently can't play in the same ground as SF. And given the economy is in the toilet (well, at least yours is) and Oakland are possibly on the chopping block for relocation, things can change when the R word starts to get thrown around. US sporting history tells us that either club can disappear if they're not willing to make economic sacrifices. And this may in the future include ground sharing. Who here thought Seattle Supersonics were oh so safe and had lots of history and would never be relocated to some middling western city? I sure did.

ElDudarinodotcom

February 1st, 2011, 07:49 PM

I get supply and demand. What I don't get is SF's mindset that they have to shoot so low. With LA's 75k, meadowlands, cowboy stadium and even the vikings stadium all pitched at 70k+, this seems too low. 61.5k is ridiculously low for Chicago, and 68.5k is too low for a side pooling from SJ and SF.

The LA stadium proposal actually calls for a seating capacity of 64,000 expandable to 78000 for superbowls, final fours and such. So no, I do not think that they are shooting too low.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-sp-la-nfl-stadium-20110120,0,7459705.story

KingmanIII

February 1st, 2011, 11:15 PM

Packers, Bears, Steelers and Ravens don't have the newest or architecturally most interesting stadia...
Umm, I can't say I fully agree with that statement...

Jericho-79

February 2nd, 2011, 12:26 AM

You know something? This new stadium looks a lot like the Sooners stadium in Norman, OK.

Huge tower on one side and all.

It doesn't make the stadium look ugly. It just makes it look awkward.

But compared to the monstrosity of the new Meadowlands Stadium, this new stadium is a sight for sore eyes.

will101

February 2nd, 2011, 01:16 AM

Agreed, at&t works, I don't think this does. I echo the levels of disappointment shown by others. This has to change from the original plans for it to improve to a standard for it to be respected. I get Yanks don't like roofs, but you can have a good open stadium without a roof and not make it look like it's half finished.
You completely and totally missed the point. At this same point in the process for constructing what is now AT&T Park, the drawings looked just as bare and spartan. The details came in later, which is what's going to happen here. A lot will change in the next four years.
And we don't need roofs because we live at basically the same latitude as Gibraltar. Wide brimmed hats and sunscreen works just fine, and saves $100 million.
Call me armchair amateur architect, but that stick frame doesn't look amazingly solid in the face of possible crushing earthquakes. Cladding may not just hold aesthetic purposes here.
It's not supposed to be solid. We live with this as a daily reality. A magnitude 4.1 just rumbled through less that 48 hours ago. Many billions in research (and mistakes) has proven time and again that solid buildings collapse, and flexible buildings survive. If you want I can suggest some resources for engineering in an earthquake zone. Or ask some of the LA folk. They should be easy to find, over in the party zone known as the Farmers Field thread. :cheers1: :dance:
As for decades, I feel this stadium will outlive its usefulness anyway. In 20 years time I feel this stadium will be known as the ugly small stadium built for a ridiculous sum of money. In fact, that's what it already is.
Do me a favor, and go look at the pictures of Candlestick Park for a while. That is what we have had for either baseball or football for 52 years now. Trust me: we will be quite happy with the Santa Clara design for many years.
I get supply and demand. What I don't get is SF's mindset that they have to shoot so low. With LA's 75k, meadowlands, cowboy stadium and even the vikings stadium all pitched at 70k+, this seems too low. 61.5k is ridiculously low for Chicago, and 68.5k is too low for a side pooling from SJ and SF.
The now freshly named Farmers Field (which does sound strange) in LA is described on their new web site as having 68,000 seats, even fewer than Santa Clara in the basic configuration. Both venues will have the capability of adding ~10,000 more for events like the Super Bowl or World Cup. Minnesota's designs are meaningless, since they have zero money available.
Don't get me wrong, I like some of the stats on this stadium, specifically the no of corporate boxes. But SF should think larger than 68.5k. Call me naive but if SF want to become a major footballing player, they need to start thinking bigger than filling out a 68.5k stadium 8 times a year. Heck, Minnesota might build a bigger stadium.

I'm sorry but (no offense btw) the Coliseum the stadium which has half of its seats in a curve? That's gotta suck for viewing pleasure. Hey look at our stadium for a rectangular code shaped like a D!
You are presumably several thousand miles away, and have likely never sat in a curved stadium. Trust me when I say that I have sat on both sides of the stadium for football, and the viewing is much better on the curved part. It may be funny looking, but it works. It's like Molineux Ground being a better layout than Deepdale. It's easier to see everything.
Okay not to sound like a football snob but this isn't even close. For starters, the fact that SF is willing to play in SJ shows the club identity isn't as strong as say a Barcelona or Celtic. Tottenham fans are throwing a massive riot about moving to a slightly lower suburb which is nevertheless in the same city and is above the river.
But that's London. Manchester City moved to a different part of town with hardly a peep. Over here the folk in San Francisco are rather unhappy, but there is nothing they can do, as all of their plans have been fatally flawed.
And the team moved their offices and practice facilities out of San Francisco more than 40 years ago, because San Francisco simply had no room.
Yet you're willing to move the stadium to a completely different city, because well, most of your fans don't live in the same city which the team is named after, and because your club decided to move all the club's facilities outside the team's city because for some reason being based in San Francisco wasn't important to the club of San Francisco 49ers.. Sorry if I question the equivalence of the 49ers to say a Chelsea, whose fans literally refuse the club to move from Stamford Bridge without being forced to literally change the team's name.
Again, that's London. There you have 14 teams and 11 million people. While the Bay Area has two teams and eight million. You guys are more territorial. Perhaps I should have used the Manchester analogy before. But there is no place over there like San Francisco, with literally no room to grow.
Celtic and Rangers and Madrid and Barcelona have issues which Oakland and SF (tehe) just don't have. You don't hear Oakland raiders fans calling 49er fans Francoist sons of lovely mothers. You shouldn't complain either but facts are facts.
They often call us worse actually. And violence against non-Raider fans is not unheard of in Oakland. I go to Raider games occasionally, and have to be very careful to wear neutral colors. The issues are here, and can be fairly serious, even if you do not know of them.

And since you are many thousands of miles away, while I live in San Jose, your definition of facts is somewhat shaky.
I just don't buy the argument that somehow these two clubs have such a history (so much that Oakland is possibly being shipped off to LA, can you imagine Arsenal being shipped off somewhere else? Didn't think so) that they can't share. It was only 15 years ago that the raiders weren't even based in Oakland, now they apparently can't play in the same ground as SF. And given the economy is in the toilet (well, at least yours is)
Actually the recovery is going quite nicely thank you. All major economic indicators are up. No sounds of running water here. Sounds like you need a newer news source.
and Oakland are possibly on the chopping block for relocation, things can change when the R word starts to get thrown around. US sporting history tells us that either club can disappear if they're not willing to make economic sacrifices. And this may in the future include ground sharing. Who here thought Seattle Supersonics were oh so safe and had lots of history and would never be relocated to some middling western city? I sure did.
Many of us knew that the Sonics were not happy campers, and had been that way for a long time. The only surprise is the ease in which the owners found such a crooked judge to hear the case.

The owner of the Raiders is 80 years old, and is known to have issues with his employees, the city, the media, the league, shadows, and the outside world. There is no way to predict what he will do next. But they are not coming to Santa Clara. You do not invite a psychotic person with weapons into your home.

Richo83

February 2nd, 2011, 04:24 AM

Quite a good post. I'm scrambling in some senses, but I hope this response will do. For the record I like that SF is building a new stadium, have no problem with them moving the facilities and stadium to SJ. I just wish it were a little cheaper, improved and possibly, SF fans open themselves to all possibilities before spending a billion dollars (which is a lot of money, recession or no recession)

You completely and totally missed the point. At this same point in the process for constructing what is now AT&T Park, the drawings looked just as bare and spartan. The details came in later, which is what's going to happen here. A lot will change in the next four years.

That's fine, no, it's excellent, and it's what I've been waiting to hear: that the pictures shown on pg 1 and 2 will be improved. All I ask is that the original effort be improved. Now it's actually quite common for a plan four years out to be improved, that SF (according to you) will improve on that plan is good stuff. Improved, and this is a nice stadium. Currently, the sercan's mocking of the excuses for the bare frames shown still stands.

It's not supposed to be solid. We live with this as a daily reality. A magnitude 4.1 just rumbled through less that 48 hours ago. Many billions in research (and mistakes) has proven time and again that solid buildings collapse, and flexible buildings survive.

Cladding doesn't have to take the form of a brick either though. This stadium can still be flexible and yet not look half-finished.

Do me a favor, and go look at the pictures of Candlestick Park for a while. That is what we have had for either baseball or football for 52 years now. Trust me: we will be quite happy with the Santa Clara design for many years.

But see, that's selling yourself short IMO. It's kinda saying that since you've had such a crap stadium for so long, anything will be an improvement, and this is. Yes, it is, but this should be a point of moving a lot forward IMO. I think the big mistake with meadowlands is that it wasn't a massive step forward.

Minnesota's designs are meaningless, since they have zero money available.

And yet you have money, yet you still put up a smaller stadium. I'm quite confident with a good stadium and a good team, SF could easily fill out say 75k 8 times a year. SF should shoot for success not mediocrity.

You are presumably several thousand miles away, and have likely never sat in a curved stadium.

I have actually, many times. It has frustrated me many times. Why operators feel circles go on rectangles I'll never know.

Trust me when I say that I have sat on both sides of the stadium for football, and the viewing is much better on the curved part. It may be funny looking, but it works. It's like Molineux Ground being a better layout than Deepdale. It's easier to see everything.

Which has little to do with curves and flats and more to do with stand height and density. Deepdale is a cheap nasty job.

But that's London. Manchester City moved to a different part of town with hardly a peep.

Well, not really, at least they're in the same city. Secondly, since the ground is closer to... well, the city, it's hardly a culture shock. Plus, Maine road was old and a dump, city have bold plans and the stadium needed to be used regardless. Their move is not the same as a move from SF to SJ.

Just as an aside note ground sharing can and does work. Inter and AC are bitter enemies yet share stadiums. Ditto 1860 and Bayern. Clubs often have their own stadium because they built them many moons ago and decided to keep using them. AFL clubs all used to have stadiums which were their own (and part of their "identity") and yet consolidated into two stadiums even though their fans come from all over Melbourne and now groundshare due to economics. You'd be surprised what the dollar symbol can make clubs do.

Over here the folk in San Francisco are rather unhappy, but there is nothing they can do, as all of their plans have been fatally flawed. And the team moved their offices and practice facilities out of San Francisco more than 40 years ago, because San Francisco simply had no room.

My point wasn't to castigate SF for moving, my point was that SF seem to be able to make the moves which say London clubs just can't. It also seems to be a club which is willing to move with the times and say move to a new area. And yet this plan seems new, innovative and in some ways sensible, yet it's canned because of old rivalries. It seems SF want to maintain and dismiss tradition whenever it's convenient for them. It's convenient to move resources to SJ but not groundshare with the Raiders. Bold plans always seem ridiculous at the time, in hindsight, they become obvious. It seems Oakland-SF deal seems more open than a Chelsea-Arsenal deal because, well, Arsenal aren't willing to move their business in Chelsea.

Again, that's London. There you have 14 teams and 11 million people. While the Bay Area has two teams and eight million. You guys are more territorial. Perhaps I should have used the Manchester analogy before. But there is no place over there like San Francisco, with literally no room to grow.

Exactly! London is more territorial than the bay, a buttload more territorial. Which is why I think you're more open to a sharing deal than say London and Arsenal (which aren't even in similar places anyway, geographically, historically or culturally - arsenal's move withstanding)

They often call us worse actually. And violence against non-Raider fans is not unheard of in Oakland.

It's not unheard, it's not as major issue either as other derbies. I've watched raider games, I've watched 49er games, I've watched raider v 49er games, and never it seems to do you have banks and rows of police protecting away fans from home fans, like you have at nearly every old firm derby. Go watch the Dutch league. Think the Dutch are all nice and polite? Not when it comes to football.

I go to Raider games occasionally, and have to be very careful to wear neutral colors. The issues are here, and can be fairly serious, even if you do not know of them.

