Bay Area Sports Centre

[edsg25]

Could anyone share answers with me for the following:

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

What about other sites, such as:

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

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

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

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

[surrill]

...

[surrill]

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

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by surrill

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

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

And ther have been others like this one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So SF/Bay Area are not alone here.

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

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

[jchernin]

^ they just go wherre the $ is

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by jchernin

^ they just go wherre the $ is

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

[metropolismayor]

Originally Posted by edsg25

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

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

[Bay2Bay]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGQ5OSHBO1.DTL

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

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

-- 2 million square feet of commercial office space.

-- Replacement rental housing for artists' colony.

-- Replacement housing for Alice Griffith Housing Development residents.

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

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

In Santa Clara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edsg25]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as examples go:

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

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

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

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

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

[dewback]

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

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

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

[edsg25]

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

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

[vadin]

Originally Posted by edsg25

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

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

They are taking a