You still escape though. And you don't have massive brawls which spill onto the streets and cause the UK to rethink their police protocols.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1209050/West-Ham-fans-face-life-bans-hundreds-bloody-rampage-night-shame-Millwall-Upton-Park.html#ixzz1ClLv5ETM

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23736744-west-ham-and-millwall-fans-fight-like-animals.do

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209028/Man-stabbed-West-Ham-Millwall-fans-brawl-outside-stadium.html

And since you are many thousands of miles away, while I live in San Jose, your definition of facts is somewhat shaky.

I still doubt you have proximity to London or Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Catania_football_violence

As Tony Polumbo (sbs football correspondent) said of the recent riots of Italian football fans "I don't like using this phrase "at the end of the day" but at the end of the day someone was killed. I'll let that stand."

Actually the recovery is going quite nicely thank you. All major economic indicators are up. No sounds of running water here. Sounds like you need a newer news source.

Off topic so this is the last I'll speak about it (you can of course respond but understand for fear of derailment I wont respond):

Yeah.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/01/us-usa-economy-taylor-idUSTRE7107WI20110201

U.S. stock gains "mean nothing": FX Concepts' Taylor

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/01/us-usa-states-revenue-idUSTRE7106DG20110201

State revenues growing, but outlook "ominous"

And even if you are getting up (very slowly from the ground), big clubs will still be careful not to make any risky ventures lest they fall off a cliff. It just makes sense in this climate when words like sustainability are being thrown about, that another word economists love - consolidation becomes a possibility.

Many of us knew that the Sonics were not happy campers, and had been that way for a long time. The only surprise is the ease in which the owners found such a crooked judge to hear the case.

We knew that, but relocation? That's a different kettle of fish. Relocations aren't as common as they used to be. And we all thought Seattle could manage. In 15 yrs time if (when?) Oakland is at the bottom, can they still manage?

You do not invite a psychotic person with weapons into your home.

I thought that's why you buy a gun? (kidding) If Oakland come with money and survival ensured of both clubs, you might reconsider.

pesto

February 2nd, 2011, 07:09 PM

Umm, I can't say I fully agree with that statement...

I have nothing against them, they just happen to be among the best teams and don't have new stadiums or their stadiums are not usually pointed out as what the new LA or SJ stadiums should look like (but the NY(NJ), Dallas and other newer stadiums are). I'm just saying that at the end of the day, there are lots of different stadiums and how your team does matters a lot more than what the stadium looks like.

venki04ss

February 2nd, 2011, 07:46 PM

will this new stadium host WRESTLEMANIA 29 in 2013.!

will101

February 2nd, 2011, 08:06 PM

will this new stadium host WRESTLEMANIA 29 in 2013.!

Uh, no. The planned opening is the summer of 2015.

Jericho-79

February 3rd, 2011, 12:52 AM

Darloeye

February 3rd, 2011, 01:04 AM

Facebook Stadium sounds good ;) haha

will101

February 3rd, 2011, 01:24 AM

@will101

Will the 49ers' new stadium get naming rights?

Since Santa Clara is within Silicon Valley, I figure that one of those hi-tech entities would gladly pony up the $$$ to put its name on the building.

The new stadium could be named Intel Stadium or Nvidia Field, since both Intel and Nvidia are headquartered right in Santa Clara.

What do you think?

Absolutely. I'm sure that many discussions will be held on that. In an earlier post I mentioned that HP (Sharks), Oracle (Warriors) and Cisco (A's) were committed elsewhere, but that leaves at least a couple of dozen tech giants available. Intel and Nvidia as you mentioned, along with Yahoo, google, Apple, AMD, Aligent, Adobe, Sun Micro, Intuit, Eton, Lockheed Martin, Verisign, Symantec, ebay, Facebook, Mozilla and so forth. All headquartered in the vicinity, and somebody has to want the opportunity to take the available technology for a stadium orders of magnitude beyond what has been seen before, and have that technology on display each week. And it will be :cool:

pesto

February 3rd, 2011, 08:20 PM

Sun is not likely since it is owned by Oracle. I would expect the name will eventually disappear although they might keep it for a few more years. All the others seem possible.

Yahoo has been discussed because "Yahoo Field" or "Yahoo Stadium" sound cool and have tie-ins to the 49er prospector image, and because you can literally see some of their facilities from the property. But they may be short on money at the moment.

will101

February 3rd, 2011, 08:33 PM

Jericho-79

February 3rd, 2011, 11:47 PM

will101

February 4th, 2011, 04:14 PM

@will101

Are they going to build a new parking lot for the new stadium?

After all, the stadium will be built on one of Great America's parking lots.

And are they going to extend BART services into Santa Clara and build a BART stadium near the stadium?

I ask this because I have friends who are 49ers fans and happen to live in Oakland.
First, the stadium will eat one of the Great America lots. But this lot is basically never used, and literally not ever needed for the park. No one has ever claimed that the existence of the stadium itself would remove needed parking.

Now the stadium itself will require more parking that is on hand. After slogging through a chunk of the DEIR, their plan includes a new parking structure across Tasman, in front of the Santa Clara Convention Center, on the NE corner of Great America and Tasman. It will also require judicious use of local corporate parking lots. In addition they discuss restricting traffic from Tasman Drive from about three hours before game time to about two hours after, to pedestrians and emergency vehicles. Which also explains that one drawing of a couple staring up at the stadium, while standing in the middle of westbound traffic. Ironically they are getting squawked at by the local bicycle group, for not including bikes in the DEIR.

Regarding BART: there are no plans to bring BART to the vicinity of the stadium. The pipe dream BART extension is supposed to follow the SP RoW through Milpitas, go underground through downtown SJ under Santa Clara Street, and turn north along the Caltrain RoW to the Santa Clara train station. It never comes within about three miles of the stadium.

But there is good news for your friends. The BART extension that they can actually afford will go as far as the Great Mall in Milpitas. If they get off there, then transfer to the VTA light rail heading west, that train will drop them off about fifty yards from the stadium.

And if they don't like that, the Amtrak Capitol Corridor has a station about a quarter mile NE of the stadium, and there will surely be game day specials running by.

pesto

February 4th, 2011, 08:51 PM

will101, as usual, has got it right.

Parking is probably the only dicey part of this plan and I think it has potential to be a great idea. As noted, the current lot is not used, the area has almost no residential and is mostly low-rise corporate buildings with huge parking lots. On Sundays these are pretty much deserted. The idea is to use these with shuttles to save having to add parking structures used just a few times a year. It could work better than large lots since there are many smaller lots with their own exits and entries.

Sundays seem easy, but it may make Monday or Thursday night games difficult (I would ban them, as I also would in DT LA). Freeway and highway connections are excellent; rail within South Bay (VTA) and to the East Bay (Capitol Corridor) are very good; rail to the Peninsula (Caltrain to VTA) is pretty good.

It should be added that rail transit to Candlestick (their current home) is non-existant and car access mediocre most of the time, and poor at rush-hours.

Jericho-79

February 7th, 2011, 10:53 PM

I just talked to my friends from Oakland about the new 49s stadium, as well as Cisco Field.

Here's a direct quote from them:

Considering the current economic situation, don't bet on either one of those stadiums being built.

Is the economy in the Bay Area actually that dire?

will101

February 8th, 2011, 04:37 AM

Jericho-79

February 8th, 2011, 05:34 AM

^^So are you saying that both the new Niners stadium and Cisco Field will be built eventually?

:cheers:

will101

February 8th, 2011, 07:38 AM

^^So are you saying that both the new Niners stadium and Cisco Field will be built eventually?

:cheers:

Actually, no. I tend to focus on the Niners, so I was thinking about them when I answered before. The A's are almost like a gremlin or coyote (depending on your preference of mythology) follows their planning team around, just to throw monkey wrenches into everything. The Fremont plan for the first Cisco Field was a done deal, everybody thought. Then someone asked "what about this", and the whole thing popped like a balloon. And now to get it built in San Jose, the A's will have to defeat the Giants and the rest of MLB in court, to get this 'territorial control' thing thrown out. It's possible that they might leave the Bay Area entirely, for someplace like Las Vegas.

And I must admit that several facets to their proposed ballpark are really strange. But I guess that I should address them in that thread.

Jericho-79

February 8th, 2011, 11:18 PM

Actually, no. I tend to focus on the Niners, so I was thinking about them when I answered before. The A's are almost like a gremlin or coyote (depending on your preference of mythology) follows their planning team around, just to throw monkey wrenches into everything. The Fremont plan for the first Cisco Field was a done deal, everybody thought. Then someone asked "what about this", and the whole thing popped like a balloon. And now to get it built in San Jose, the A's will have to defeat the Giants and the rest of MLB in court, to get this 'territorial control' thing thrown out. It's possible that they might leave the Bay Area entirely, for someplace like Las Vegas.

I apologize for the A's reference.

Allow me to rephrase my original question:

Will this new Niners stadium eventually get built, and what makes you so sure?

I'm kind of worried that this new stadium might become a dead project like the West Side Stadium was for the Jets.

shadyunltd

February 9th, 2011, 10:14 AM

bd popeye

February 9th, 2011, 11:55 PM

68,500 seats is fairly small for a popular team like the 49ers. It's sad to see NFL teams building smaller and smaller stadiums. I expected something around ~72,000-75,000, but if they indeed share it with the Raiders, then 68,500 makes more sense.

Smaller stadiums drive up ticket prices because of a higher demand...And it means more sellouts..which mean more home games on TV for the real fans and not the hi-roller that are NFL season ticket holders...and more home games on TV means higher ratings for NFL broadcast which causes commercial time to be more expensive...and so on an so forth. The NFL salary cap is based on the slice of TV money each team gets from the networks TV contracts.

The Raiders should seriously go back to LA...

I agree 100%..'cause I sure don't want my San Diego Chargers to move to LA. No way..no how!.

shadyunltd

February 10th, 2011, 12:24 AM

Smaller stadiums drive up ticket prices because of a higher demand...And it means more sellouts..which mean more home games on TV for the real fans and not the hi-roller that are NFL season ticket holders...and more home games on TV means higher ratings for NFL broadcast which causes commercial time to be more expensive...and so on an so forth. The NFL salary cap is based on the slice of TV money each team gets from the networks TV contracts.

I agree 100%..'cause I sure don't want my San Diego Chargers to move to LA. No way..no how!.

Thank you Popeye, but I already knew all of that. It's just the feeling of grandeur is getting lost, that's all. Other leagues around the world are building 60,000-70,000 seaters so the NFL is losing one of its appeals...

Gondolier

February 10th, 2011, 02:41 AM

I hope NFL stadiums eventually shrink to like 5,000 seats and completely disappear--especially after the fiasco in Dallas-Arlington. Law suits all around!! I LUV IT!!

surrill

February 10th, 2011, 04:21 AM

I hope NFL stadiums eventually shrink to like 5,000 seats and completely disappear--especially after the fiasco in Dallas-Arlington. Law suits all around!! I LUV IT!!

why would you "LUV IT?" And why would you want the NFL to disappear? You sound like a hater to me.

bd popeye

February 10th, 2011, 05:57 AM

Thank you Popeye, but I already knew all of that. It's just the feeling of grandeur is getting lost, that's all. Other leagues around the world are building 60,000-70,000 seaters so the NFL is losing one of its appeals...

Yep...It's all about the dollar..especially the TV dollar. Simple.

will101

February 10th, 2011, 08:39 AM

I apologize for the A's reference.
Whoa, no need to apologize. We're chatting here. (At least most of us.) You have not come within light years of a need to apologize. At least not to me.

Allow me to rephrase my original question:
Will this new Niners stadium eventually get built, and what makes you so sure?
I'm kind of worried that this new stadium might become a dead project like the West Side Stadium was for the Jets.
The west side project of the Jets involved a colossal rebuilding of a major infrastructure location, in one of the most densely populated regions in the world. The regulatory and financial hurdles that the Jets faced were enormous, and eventually they gravitated to the path of least resistance.

The Niners want to build in the least-used portion of the parking lot of an aging amusement park, less than 100 yards from their practice facility. In many ways this location is quite similar to the Meadowlands. It's in an area of corporate sprawl, where more than 50% of the real estate is parking lots, and the nearby buildings rarely reach 10 floors. The city and the local voters have already approved the project. Yes, there are funding questions, but Silicon Valley has a lot of money, and some of that money is ready and waiting for the green light.

Until the Niners announce that they have all the money necessary, and the pile drivers start banging away, there will be doubt. But the team must leave Candlestick Park, and does not want to leave the Bay Area. Smart people are working on this full time. They have the product, the location, the (basic) design, and have jumped all of the regulatory hurdles. This is the type of business plan that investors like to see.

will101

February 10th, 2011, 08:41 AM

I hope NFL stadiums eventually shrink to like 5,000 seats and completely disappear--especially after the fiasco in Dallas-Arlington. Law suits all around!! I LUV IT!!

^^ This might just be the least useful post that I have seen since finding this forum. Please tell me that this was tongue in cheek.

will101

February 10th, 2011, 08:46 AM

68,500 seats is fairly small for a popular team like the 49ers. It's sad to see NFL teams building smaller and smaller stadiums. I expected something around ~72,000-75,000, but if they indeed share it with the Raiders, then 68,500 makes more sense.

The stadium will have room for either temporary or permanent expansion. 68,500 is about the functional capacity at Candlestick right now, and the Niners are pushing a bit to maintain their string of consecutive sellouts.

Gondolier

February 10th, 2011, 03:39 PM

^^ This might just be the least useful post that I have seen since finding this forum. Please tell me that this was tongue in cheek.

I wish they'd build an ice rink or a soccer field instead. Or just stay in San Francisco where a track stadium could be built.

will101

February 10th, 2011, 05:56 PM

I wish they'd build an ice rink or a soccer field instead. Or just stay in San Francisco where a track stadium could be built.

San Francisco built a wonderful track stadium about 15 years ago. Eight lanes, all weather track, stuff for the jumps and steeplechase, and 10,000 seats. It was built on the ruins of Kezar Stadium, which had to be condemned after Loma Prieta. Check it out at N 37 46.03 W 122 27.35 (I don't have pix).

Gondolier

February 11th, 2011, 02:30 AM

San Francisco built a wonderful track stadium about 15 years ago. Eight lanes, all weather track, stuff for the jumps and steeplechase, and 10,000 seats. It was built on the ruins of Kezar Stadium, which had to be condemned after Loma Prieta. Check it out at N 37 46.03 W 122 27.35 (I don't have pix).

Yeah...but that location is NOT going to help bring an Olympic games to San Francisco.

dfwabel

February 11th, 2011, 04:26 AM

Yeah...but that location is NOT going to help bring an Olympic games to San Francisco.

That is no longer their focus, staging the America's Cup properly is the city's sporting goal.

will101

February 11th, 2011, 08:51 AM

Yeah...but that location is NOT going to help bring an Olympic games to San Francisco.

The east coast USOC mafia would never allow the Bay Area to stage the Olympics. As evidenced by the brilliant 2012 proposal that was overlooked by the committee in favor of a New York bid that would have racked up more than $15 billion in debt.

Given that, 10,000 seats at a track stadium turns out to be about 8,000 too many.

Gondolier

February 11th, 2011, 09:13 PM

The east coast USOC mafia would never allow the Bay Area to stage the Olympics. As evidenced by the brilliant 2012 proposal that was overlooked by the committee in favor of a New York bid that would have racked up more than $15 billion in debt.

.

Huh? East Coast mafia? The USOC is headquartered in Colorado Springs, CO. Until 2009, its chariman was Peter Ueberroth, a resident of Orange County, CA. He then turned over the reins to Lawrence Probst, chairman of Electronic Arts, and he still holds office in Redwood City.

THe SF 2012 bid was far from good. That plan's main stadium was at Stanford; the village was to be at Moffett Field. Only the IOC headquarters hotel was to be in SF proper (and the minor box-sports at Moscone and the old Cow Palace); so technically, it should've been a Palo Alto 2012 Games rather than a San Francisco one. Rowing was to be in Davis. :ohno: (I know the facts because I helped work with both the 2012 and 2016 bids.) The New York plan had better placements of its village, venues, etc.--and all nearly within New York City proper. That was just like the World FIgure Skating Championships of 1992. (Again, I worked on that one.) Competition was held at what is now the Oracle Arena (in Oakland). But the Int'l Skating Union wasn't going to be caught dead calling their championships Oakland 1992. So instead, if you will look at records, it was called "San Francisco Bay Area" (or in some instances, "San Francisco-Oakland") as the venue. The ISU's and atheltes' hotels were in SF. Anyway, the SF Olympic 2016 plan was much more centrally located than the 2012 bid which you claim to have been superior to NYC's? NYC was the correct choice in the 2012 derby.

So where did you get the notion that a New York 2012 would've racked up $15 billion in debt? You forget...Los Angeles made some $250 million; World Cup 1994 made some $25 million; Atlanta 1996 netted some $10 mil; and Salt Lake 2002 made some $56 mil. So how could a New York Games have racked up $15 billion in the red? Their 2012 bid cost only $35 mil (paid for mostly out of the pockets of Mayor Bloomberg and Daniel Doctoroff (I think that was his name) whereas the Chicago gang went overboard for 2016 and doubled its bid expenditures to $70 million--only to be kicked out in the first round of voting. Also, for the record, by the time SF 2016 had to bow out of the domestic race which picked Chicago, its costs only came to about $535,000 before it threw in the hat.

Maybe it's the 49ers who will bankrupt Santa Clara and Sacamento if they will be fooled into contributing to the Yorks' Folly.

pesto

February 11th, 2011, 10:44 PM

As will101 notes, the Santa Clara Stadium makes sense in so many ways that it seems inevitable. (I think the same goes for the A's move to Cisco Field, another field that will be small, heavy on suites and likely to sell out, but that's a separate discussion.)

The Raiders are a real wildcard. They seem to want desperately out of Oakland (which is basically broke, unlike Silicon Valley). But it's hard to imagine them renting from the 49ers and the Yorks have indicated no interest in joint ownership. There is competition from other teams looking at LA, so I am wondering if they are not bound out of state. San Antonio, Memphis, LV, Portland?

pesto

February 11th, 2011, 11:06 PM

"... that dire?" No. While the entire country (and much of the world) is definitely recovering from the worst economic reversal since 1929-32, the Bay Area in general and Santa Clara County in particular is recovering fairly well. If your friends live in the East Bay, and spend a lot of time reading the papers up there, they of course have been inundated with the same editorial content that has felt for decades that San Jose is little more than an overgrown strawberry patch.

These are the same folk who got their state senator to introduce a bill to prevent the Niners from using the same name if they moved. Quite possibly the only time in history that people on 'both sides of the aisle' laughed out loud at a bill at first reading. Said bill, for some strange reason, never made it to second reading. These are also the same folk who are still extolling the virtues of the Niners building a stadium at Hunter's Point. Many of them also feel the A's should stay at the wonderful Oakland Coliseum.

I feel that what the newspapers up there are shoveling is comprised of male cow droppings.

The right to the name "San Francisco" I find very interesting. My guess is that if anyone has rights to it, it is the Catholic Church, since he was (arguably) in their employ when he gained his recognition. There is also the problem that South SF, the SF Bay and hundreds upon hundreds of companies, streets, districts, not to say cities and districts in other states and countries have the same name, all presumably arising from the same guy, or possibly one of the other St. Francis's that exist.

In thinking about this, you may also want to consider what cities the NY Giants, NY Jets, LA Angels and Dallas Cowboys play in, and what cities the Cowboys, Detriot Lions, LA Lakers and LA Rams have played in.

will101

February 12th, 2011, 05:54 AM

Huh? East Coast mafia? The USOC is headquartered in Colorado Springs, CO. Until 2009, its chariman was Peter Ueberroth, a resident of Orange County, CA. He then turned over the reins to Lawrence Probst, chairman of Electronic Arts, and he still holds office in Redwood City.

THe SF 2012 bid was far from good. That plan's main stadium was at Stanford; the village was to be at Moffett Field. Only the IOC headquarters hotel was to be in SF proper (and the minor box-sports at Moscone and the old Cow Palace); so technically, it should've been a Palo Alto 2012 Games rather than a San Francisco one. Rowing was to be in Davis. :ohno: (I know the facts because I helped work with both the 2012 and 2016 bids.) The New York plan had better placements of its village, venues, etc.--and all nearly within New York City proper. That was just like the World FIgure Skating Championships of 1992. (Again, I worked on that one.) Competition was held at what is now the Oracle Arena (in Oakland). But the Int'l Skating Union wasn't going to be caught dead calling their championships Oakland 1992. So instead, if you will look at records, it was called "San Francisco Bay Area" (or in some instances, "San Francisco-Oakland") as the venue. The ISU's and atheltes' hotels were in SF. Anyway, the SF Olympic 2016 plan was much more centrally located than the 2012 bid which you claim to have been superior to NYC's? NYC was the correct choice in the 2012 derby.

So where did you get the notion that a New York 2012 would've racked up $15 billion in debt? You forget...Los Angeles made some $250 million; World Cup 1994 made some $25 million; Atlanta 1996 netted some $10 mil; and Salt Lake 2002 made some $56 mil. So how could a New York Games have racked up $15 billion in the red? Their 2012 bid cost only $35 mil (paid for mostly out of the pockets of Mayor Bloomberg and Daniel Doctoroff (I think that was his name) whereas the Chicago gang went overboard for 2016 and doubled its bid expenditures to $70 million--only to be kicked out in the first round of voting. Also, for the record, by the time SF 2016 had to bow out of the domestic race which picked Chicago, its costs only came to about $535,000 before it threw in the hat.

Maybe it's the 49ers who will bankrupt Santa Clara and Sacamento if they will be fooled into contributing to the Yorks' Folly.

Wow, where to start. I shouldn't respond to a troll, but first I'll just try to run down some your mistakes in order:
-- The chairman means nothing when judging the origins of the body members as a whole.
-- If you were involved in both bids, you should know that zero percent of the events and lodging were to be in Palo Alto. But you don't, so I question those claims, and submit that you know nothing about the Bay Area and BASOC 2012.
-- The games were to be a regional affair, a new and original design. We also would have seen canoeing and kayaking in the high Sierra, an unmatched spectacle for the viewers of the world. Yachting would have been on San Francisco Bay, where the America's Cup will be in two years. The proposed games also involved a capital expenditure of less than a billion dollars. Almost everything already exists here. But no one in the committee could wrap their minds around the concept.
-- The New York proposal would have required more than fifteen billion dollars in debt service for constructing all of the new facilities. But you knew that was what I meant, and injecting nonsensical numbers about how much the printing and collating cost just makes you look bad.
-- Calling the new stadium "York's Folly" and implying that they will get taxpayer dollars beyond what has already been approved without supporting statements is folly indeed. Unless you are one of the very few who actually believes in the Hunter's Point Joke, and are simply trying to throw everything possible out here.

You post was nothing but a random amount of mudslinging, hoping that some of it sticks. None did, and you and I are done.

Gondolier

February 14th, 2011, 08:46 PM

Wow, where to start. I shouldn't respond to a troll, but first I'll just try to run down some your mistakes in order:
-- The chairman means nothing when judging the origins of the body members as a whole.
-- If you were involved in both bids, you should know that zero percent of the events and lodging were to be in Palo Alto. But you don't, so I question those claims, and submit that you know nothing about the Bay Area and BASOC 2012.
-- The games were to be a regional affair, a new and original design. We also would have seen canoeing and kayaking in the high Sierra, an unmatched spectacle for the viewers of the world. Yachting would have been on San Francisco Bay, where the America's Cup will be in two years. The proposed games also involved a capital expenditure of less than a billion dollars. Almost everything already exists here. But no one in the committee could wrap their minds around the concept.
-- The New York proposal would have required more than fifteen billion dollars in debt service for constructing all of the new facilities. But you knew that was what I meant, and injecting nonsensical numbers about how much the printing and collating cost just makes you look bad.
-- Calling the new stadium "York's Folly" and implying that they will get taxpayer dollars beyond what has already been approved without supporting statements is folly indeed. Unless you are one of the very few who actually believes in the Hunter's Point Joke, and are simply trying to throw everything possible out here.

You post was nothing but a random amount of mudslinging, hoping that some of it sticks. None did, and you and I are done.

Boring baloney. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Jericho-79

February 20th, 2011, 03:49 AM

@will101

In regards to the location of the new stadium, I have a couple of South Bay-related questions for you.

I currently live in Arlington, Texas, which is a suburb in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area. During the Super Bowl, visitors referred to the city of Arlington (where Cowboys Stadium is located) as simply "Dallas".

Is the city of Santa Clara a suburb of San Francisco or San Jose? I mean- Can outsiders refer to Santa Clara as simply "San Francisco" or "San Jose"?

There are just so many notable cities in the Bay Area, including the big hubs of S.F., Oakland, and San Jose.:nuts:

weava

February 20th, 2011, 03:54 AM

@will101

In regards to the location of the new stadium, I have a couple of South Bay-related questions for you.

I currently live in Arlington, Texas, which is a suburb in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area. During the Super Bowl, people referred to the city of Arlington (where Cowboys Stadium is located) as simply "Dallas".

Is the city of Santa Clara a suburb of San Francisco or San Jose? I mean- Can people refer to Santa Clara as simply "San Francisco" or "San Jose"?

There are just so many big cities in the Bay Area, including the big three- S.F., Oakland, and San Jose.:nuts:

as an outsider I'd call it San Fran as thats the name of the bay, just like how I call St. Pete Tampa as its the name of the bay.

Jericho-79

February 20th, 2011, 09:53 PM

as an outsider I'd call it San Fran as thats the name of the bay.

But isn't San Jose right next to Santa Clara? Wouldn't that fact make Santa Clara a suburb of San Jose?:shifty:

Anyway, I'm just perplexed regarding when to refer to a suburb using the name of the major city that's associated with it.

For example- the New Meadowlands Stadium is located in East Rutherford. But no one refers to East Rutherford as "New York". Instead, they just call it "East Rutherford" or "the Meadowlands".

Plus- Angel Stadium is located in Anaheim. But no one refers to Anaheim as "Los Angeles". People seem to treat Anaheim as an entity separate from LA.

The same thinking applies to Foxboro (Gillette Stadium) not being called "Boston" and Landover (FedExField) not being called "DC".

Yet, people call Arlington "Dallas", Glendale "Phoenix", Miami Gardens "Miami", etc.:dunno:

Can anyone shed some light on this?

JJG

February 21st, 2011, 12:34 AM

Yet, all this time, people call Arlington "Dallas", Glendale "Phoenix", Miami Gardens "Miami", etc.:dunno:

Can anyone shed some light on this?

I would say that sickens me, but because its Arlington, not as big a deal.

Eventhough I'm an outsider of the Bay Area, I'd still call it Santa Clara only because it's NOT San Fran. In fact, I do that for all the "suburban" stadiums except for Miami Gardens (hey, it has the MIAMI in its name...)

weava

February 21st, 2011, 02:21 AM

But isn't San Jose right next to Santa Clara? Wouldn't that fact make Santa Clara a suburb of San Jose?:shifty:

Anyway, I'm just perplexed regarding when to refer to a suburb using the name of the major city that's associated with it.

For example- the New Meadowlands Stadium is located in East Rutherford. But no one refers to East Rutherford as "New York". Instead, they just call it "East Rutherford" or "the Meadowlands".

Plus- Angel Stadium is located in Anaheim. But no one refers to Anaheim as "Los Angeles". People seem to treat Anaheim as an entity separate from LA.

The same thinking applies to Foxboro (Gillette Stadium) not being called "Boston" and Landover (FedExField) not being called "DC".

Yet, people call Arlington "Dallas", Glendale "Phoenix", Miami Gardens "Miami", etc.:dunno:

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Its because the general public doesn't know every suburb name so in general conversations its just easier. If my mom or a coworker asks me where the game is going to be this weekend I will say its AT Dallas, phoenix, maimi, new england, or whatever city is on the name of the team. If refering to a team in LA or NY I'll say its AT the name of the team since there are multiple teams. If someone asks where the superbowl is at this year I'll use the same vocab. When the meadowlands superbowl comes up I'll refer to it as the NYC superbowl to people who don't follow sports and I'll say its at Giants stadium to people who do follow sports.

rantanamo

February 21st, 2011, 07:26 AM

pesto

February 21st, 2011, 08:59 AM

I think rantanamo is right: it seems to be more of a technicality.

Marketing issues seem to be predominant in the area of name selection: the Boston Patriots became the New England Patriots when they moved to Foxboro; the SF Warriors became the Golden State Warriors; the Anaheim or California Angels became the LA Angels of Anaheim (and they didn't even move). I'm sure there are other examples.

Santa Clara is clearly a suburb of SJ; the stadium is about 1/4 mile outside the SJ city limits, which I believe is the Guadalupe River in that area. But the bay is the SF Bay. I suppose the team could add "Bay" to their name, but I haven't heard that proposed.

On the other hand, it is widely assumed that the Raiders and Athletics will drop Oakland in favor of SJ if they move. This will be especially interesting for the SJ Raiders since they will play in the same facility as the SF 49ers. And, as discussed, the facility will be in neither SF or SJ (nor Oakland, if they keep the name).

Jericho-79

February 21st, 2011, 07:22 PM

I, too, agree with rantanamo.

No one outside of Texas has ever heard of Arlington. That is until you point out the location of Cowboys Stadium on a map. When my friends in Oakland think of "Arlington," they immediately think of Arlington, VA.

Ditto for Glendale (AZ), Orchard Park (NY), and Miami Gardens (FL). If you mention these suburbs to any non-sports fan, they'll say "Where?"

With NFL sites like Foxboro, Oakland, Landover, and East Rutherford- You have no choice. They are all "independent" cities. Foxboro is a farm town 30 miles outside of Boston. Oakland is totally separate from San Fran. Landover is located in Maryland (not DC), and East Rutherford is located in North Jersey (not NY).

Jericho-79

February 21st, 2011, 07:34 PM

I would say that sickens me, but because its Arlington, not as big a deal.

Eventhough I'm an outsider of the Bay Area, I'd still call it Santa Clara only because it's NOT San Fran. In fact, I do that for all the "suburban" stadiums except for Miami Gardens (hey, it has the MIAMI in its name...)

Let me further rantanamo's point here. There are quite a few international stadiums that were built outside the city limits of the big cities that they represent.

Stade de France is actually located in St. Denis, a commune. But people all around the world say that the stadium is in Paris. Because it's more convenient.

Also- Soccer City, Cape Town Stadium, and Moses Mabhida Stadium in South Africa were built in suburban areas. But everyone referred to them as Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban, respectively.

Plus- ANZ Stadium, Docklands Stadium, and Lang Park in Australia were built outside the CBD of Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane, respecitvely.

dysan1

February 21st, 2011, 07:47 PM

Only Soccer City was built out of the urban area. Both the Durban and Cape Town stadiums are less than 3km from the centre of downtown, so basically in the centre of the cities.

JJG

February 21st, 2011, 10:30 PM

I, too, agree with rantanamo.

No one outside of Texas has ever heard of Arlington. That is until you point out the location of Cowboys Stadium on a map. When my friends in Oakland think of "Arlington," they immediately think of Arlington, VA.

Ditto for Glendale (AZ), Orchard Park (NY), and Miami Gardens (FL). If you mention these suburbs to any non-sports fan, they'll say "Where?"

I'm not disagreeing with anyone on the fact that the biggest city gets the top billing or even that Arlington isn't that well known.

But Arlington (TX) at least had the Rangers for decades. Sure, it still didn't give Ag Town any real recognition and it wasn't known at all, really, until this past Super Bowl, but at least Arlington (TX) had SOMETHING to claim as far as national attention.

Marckymarc

February 22nd, 2011, 12:52 AM

From 1967-1999 the L.A. Lakers and L.A. Kings played at the Forum. The Forum was (is) located in the city of Inglewood. (http://www.cityofinglewood.org/default.asp)

I doubt if more than a handful of people in Inglewood cared that all non locals thought that the teams played in the city of Los Angeles.

pesto

February 22nd, 2011, 07:04 PM

Not to repeat myself, but it comes down to marketing. Arlington Rangers; Inglewood Lakers; Rutherford Giants. I don't think so.

Push comes to shove when there are multiple "big" cities in the area. If the Lakers had played in Long Beach, you might have heard more complaining. SJ and Oakland, which are far less famous than SF, are also sensitive about naming. SJ, given that it is over 1M people, is quite obscure, so the A's (in the SJ city limits) for sure will change to SJ.

Oakland in general is not much of a brand (world-class booty is its main claim to fame if you believe Baby Got Back). But the Raiders are a huge exception to that. I could see them keeping Oakland if they moved to Santa Clara, but it would certainly annoy SJ. That move doesn't seem very likely, but then again, what choices do the Raiders have?

Bobby3

February 22nd, 2011, 07:52 PM

will101

February 22nd, 2011, 07:58 PM

Most people know where Inglewood is, actually, mostly because of Tupac songs of all things.

"Most people" don't listen to Tupac.

Darloeye

February 22nd, 2011, 08:44 PM

"Most people" don't listen to Tupac.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWOsbGP5Ox4

Check IT Fool ! :bash:

Ya gotta keep it Street, never know who might bust a cap in your arse, Dog. :horse:

will101

February 22nd, 2011, 11:18 PM

Check IT Fool ! :bash:

Been there, done that. You are ignoring the fact that probably 95% of the populace has never listened to him, and has no interest in doing so.

dfwabel

February 22nd, 2011, 11:41 PM

Santa Clara may lose development money from the state as they look for budget cuts.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17439463?nclick_check=1

will101

February 23rd, 2011, 12:15 AM

Santa Clara is a chartered city, meaning that it has special status under the state constitution. That, and the mentioned fact that this is an already voter-approved project, makes me think that Jerry is just trying to throw a big scare into people. Keep in mind that he is now the oldest and pro-est of the old pros in Sacramento. He knows that if you throw a good scare into everyone first, then the actual cuts go a lot more smoothly. Redevelopment boards are going to be restructured, but not killed off. And he can't touch the pre-approved projects.

JJG

February 23rd, 2011, 06:36 AM

Been there, done that. You are ignoring the fact that probably 95% of the populace has never listened to him, and has no interest in doing so.

Probably 95%....?

I highly dount that?

But Inglewood is more well known than Arlington (TX) or Glendale, or the other suburban towns that just so happen to hold major sports teams.

p.s., they're called the Texas Rangers in honor of the historic law enforcement. I don't think they would be named the "Arlington" Rangers anyway...

Gondolier

February 23rd, 2011, 07:19 PM

...that this is an already voter-approved project,

So was Proposition 8!!

Santa Clara may lose development money from the state as they look for budget cuts.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17439463?nclick_check=1

I hope it happens. That hick little town doesn't deserve such a white elephant project.

Jericho-79

April 10th, 2011, 07:01 AM

Naming rights update...

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17768853?nclick_check=1

Santa Clara hoping tech companies will pay big bucks for stadium name

What's in a name? Millions of dollars if it's tattooed on a new football stadium in Santa Clara.

Mayor Jamie Matthews isn't being shy about the price tag and opportunity he's peddling to corporations, offering them what he sees as a chance of a lifetime to have their name emblazoned on a future $937 million 49ers stadium.

Naming rights to arenas and stadiums are the rule these days. The record so far is a reported $700 million.

"We're Silicon Valley," Matthews said. "I don't see why we can't get $700 million, too. This is going to be a huge funding source for us."

Matthews was referring to Farmer's Insurance's reported 30-year, $600 million to $700 million deal for the rights to name Farmer's Field, the hoped-for $1 billion stadium in downtown Los Angeles.

The mayor's aspirations are lofty. The next highest price for naming rights is $300 million for Reliant Stadium in Houston, and the numbers fall off drastically after that. According to projections prepared four years ago, the city is expecting $330 million from a combination of revenues, including naming rights, corporate sponsorships, seat licenses and ticket surcharges.

Matthews and a majority of council members are expected Tuesday night to approve a proposal to give the 49ers exclusive rights to market the name of the stadium, expected to begin construction near Great America theme park in two years.

Matthews said he has already been schmoozing execs about the naming rights.

"I talk about the stadium any time I can," Matthews said. "You could say I've talked to over a dozen CEOs here about this potential. And it's all been well-received."

But Jay Keehan, an accountant who is part of the anti-stadium group called Santa Clarans Play Fair, pointed out recent issues in Dallas, where Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is having trouble securing naming rights for his $1.1 billion new stadium.

Keehan said the naming rights for the 49ers' current home was a "trivial" sum. Monster Cable paid $1.7 million a year from 2004 to 2008 for the stadium to be called Monster Park, according to the 49ers. Before that, the stadium was licensed to 3Com for an average of $2 million a year. Today, the stadium is called Candlestick Park.

There's no telling how much a company will want to pay for the naming rights in Santa Clara.

"No one can forecast that," said Neil Glat, senior vice president of corporate development and a naming rights expert with the National Football League in New York.

Glat cited Farmer's Field as a "terrific number, and a big number," adding that the nature and culture of the Silicon Valley deal is quite similar to the stadium being proposed for Los Angeles, and that a high price tag might also be achieved in Santa Clara.

Glat also said that being such a tech-heavy community, there would likely be many South Bay companies who would want to both have their names on the bleachers and also have first dibs at installing their technology into the infrastructure of the stadium -- much like Cisco (CSCO) wants to do in San Jose if a deal for an A's baseball stadium comes to life.

49ers spokeswoman Lisa Lang said a more specific financing plan is now being worked out with Goldman Sachs, and more accurate numbers on naming rights and other revenue aren't expected to go before the City Council again until 2012.

Despite all the unknowns, some residents were already having fun weighing in with their own ideas.

Electrical engineer Karl Watanabe of Santa Clara came up with his own names for the stadium: Google (GOOG) Plex, Intel (INTC) Inside, Applied Materials Stadium or Yahoo (YHOO) Park.

As for what he thinks a company should pay for name recognition?

"Heck if I know," he said.

Whatever the dollar amount for the naming rights, the money will go directly into constructing and developing the stadium, Acting Assistant City Manager Carol McCarthy said. Though some preliminary work with redevelopment funds is going to occur this year, the major construction for the stadium is not scheduled to begin until 2013.

The agreement that the council is slated to vote on also would give the 49ers the right to hire a broker to negotiate the naming rights, and that broker would be eligible to receive a commission.

I'm pulling for a name like Intel Stadium! :cheers:

BoulderGrad

April 11th, 2011, 02:41 PM

How bout The Apple Orchard?
Or maybe The Google-Plex?

will101

April 11th, 2011, 03:02 PM

Naming rights update...
I'm pulling for a name like Intel Stadium! :cheers:
While Intel or AMD would benefit from the deal, I would assume that companies with more of a direct consumer marketing focus would be the one with their name in lights. Both Yahoo and google are within 10 miles, if they were looking to expand the search engine/home page wars. And Apple is also within that range, and sitting on a pretty big chunk of change at last report. (And as a loyal Mac user, they would be my sentimental favorite.) This would also be a tempting prize for an outside firm. Either Motorola (Japan) or Nokia (Finland) would reap enormous publicity from stadium name ownership in the world center of tech.

And if it winds up being 'Charlie's Body Shop and Fish Bait Stadium', then I am going to look like a total fool ...

Darloeye

April 11th, 2011, 09:50 PM

The Google Dome sounds nice lol.

Yahoo Field

The Apple Yard

Wine & Cheese Field

Motorola Place

Nokia Palace

Ctrl,Alt Delete Field

will101

April 12th, 2011, 12:28 PM

Jed York Tasked With Creating New Tech-Savvy Stadium For 49ers

From Sports Business Daily: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/02/Feb-1/Facilities/49ers.aspx?hl=49ers&sc=0
49ers President & CEO Jed York "has the challenge of coming up with a state-of-the-art stadium design for perhaps the world's most technologically discerning fan base -- in the heart of the Silicon Valley," according to Sam Farmer of the L.A. TIMES. While "heaping praise on Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and his palatial new stadium -- one that features a colossal high-definition video screen -- York said that's not his vision for a 49ers stadium." York: "Everything for us is micro, not macro. In the Silicon Valley, we want to know: What you can do on your smartphone? Our approach is, why build a $50-million scoreboard as opposed to enabling 65,000 people to have scoreboards in their hands that are interactive?" Farmer noted NFL stadiums in the future will likely include "sufficient wireless bandwidth so everyone in the stadium can stream video of the game." In addition, they will boast "in-stadium cameras allowing fans to pick their desired feeds," and "self-contained entertainment centers" at each seat. The NFL "needs to continually enhance its in-stadium experience because football has become such a phenomenal TV game," and for York, "that means thinking big while thinking smaller." He said, "The way we've approached it is we've said we're not going to be the biggest stadium and we're not going to be the most expensive stadium. But we're going to be the smartest stadium" (L.A. TIMES, 1/31).

merope

April 12th, 2011, 08:18 PM

This would also be a tempting prize for an outside firm. Either Motorola (Japan) or Nokia (Finland) would reap enormous publicity from stadium name ownership in the world center of tech.

Motorola was founded in Chicago and is based in Schaumburg, IL.

will101

April 12th, 2011, 08:46 PM

Motorola was founded in Chicago and is based in Schaumburg, IL.
Yup, complete and total brain fade on my part. I was probably going to say something like Mitsubishi or Panasonic originally, and switched to Motorola because it sounded better at the time. The allergy meds are affecting my level of concentration at times.

krudmonk

April 12th, 2011, 08:51 PM

I hope nobody buys the rights. Santa Clara city officials are idiots and deserved to be embarrassed.

pesto

April 12th, 2011, 09:06 PM

I hope nobody buys the rights. Santa Clara city officials are idiots and deserved to be embarrassed.

Why idiots? They are getting a basically free stadium to go in an area surrounded by a large convention center, hotels, Great America, sports facilities and mid-rise office buildings. It's a substantial commercial hub within two miles of the airport high-rises and 2 more miles to DT SJ, with all of its develoment. And about 1 mile from huge new high-density residential develoment in San Jose and Santa Clara.

Moreover, minimum new parking is needed due to the empty lots on weekends; there are no residents to disturb in the immediate area; and transit to the airport, downtown SJ and most of the South Bay is excellent.

And toss in that freeway access is excellent and the weather is excellent August to October and only mildly cold in Nov and Dec.

krudmonk

April 12th, 2011, 11:29 PM

Do you work for them??

Jericho-79

April 12th, 2011, 11:57 PM

This would also be a tempting prize for an outside firm. Nokia (Finland) would reap enormous publicity from stadium name ownership in the world center of tech.

There was an opportunity for a foreign conglomerate to put its name on the new stadium in downtown LA. Instead, AEG decided to give naming rights to Farmers, a locally based company.

Personally, I think the same thing will happen in this case. One of Silicon Valley's Fortune 1000 companies will end up with the naming rights. Lord knows how much $$$$ someone like Steve Jobs would be willing to shell out to have his name up in lights.

will101

April 13th, 2011, 01:07 AM

Do you work for them??
Do you have a clue? We live here, and everything that 'pesto' said was true. Do you have anything to back up your trolling?

will101

April 13th, 2011, 01:16 AM

There was an opportunity for a foreign conglomerate to put its name on the new stadium in downtown LA. Instead, AEG decided to give naming rights to Farmers, a locally based company.

Personally, I think the same thing will happen in this case. One of Silicon Valley's Fortune 1000 companies will end up with the naming rights. Lord knows how much $$$$ someone like Steve Jobs would be willing to shell out to have his name up in lights.
I'm actually leaning that way too, but I was throwing around ideas.

But what would they call it? Apple Stadium has no ring to it. Apple Field sounds like a mixed metaphor. Apple Park wouldn't be too bad, but you expect the word "Apple" to be associated with an orchard, not a park.

Or they could write a really big check, and we would bring our ipads to istadium to see the ininers. But that one doesn't sound so good either. I guess that I have too much of a conscience to be in marketing.

krudmonk

April 13th, 2011, 02:41 AM

Do you have a clue? We live here, and everything that 'pesto' said was true. Do you have anything to back up your trolling?
You live where? Santa Clara? And you think paying hundreds of millions to the 49ers just to host "San Francisco" 8 days a year is a good deal?

And transit to the area is not great at all. That was a lie.

will101

April 13th, 2011, 02:56 AM

You live where? Santa Clara? And you think paying hundreds of millions to the 49ers just to host "San Francisco" 8 days a year is a good deal?
And transit to the area is not great at all. That was a lie.
I live in Cupertino. So where did you get the "hundreds of millions" figure? And how does having two separate rail lines within a quarter mile make for not great transit? You sound like a total troll.

Jericho-79

April 13th, 2011, 03:26 AM

But what would they call it? Apple Stadium has no ring to it. Apple Field sounds like a mixed metaphor. Apple Park wouldn't be too bad, but you expect the word "Apple" to be associated with an orchard, not a park.

Unfortunately, these days NFL stadiums have corporate names that are appended with "Stadium," "Field," or "Dome". Only MLB facilities are tagged with "Park". (Before anyone says anything, Candlestick Park was originally built for the Giants.)

"Apple Dome" is automatically out for obvious reasons.

The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum is the only NFL stadium that had neither "Stadium" nor "Field" in its name when sponsored by Networks Associates and then by McAfee.

So how about the Apple Coliseum? :tongue2:

krudmonk

April 13th, 2011, 03:54 AM

I live in Cupertino. So where did you get the "hundreds of millions" figure? And how does having two separate rail lines within a quarter mile make for not great transit? You sound like a total troll.
And you sound like a one-track-mind homer with no grasp on what "troll" means, yet you keep saying it.

- Please tell me about these two lines, because I see only VTA light rail nearby and that has coverage in only one county. Caltrain isn't very near at all.

- Show me where the stadium will come at no cost (let alone great benefit) to the city. Here are the figures stating otherwise: http://www.santaclaraplaysfair.org/index.php/debt-444-million-our-share-of-construction-costs

will101

April 13th, 2011, 07:21 AM

And you sound like a one-track-mind homer with no grasp on what "troll" means, yet you keep saying it.

- Please tell me about these two lines, because I see only VTA light rail nearby and that has coverage in only one county. Caltrain isn't very near at all.

- Show me where the stadium will come at no cost (let alone great benefit) to the city. Here are the figures stating otherwise: http://www.santaclaraplaysfair.org/index.php/debt-444-million-our-share-of-construction-costs
I'll try to use short words, so you can follow along.

First, the Urban Dictionary defines a troll as "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument." Know thyself. :bash:

Second, notice that Tasman Blvd. has an overpass to the northeast of the proposed stadium. That overpass crosses over where the other choo-choo goes. Between the ACE line, Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight, that is around 15 trains per day during the week. One the weekend that number is smaller, but agencies have been in discussions about game-day shuttles. One was quoted as saying that running Niner specials would be a pure cash cow. And I'm assuming that you are aware that the stadium will be less than two miles from two different freeways, and less than four from a third. So, two rail lines and three freeways. Where is the lie in that, Mr. Troll?

Now, to go over one of the funniest websites I have ever seen. :lol: It starts by assuming ZERO money for naming rights, and tries to scare the feeble-minded into believing that they will be on the hook for over $300 million. Yes, that's right. That money is where the naming rights cash that we have been debating (in a friendly manner; you should learn from that) here for a few months. There has also been a lot of it on the Farmer's Field thread. Farmer's Insurance will be kicking in up to $700 million to LA, and you don't see idiots down there claiming that the taxpayers will be on the hook for that amount. Every penny that the Niners get for naming rights goes into the construction. There is nothing "hidden" about that.

Next, we have $35 million in hotel taxes. Yeah, this is a tax increase, pure and simple. It sure is nice of you to destroy your reputation like this, just to save people from places like New York and Seattle a few dollars. But where do you get off claiming that this will come out of the pockets of Santa Clara taxpayers? Unless you guys are a lot kinkier than previously suspected, the tax will be levied on out-of-town visitors. :nuts:

Then we have a $17 million bill for a parking garage. Oops, wait a minute, this is parking needed for the hotel at Tasman and Great America, and overflow for the convention center across the street. This garage was already planned, contracted and paid for before the stadium came up. Even your nut-job website admits that it has already been contracted and paid for. I'm pretty sure that if you tried to pin this one on the stadium in a court of law, they would take you away in handcuffs. :ohno:

You claim that $20 million will go towards moving the substation just to build more parking. This one is more complicated, so you might have to get one of the neighborhood kids to sound out the big words for you. The substation was built in the early 70s, to accommodate the amusement park. It even still has PCBs and asbestos on site. It has to be rebuilt, and it is actually cheaper and easier to relocate 100 feet south to the south than to rebuild on the same footprint. And the fire marshal will be happier if it is further from the actual stadium. It will cost about $20 million for the job, and the old location will become parking because, well, there is nothing much else you can do with the land.

Santa Clara really is kicking in $42 million in redevelopment money, but most of the city (and, more importantly, the great majority of voters) thinks that it will be money well spent. There really is a good chance that this project will be a gold mine. Much more so than what they get from teenagers during the summer at the park.

Oh, and one other thing: your paranoid site claims that the land is being given to the Niners for free. If the city is actually going to own the stadium down the road, why would they give up ownership of the land underneath? Santa Clara will actually retain ownership of the land.

Try to wrap your brain around some real facts. We are done. Welcome to my ignore list.

will101

April 13th, 2011, 07:41 AM

Unfortunately, these days NFL stadiums have corporate names that are appended with "Stadium," "Field," or "Dome". Only MLB facilities are tagged with "Park". (Before anyone says anything, Candlestick Park was originally built for the Giants.)

"Apple Dome" is automatically out for obvious reasons.

The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum is the only NFL stadium that had neither "Stadium" nor "Field" in its name when sponsored by Networks Associates and then by McAfee.

So how about the Apple Coliseum? :tongue2:
I know that it was tongue-in-cheek, but I really don't like the Coliseum idea. It shouldn't be hard to guess why. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

And I know that 'park' traditionally goes with baseball, but that's one of the things that makes Candlestick Park sound cool for football. Why not name the new place xxxx Park? Since when have we been slaves of tradition? Do you think that Selig and Goodell are going to argue with us about it? I can see it now: the stadium naming police arriving in their black helicopters to force a change. :nuts:

krudmonk

April 13th, 2011, 08:47 AM

I'll try to use short words, so you can follow along.
I think you're confused as to who's the simpleton in this debate.
First, the Urban Dictionary defines a troll as "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument." Know thyself. :bash:
I was posting in this thread long before there was a ridiculous ballot measure, let alone when you registered for this forum. Voicing disgust at the current state of things does not amount to trolling, no matter how much it conflicts with your suburban dream of living near an ugly football stadium.
Second, notice that Tasman Blvd. has an overpass to the northeast of the proposed stadium. That overpass crosses over where the other choo-choo goes. Between the ACE line, Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight, that is around 15 trains per day during the week. One the weekend that number is smaller, but agencies have been in discussions about game-day shuttles. One was quoted as saying that running Niner specials would be a pure cash cow. And I'm assuming that you are aware that the stadium will be less than two miles from two different freeways, and less than four from a third. So, two rail lines and three freeways. Where is the lie in that, Mr. Troll?
The only services beyond VTA at that station are ACE and Amtrak, neither of which can be considered local transit the likes of VTA or even Caltrain. Speculative schedules are not something on which you can base a sound argument. Sorry.
Now, to go over one of the funniest websites I have ever seen. :lol: It starts by assuming ZERO money for naming rights, and tries to scare the feeble-minded into believing that they will be on the hook for over $300 million. Yes, that's right. That money is where the naming rights cash that we have been debating (in a friendly manner; you should learn from that) here for a few months. There has also been a lot of it on the Farmer's Field thread. Farmer's Insurance will be kicking in up to $700 million to LA, and you don't see idiots down there claiming that the taxpayers will be on the hook for that amount. Every penny that the Niners get for naming rights goes into the construction. There is nothing "hidden" about that.

Next, we have $35 million in hotel taxes. Yeah, this is a tax increase, pure and simple. It sure is nice of you to destroy your reputation like this, just to save people from places like New York and Seattle a few dollars. But where do you get off claiming that this will come out of the pockets of Santa Clara taxpayers? Unless you guys are a lot kinkier than previously suspected, the tax will be levied on out-of-town visitors. :nuts:

Then we have a $17 million bill for a parking garage. Oops, wait a minute, this is parking needed for the hotel at Tasman and Great America, and overflow for the convention center across the street. This garage was already planned, contracted and paid for before the stadium came up. Even your nut-job website admits that it has already been contracted and paid for. I'm pretty sure that if you tried to pin this one on the stadium in a court of law, they would take you away in handcuffs. :ohno:

You claim that $20 million will go towards moving the substation just to build more parking. This one is more complicated, so you might have to get one of the neighborhood kids to sound out the big words for you. The substation was built in the early 70s, to accommodate the amusement park. It even still has PCBs and asbestos on site. It has to be rebuilt, and it is actually cheaper and easier to relocate 100 feet south to the south than to rebuild on the same footprint. And the fire marshal will be happier if it is further from the actual stadium. It will cost about $20 million for the job, and the old location will become parking because, well, there is nothing much else you can do with the land.

Santa Clara really is kicking in $42 million in redevelopment money, but most of the city (and, more importantly, the great majority of voters) thinks that it will be money well spent. There really is a good chance that this project will be a gold mine. Much more so than what they get from teenagers during the summer at the park.

Oh, and one other thing: your paranoid site claims that the land is being given to the Niners for free. If the city is actually going to own the stadium down the road, why would they give up ownership of the land underneath? Santa Clara will actually retain ownership of the land.
My whole point on the hundreds of millions was in reference to the Stadium Authority, which puts Santa Clara on the hook for raising funds through seat licenses and naming rights. The former is not a proven success (look at Oakland) and nor is the latter (Cowboys and Meadowlands still without). Cite Farmers all you want but that venue will be a convention center with much more than football bringing its naming rights up in value.
Try to wrap your brain around some real facts. We are done. Welcome to my ignore list.
These aren't facts, it's just spin from a 49ers superfan that you tried to sell with an arrogant tone.

Bobby3

April 13th, 2011, 09:27 AM

Jericho-79

April 13th, 2011, 10:59 AM

Just because everyone else does it doesn't mean you have to. They can call it "Redwood Parade" if they want to.

I was just being tongue-in-cheek. No need to get snippy.:ohno:

merope

April 13th, 2011, 02:34 PM

I don't see this fitting with Apple's interests at all. They have had ample opportunity for this sort of sponsorship in the past. I'd be very surprised if they ever associated themselves with a stadium.

Jericho-79

April 13th, 2011, 09:05 PM

^^Plus, Apple's corporate logo is...well...a picture of an apple.

I can't find an image of Apple's logo as being simply "APPLE".

Just imagine the exterior of the stadium with enormous signs that read "[Picture of an apple] Park". I can't picture it.

Sorry if I'm getting nit-picky.:bash:

pesto

April 14th, 2011, 08:02 PM

How about on the sign a picture of an Apple and the words: The Santa Clara Orchard.
Remember that the principle tech convention center and large hotels are across the street, so that big ole sign pays for itself everyday.

But it does seem more likely that one of the dozens of other tech brands or wanna-be brands will step up with the money. A premium site, for sure.

will101

April 15th, 2011, 04:32 AM

As most of you are aware, the logo used to be the outline of an apple (missing a bite) with a rainbow of colors inside. Now they seem to have gone the minimalist route, with a lighter gray apple on a darker gray background. Not the color scheme to draw the eye in a large sign. What would be cool would be a gold apple on a cardinal background (or vice versa).

Or, for that matter, an intel, Adobe or google logo in that color scheme. google in particular seems to be somewhat flexible on colors (and shapes).

pesto

April 15th, 2011, 07:07 PM

Or they could share, and spell the word "Google" using various apples and apple peals.

Knitemplar

June 11th, 2011, 11:20 PM

Or they could simply call it the Refugee Stadium, i.e., refugees from San Francisco.

will101

June 12th, 2011, 09:44 PM

Or they could simply call it the Refugee Stadium, i.e., refugees from San Francisco.
Lot of sponsorship dollars coming from that name? Mostly they are traveling from The City That Can't to a city that can.

Jericho-79

June 13th, 2011, 04:19 AM

Any new updates on this project?

I'm anxious to see whether or not Al Davis will let the Raiders share a stadium with the 49ers.:lol:

Darloeye

June 13th, 2011, 04:23 AM

^^^^ Think Al will move the team back to LA before lettingthe 9ers share "HIS" Stadium

pesto

June 13th, 2011, 06:33 PM

The Raiders situation seems to be constantly deteriorating. Oakland is broke. Each of the LA sites now wants a majority position in the relocating team. In Santa Clara you have to rent from the 49ers. I'm not really sure that any of these is acceptable but the default is staying put in an aging stadium.

pesto

June 13th, 2011, 06:40 PM

Or they could simply call it the Refugee Stadium, i.e., refugees from San Francisco.

Escape from SF. Where's Snake Plisskin when we need him?

If 101 is blocked, they could take boats to Newark and work their way through the swamps to Alviso at night. Then a quick break across 237 to the safety of Santa Clara.

vadin

June 14th, 2011, 02:15 AM

Escape from SF. Where's Snake Plisskin when we need him?

If 101 is blocked, they could take boats to Newark and work their way through the swamps to Alviso at night. Then a quick break across 237 to the safety of Santa Clara.
Actually, there has been talk of developing the Alviso waterfront so that ferry service could be established. Not sure when or if it will ever come to fruition, especially with the current economy, but it would be great to have a port in the South Bay.

The Alviso port would only be about a 20-30 minute walk from the proposed stadium site.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/08/09/focus6.html

LeoWest

June 14th, 2011, 06:11 AM

this stadium has a south american look.

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/giantsooner/20090616_105056_49ers_stadium_graph.jpg

Jericho-79

June 15th, 2011, 03:20 AM

The "green roof" and solar panels seem implausible to me.:crazy2:

Marckymarc

June 15th, 2011, 10:09 AM

The "green roof" and solar panels seem implausible to me.:crazy2:

The solar panels will probably collect enough energy to power the video boards.....for about 5 seconds. :nuts:

will101

June 15th, 2011, 01:36 PM

The "green roof" and solar panels seem implausible to me.:crazy2:
Why is that? By 2020 1/4 of all large buildings and parking lots in California will have solar panels covering the roof. Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties are already building them in shopping mall, college and high school parking lots. California has plenty of sun, and it is stupid to ignore the free energy source. The things pay for themselves within 10 years, and after that it's just a matter of California dollars never leaving the state.

If the Enron scandal taught us one thing, it's that we cannot ever trust another state. Especially Texas.

will101

June 15th, 2011, 01:42 PM

The solar panels will probably collect enough energy to power the video boards.....for about 5 seconds. :nuts:
The other 355 days of the year the Niners make a profit on selling electricity to PG&E. The net effect is they will have the lowest power bill in the league. Perhaps you can explain what is nuts about that?

Darloeye

June 15th, 2011, 06:44 PM

The solar panels will probably collect enough energy to power the video boards.....for about 5 seconds. :nuts:

I am Sure its going to power it alot longer than 5 seconds, Even in north east england its going o be able to power it longer than five seconds. Yes we do get the sun here its just a newspaper lol.

pesto

June 15th, 2011, 07:14 PM

More likely the solar panels will power the "giant video displays" and sponsorship adds. I guess the economics of it is whether you make more money from monster adds or from selling the power to PGE (to sell to other people to run monster adds).

Jericho-79

June 16th, 2011, 12:04 AM

Why is that? By 2020 1/4 of all large buildings and parking lots in California will have solar panels covering the roof. Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties are already building them in shopping mall, college and high school parking lots.

Then are there any plans to include any solar panels on the roof of Farmers Field?

will101

June 16th, 2011, 12:52 AM

will101

June 16th, 2011, 12:57 AM

Then are there any plans to include any solar panels on the roof of Farmers Field?
On that I have no idea.

Benn

June 16th, 2011, 07:23 PM

You should be able to do both. That is a lot of solar panels.

Depends on the make of the panel, but anywhere from 7%-25% of energy absorbed to electricity is doable depending on how much they want to spend (MIT actually has had 40% efficiency in the lab which is much better than current coal or gas technology, but that's a few years from being something one can get off the shelf at home depot). So 20,000 sq ft of PV panels x 14 watts/hr/sq ft for a typical panel would give 28 kW/hr array, so about 105,000 kW/yr array would be very doable. So if one figured around 1,200,000 kw/yr (which would be typical for a large stadium, maybe a little more) it would be offsetting about 10% of energy use which isn't bad.
Its certainly not going to be anything like the Kaohsiung National Stadium (which is a little more than half the size and does 1.14 million kWh/yr, basically a small powerplant), but it still would make a difference. It will probably put a huge dent in non gameday power consumption, when just the VIP side of the stadium is in use. but these places eat up energy on game days.

PrevaricationComplex

June 16th, 2011, 11:10 PM

Depends on the make of the panel, but anywhere from 7%-25% of energy absorbed to electricity is doable depending on how much they want to spend (MIT actually has had 40% efficiency in the lab which is much better than current coal or gas technology, but that's a few years from being something one can get off the shelf at home depot). So 20,000 sq ft of PV panels x 14 watts/hr/sq ft for a typical panel would give 28 kW/hr array, so about 105,000 kW/yr array would be very doable. So if one figured around 1,200,000 kw/yr (which would be typical for a large stadium, maybe a little more) it would be offsetting about 10% of energy use which isn't bad.
Its certainly not going to be anything like the Kaohsiung National Stadium (which is a little more than half the size and does 1.14 million kWh/yr, basically a small powerplant), but it still would make a difference. It will probably put a huge dent in non gameday power consumption, when just the VIP side of the stadium is in use. but these places eat up energy on game days.

Interesting. What could they do about the use of all that steel and concrete, just use as little as possible?

will101

June 17th, 2011, 03:40 AM

Depends on the make of the panel, but anywhere from 7%-25% of energy absorbed to electricity is doable depending on how much they want to spend (MIT actually has had 40% efficiency in the lab which is much better than current coal or gas technology, but that's a few years from being something one can get off the shelf at home depot). So 20,000 sq ft of PV panels x 14 watts/hr/sq ft for a typical panel would give 28 kW/hr array, so about 105,000 kW/yr array would be very doable. So if one figured around 1,200,000 kw/yr (which would be typical for a large stadium, maybe a little more) it would be offsetting about 10% of energy use which isn't bad.
Its certainly not going to be anything like the Kaohsiung National Stadium (which is a little more than half the size and does 1.14 million kWh/yr, basically a small powerplant), but it still would make a difference. It will probably put a huge dent in non gameday power consumption, when just the VIP side of the stadium is in use. but these places eat up energy on game days.
I had never heard of this place. Quite impressive when I looked it up. The Niners should consider having more panels on the south and west sides, acting as vertical trellises.
As for how much the Niners want to spend, if you already have an almost billion dollar project going, then it makes more sense to spring for the top of the line stuff, which will pay for itself faster and provide more benefits in the long run.

will101

June 17th, 2011, 04:49 PM

I'm not sure whether to be optimistic or not. One thing that is obvious from this article is that the successor to the NFL's G3 fund is of critical importance. From sfgate.com:

A proposal by an investment group headed by former 49er great Joe Montana to build a luxury hotel across from the team's proposed new Santa Clara stadium is just the latest sign the stadium project is on track, its backers say.

But while city officials insist the stadium is in line to open for the National Football League's 2015 season, terms of the deal with the 49ers are in flux, financing remains a major question, and the price tag has grown by $50 million over the past year, sending the cost to nearly $1 billion.

The parking lot adjacent to the Great America amusement park and the team's headquarters still looks as it did last June, when city voters approved a ballot measure to build a stadium there that would move the 49ers from their longtime home in San Francisco.

Santa Clara Mayor Jamie Matthews acknowledged that trying to build a 68,500-seat stadium in the heart of Silicon Valley is "a complex project with a lot of complex financing and a lot of moving parts."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/14/MNEG1JS3KC.DTL#ixzz1PXbCChDN

Benn

June 17th, 2011, 09:39 PM

Interesting. What could they do about the use of all that steel and concrete, just use as little as possible?

The one smart thing (while two actually) about stacking all the VIP and team store areas on one side is that they can limit the area of space that needs to be conditioned and open year round to a centralized area. So it should reduce operating costs, you also tend to reduce plumbing costs by stacking like functions (such as suites). As far as reducing the amount of raw materials, sinking as much as possible below grade can help, but depending on excavation costs it my not make economic sense. The drawback with this asymmetric layout fully above grade does use more raw materials than other layouts.
Environmentally speaking reinforced concrete tends to have lower embodied energy than steal and is often a little cheaper for structural use, but no matter how you do it these are monster structures that consume an obscene amount of raw materials, especially for something with a predicted 30 year life span.
As far as more PV panels go they could use them in a more vertical orientation on the south side successfully, though somewhat less efficient than a 33-48 degree slop on top.

Benn

June 17th, 2011, 09:39 PM

I had never heard of this place. Quite impressive when I looked it up. The Niners should consider having more panels on the south and west sides, acting as vertical trellises.
As for how much the Niners want to spend, if you already have an almost billion dollar project going, then it makes more sense to spring for the top of the line stuff, which will pay for itself faster and provide more benefits in the long run.

If only teams and people thought that way more often

will101

July 1st, 2011, 08:49 PM

Via email from the Niners:

Thank you for your interest and support of the San Francisco 49ers.

We will begin a process of relocating current 49ers Season Ticket Holders into the new Santa Clara Stadium in early 2012. If you do not currently own Season Tickets at Candlestick Park and would like to receive priority within this process, please call 415-GO-49ERS to purchase Season Tickets now for the 2011 season.

Current San Francisco 49ers Season Ticket Holders will receive priority to purchase Season Tickets in the new stadium. If you do not wish to purchase Season Tickets at Candlestick Park for the 2011 season, join the New Stadium Waitlist today and receive priority after our current Season Ticket Holders.

Please note, we will contact our new stadium wait list customers immediately following the relocation process for our current 49ers Season Ticket Holders.

Thank you for your interest and GO 49ERS!

will101

July 1st, 2011, 08:56 PM

Interesting. What could they do about the use of all that steel and concrete, just use as little as possible?
Nice troll. What do we use instead, corn husks and soy bricks?

Jericho-79

July 3rd, 2011, 03:42 AM

Thank you for your interest and support of the San Francisco 49ers.

We will begin a process of relocating current 49ers Season Ticket Holders into the new Santa Clara Stadium in early 2012. If you do not currently own Season Tickets at Candlestick Park and would like to receive priority within this process, please call 415-GO-49ERS to purchase Season Tickets now for the 2011 season.

Current San Francisco 49ers Season Ticket Holders will receive priority to purchase Season Tickets in the new stadium. If you do not wish to purchase Season Tickets at Candlestick Park for the 2011 season, join the New Stadium Waitlist today and receive priority after our current Season Ticket Holders.

Please note, we will contact our new stadium wait list customers immediately following the relocation process for our current 49ers Season Ticket Holders.

Thank you for your interest and GO 49ERS!

Glad to hear that this proposal will actually come to fruition.:)

...Unlike the two stadium visions in Los Angeles.:shifty:

will101

July 4th, 2011, 04:51 AM

Glad to hear that this proposal will actually come to fruition.:)

...Unlike the two stadium visions in Los Angeles.:shifty:
Something will get built in LA. Someday ...

will101

July 8th, 2011, 06:40 AM

(Santa Clara, Calif. July 6, 2011)—The Santa Clara Stadium Authority unanimously approved several crucial steps last night that move forward the construction of the San Francisco 49ers new stadium home. These approvals are key milestones for the stadium and signal the next phase of progress for the Santa Clara venue.

“These decisions trigger preparation for the procurement process which translates to jobs, the final design process, the marketing and sales campaign and the initiation of planning for the food and beverage offerings at the stadium,” said Santa Clara Mayor Jamie L. Matthews.

The Stadium Authority approved the procurement process that will be utilized to hire subcontractors to perform some $500 million in construction trade work for the stadium. That process, which will result in new jobs for the region, will get underway this fall.

Also approved last night was the selection of Legends Premium Sales as the sports marketing sales agency of record to manage and sell Stadium Builders Licenses (SBLs).

Legends will hire an experienced SBL sales staff later this year and will begin selling seat licenses in January of 2012. The SBL program will provide fans with a wide range of benefits and all proceeds from these sales go directly to stadium construction.

Another decision gave approval to accept a pre-opening contract with Centerplate, the nation’s leading food and hospitality provider and the team’s current partner at Candlestick Park. That agreement allows Centerplate to assist in the planning process for all event hospitality and merchandise services at the new stadium. Centerplate has been the hospitality partner for Candlestick for nearly two decades.

“We recommended Centerplate because the company presented plans that will capture the diverse culinary flair of the Bay Area,” said Paraag Marathe, Chief Operating Officer for the 49ers. “They endorse the City and the 49er commitments to innovate and be the first in the next generation of stadium fare, in both traditional and gourmet offerings, for stadium guests.”

Centerplate will take an active role in assisting with the design of the hospitality and merchandise areas in the new stadium. In addition to providing excellent food & beverage experiences, the group will work with the Stadium Authority and the 49ers on branding and offering a fresh, new look for consumers.

Other approvals last night included two resolutions around the design and development of the stadium including the green light to move forward with the next stage of design development.

-- San Francisco 49ers Media Services

http://www.csnbayarea.com/07/06/11/Key-milestones-achieved-for-49ers-new-st/landing_niners.html

slipperydog

July 8th, 2011, 06:36 PM

Not too familiar with the Bay Area, so is the Santa Clara/San Jose area more pro-49er historically, or a mix of both Niner/Raider fans?

will101

July 9th, 2011, 02:57 AM

Not too familiar with the Bay Area, so is the Santa Clara/San Jose area more pro-49er historically, or a mix of both Niner/Raider fans?
It's a mix, but leaning towards the Niners.

krudmonk

July 10th, 2011, 02:32 AM

Depends on what part of the valley you're in...

will101

July 10th, 2011, 05:02 PM

Depends on what part of the valley you're in...
This is true. The less-affluent east side has a bigger Raider fan base. Part of that is the lack of a direct translation for "Raiders" into Spanish. It comes out as "Los Malosos", which comes back to English as "the bad guys".

pesto

July 10th, 2011, 07:38 PM

Glad to see the 49er "commitment to innovate and be the first in the next generation of stadium fare, in both traditional and gourmet offerings, for stadium guests” and they "will take an active role in...providing excellent food & beverage experiences".

This is a load off of my mind. Sounds like they are going after the traditional Niner fan not the traditional Raider fan.

will101

July 13th, 2011, 12:06 AM

pesto

July 13th, 2011, 07:54 PM

And if the Raiders do wind up there, it won't be too hard to simply wall off the concession stands, and bring in hog troughs.

:lol:

The clean up will be the big problem. New seats, new paint, repair fire damage, industrial disinfectants...

Just kidding Raiders fans (mostly). I've got family with Raider season tickets.

will101

July 14th, 2011, 09:56 AM

:lol:

The clean up will be the big problem. New seats, new paint, repair fire damage, industrial disinfectants...

Just kidding Raiders fans (mostly). I've got family with Raider season tickets.
And I have a couple of good friends with season tickets in Oakland. Every once in a great while I get one, and go watch a game. The folk around there all know each other, and know that I'm a Niner fan. But they understand that I don't have any real animosity towards the Raiders, I know my football and am there to enjoy a game.

Even though I'm 6-3 and 250, I do know better than to wear Niner gear to the games in Oakland.

ElDudarinodotcom

July 20th, 2011, 11:44 PM

49ers, Raiders considering joint football stadium

Vittorio Tafur, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Los Angeles --

In a development that could have a long-range impact on the Bay Area sports landscape, the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders have been meeting to discuss the possibility of sharing a new football stadium.

"We've put our teams together," 49ers Chief Executive Jed York said late Monday at an event for NFL fans in Los Angeles. "It doesn't mean we're going to find the right deal that fits for both teams, but we're certainly going to get a look at those options."

The Raiders appear amenable to a partnership. "We have said repeatedly that we have an open mind with respect to our stadium solution," said Raiders chief executive Amy Trask, also on hand for the "NFL 101" event, held at the Los Angeles Coliseum. "An open mind means an open mind as to sharing a facility with the 49ers. I say to Jed regularly that we should have not only an open mind to the sharing of the facility, but to the location of the facility which we might share. And so there are a lot of options for us to consider."
Location, location

The location of a shared facility could be the key issue at play. The 49ers have been working on getting a new stadium built for years, most recently setting their sights on Santa Clara, where the team also has its headquarters.

In June 2010, Santa Clara passed a measure that would provide $114 million of public money to build a 68,500-seat stadium. However, the total cost of the project could be near $1 billion, and it is not clear where the 49ers would get the rest of the money. Prior to the Santa Clara project, the team had gained public financing to build a stadium near Candlestick Park.

The Raiders and the 49ers play in two of the NFL's oldest stadiums. The Raiders have pursued building a new facility on the same site, finding little success or support. The team's lease at the Oakland Coliseum runs through the 2013 season. The 49ers have said a stadium in Santa Clara could be ready by 2015.
NFL encouragement

A joint venture between the two teams likely would make NFL leadership happy. Commissioner Roger Goodell has said repeatedly the teams should consider building a stadium together, especially considering the current economic climate for financing. "Well, I'd encourage them to evaluate it, because it has worked in New York," Goodell said in October. "Getting a stadium built is a challenge, particularly in this environment. I encourage them to take a look at that and evaluate it."

Former 49ers President Carmen Policy is still holding out hope that the team can strike a deal with his current employer, Lennar Corp., to build a stadium in San Francisco. A partnership with the Raiders could help that deal along.

"You have a league that has no plan in place to support the building of new stadiums," Policy told The Chronicle in a recent interview, referring to the NFL's lack of a financing arm. "You can't finance that deal in Santa Clara. I'm not sure you can in San Francisco, either."

"I believe the league has an internal belief that the only way to build a world-class stadium in the Bay Area would be a two-team stadium," Policy said.

York and Trask are now headed to Atlanta, where the NFL's owners hope to ratify a collective bargaining agreement and end the league's 130-day labor lockout.

York had originally planned to start play in a $987 million facility in 2014, but the labor uncertainty pushed his plans back a year.

"We have all of our approvals done," York said. "We just announced publicly where we are with suite sales. ... We're close to $140 million in suite revenue for the new stadium. We're moving forward."
Teams have history

York said the 49ers may need help from the team across the bay to close the deal, and said they have a long history of working together with the Raiders.

"One of the things that I think a lot of people don't realize about the 49ers and the Raiders is that the person who brokered the deal when my grandfather bought the team was Mr. Davis," York said. "So it's not like there is any bad blood. You need to look at that. When you're talking about a billion-dollar investment, and there's not a lot of public money in California to build these stadiums, you need to look at those things and that's something that we've done."

Trask laughed off the idea that Raiders fans wouldn't want to share a stadium with the hated 49ers.

"Here's a news flash," she said. "They're not going to be there on the same day. And if they are playing each other, they're going to be there on the same day irrespective of whose stadium we're playing in."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/19/MNN51KCC7J.DTL#ixzz1SgFIIRIg

krudmonk

July 21st, 2011, 02:37 AM

Good. Hopefully they build it at the Coliseum site.

pesto

July 21st, 2011, 07:27 PM

Not surprising, since Oakland has run out of options. Oakland is broke; LA wants to take a majority interest.

I assume you mean the Oakland Coliseum not the LA Coliseum? Hard to picture the 49ers playing their home games in Oakland. Interesting quirk: when they play each other and SF is the home team, Oakland would be on the road and SF would be at home. "San Francisco 49ers of Oakland" anyone?

Santa Clara has gotten an EIR for two teams, so I assume they still have the lead position on this. But who knows. The Raiders may not want to go to Santa Clara since they look like the "tenants" not the "partners".

ElDudarinodotcom

July 21st, 2011, 08:24 PM

will101

July 22nd, 2011, 03:16 AM

will101

July 22nd, 2011, 03:19 AM

Maybe this will boost the pitch for a new stadium in San Francisco. The Coliseum Site would actually be an ideal place for a new stadium due to the abundance of public transportation in the area, but I don't think anyone wants to see the 9ers playing in Oakland. Regardless of where the stadium is built, if it shared the Raiders will always look like a tenant team in the eyes of most Bay Area fans.
Actually Santa Clara has as much mass transit, and more freeway options, as the Coliseum site. And there is no way in Hades that this will be built in The City. Hunter's point is the only place with room, but it has the worst access of any stadium site in the world.

will101

July 22nd, 2011, 03:28 AM

Prior to the Santa Clara project, the team had gained public financing to build a stadium near Candlestick Park.
Say what? I was all set to tear these guys a new one, until I saw which paper ran the article. The voters in SF approved $100 million, which is less than the amount Santa Clara is kicking in for infrastructure improvements. Basically, once you get away from the exact quotes, the article is a joke. Which is typical from that paper.

pesto

July 22nd, 2011, 07:00 PM

On board with "will" on this. Hard to imagine the Niners playing in Oakland and beyond impossible to picture the Raiders in SF. Talk about humiliation.

Santa Clara softens this issue since Al can negotiate a joint development deal that looks more or less like he's a partner in the project. And while Santa Clara is mostly Niner country (I think), Fremont and East SJ are much more Raiders, so you're not far from the fan base. Maybe move the Raider offices to Santa Clara as well to reinforce that you live there and you're not just a tenant.

But these discussions may also just be leverage for an eventual move to LA.

Same for transit: Santa Clara has freeways, mulitple trains, access from all directions and built-up multi-story hotels, convention centers, office space and food and beverage service within easy walking distance. The Coliseum site has good transit but very limited in the other areas. Mostly just monster parking lots with truly terrible access.

krudmonk

July 22nd, 2011, 10:11 PM

"krudmonk" just wants the project out of Santa Clara County. He gets his news from the folk who think that Fox News is too liberal.
You're so far off-base that you should be embarrassed...if you had enough sense to recognize such an emotion. Braindead, Budwesier-chugging superfans should not be choosing where cities spend their funds, especially in a state so fiscally fucked as California.

And to peg me as uberconservative for opposing a stadium measure is really mixing up your stereotypes. Better luck with your next canned response.

RaiderATO

July 23rd, 2011, 04:12 AM

Go to Santa Clara and tear down Mt. Davis.

Or, get the A's out of the Coliseum. I don't care what the Raiders and 49ers do beyond that.

will101

July 23rd, 2011, 05:42 AM

Go to Santa Clara and tear down Mt. Davis.

Or, get the A's out of the Coliseum. I don't care what the Raiders and 49ers do beyond that.
I think that the latter is the better solution. The Coliseum is not a bad football stadium, with very good sightlines. I can't say the same about it for baseball.

Benn

July 24th, 2011, 01:58 AM

One side of it has good football sightlines, most of the original structure has pretty mediocre sightlines for football, especially in the lower deck. And Mt Davis is uglier than sin in my book.

Chevy114

July 25th, 2011, 07:38 PM

They need 2 mont davis' for the raiders to be the least bit happy.

JJG

July 28th, 2011, 05:26 AM

Go to Santa Clara and tear down Mt. Davis.

Or, get the A's out of the Coliseum. I don't care what the Raiders and 49ers do beyond that.

Aren't the A's moving out anyway?

pesto

July 28th, 2011, 08:41 PM

Aren't the A's moving out anyway?

In theory they are going to DT San Jose. But that mostly depends on MLB approving the move. At least 3 more years in Oakland.

will101

July 31st, 2011, 05:18 AM

(July 26)
SANTA CLARA, Calif. — San Francisco 49ers president and CEO Jed York held a conference call with the media to discuss the next steps of the Santa Clara stadium under the new collective bargaining agreement. York, who is currently on his honeymoon, stated that if the 49ers can get all the necessary finances by 2013, the stadium would be built and ready for use by 2015.

With the new CBA, 1.5% of the league's salary cap will be credited annually toward stadium funding for teams in the league. The league's current salary cap is approximately $3.84 billion ($120 million for each team), meaning that there will be around $57.6 million set aside for the stadium credit. (I hope my math is correct.) York credited this new CBA as a great help in getting the Santa Clara stadium project underway.

"I think that with this new labor deal, it's a piece of the deal that will allow teams to finance stadiums," York said. He added that the new deal wouldn't be the only avenue for teams to receive financial help for stadium projects. "It's just one more benefit for the teams that are trying to build stadiums right now."

York confirmed that other teams seeking stadiums would not derail the 49ers' hopes of building their new stadium. However, the current voted deal for the new stadium states that a second team could possibly share the new stadium with the 49ers. The Oakland Raiders would be the likely candidate to share the stadium if that situation arises.

"There's no plan, there's nothing in the works," York said about the possibility of sharing the stadium with the Raiders. "It's something we remain open to, but it's got to be the right deal for two teams."

The focus will now be set on financing the stadium and securing naming rights. That's something that York said that will help ensure that the stadium project could continue forward. Despite the potential speedbumps, York reiterated that the 49ers have a "100-percent focus on building a stadium in Santa Clara."

http://www.examiner.com/san-francisco-49ers-in-san-francisco/with-new-cba-49ers-president-jed-yorks-lays-out-plans-for-santa-clara-stadium

will101

July 31st, 2011, 05:30 AM

With the NFL's labor woes finally resolved, the 49ers appear eligible to score an even larger loan from the league than previously thought to build a $1 billion stadium in Santa Clara -- and owner Jed York proclaimed Tuesday that the team doesn't need to partner with the Raiders to make it happen.

The deal reached between the NFL owners and players Monday to end the 4½-month lockout includes about $150 million a year for teams building new or renovated stadiums over the next decade.

And recognizing California's high cost and political obstacles, the league is giving teams here a crack at a bigger share of the league's largesse, in the form of a larger "credit" tied to the money the team itself invests. The 49ers would easily be eligible for more than $100 million and potentially even double or triple that. In the past, the league contributed no more than $150 million to a team's stadium construction.

"That's going to be enough for several new stadium projects" around the league, York said. "A significant amount of our investment in the new stadium is going to be from private funds, (so) you would have a large percentage that would go toward that" credit.

York spoke on a conference call with reporters for the first time since the players and owners reached a deal to end the lockout. It allowed players to return to training facilities and offseason moves to begin -- and, best of all for football fans -- games to kick off as scheduled.

For the 49ers, the deal also provides a strong possibility of league financing for a new 68,500-seat stadium planned next to Great America. The lockout had already delayed the project by a year -- construction is now slated to start in January 2013 -- and raised questions over whether it could get funded.

The 49ers still need to secure three-fourths of the funding needed to build the $987 million project, and York said the team will now venture on a 1½-year journey to convince the league, banks and sponsors the project is worth funding. The team says it has already sold $138 million in luxury boxes and expects $113 million in public funding.

"A 10-year labor deal makes it so much easier to finance a building and go out and talk to a sponsor," York said, adding that he's now more confident the project will be built in time for the 2015 football season. "The stadium was sort of put on hold because of the labor situation. Now that it's resolved you can turn your attention 100 percent to financing the stadium. I think you're going to see a lot more things come into place."

York, taking a break from his honeymoon, was asked whether he thought the NFL would only give out a loan if the stadium also houses the Raiders.

"No, not at all," York said. "There's more than enough to accommodate several new stadiums being built, so (competition) is not going to be an issue."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed Tuesday that the league wants the two Bay Area teams to continue discussions for a joint stadium, as they have for years, but that the funds won't be tied to the clubs sharing a home field.

"It is a decision for the teams to make," Aiello said. "The new collective bargaining agreement will give the league new flexibility to invest in stadium development."

That flexibility is especially high in the Golden State.

"The agreement involves stadium investment credits that are higher in California than they are outside of California, recognizing both the unique costs of building in California and the relatively greater difficulty in getting support other than from the private sector," NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Pash said.

That could put the Bay Area at a competitive advantage over the Minnesota Vikings, Atlanta Falcons and other teams interested in building new stadiums.

The deal provides for a credit for stadium projects of up to 1.5 percent of all league revenues in a year. With the NFL surpassing $9 billion in annual revenues, the 1.5 percent credit would make about $150 million per year in stadium financing available annually through the 2020 season.

The 49ers, Raiders, San Diego Chargers and Los Angeles would be eligible to borrow from the league up to 75 percent of the private money pledged to build stadiums, while teams outside California would be eligible for 50 percent, York said. In the past, league loans were capped at $150 million as a 50 percent match on private investment, but there was no indication there would be a maximum loan in the new deal.

The 49ers had previously pledged the team and league would account for $493 million toward the Santa Clara project, but now say those numbers are being reworked.

Teams would need to pay back their stadium loans, with interest, within 15 years. The NFL's 32 owners would vote on each loan on a case-by-case basis.

Raiders CEO Amy Trask said the Oakland club continues to collaborate with the 49ers and learn about the Santa Clara project -- which is being designed for two teams -- but agreed with York that there are no plans to join together. Oakland officials last week unveiled plans to build a new stadium next to the O.co Coliseum with the hopes of hosting both the Raiders and 49ers.

"We understand that in the current economic climate, creativity and ingenuity will be of paramount importance in fashioning a stadium solution," Trask said, "and it is in that spirit we are approaching our stadium project."

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_18552210?source=rss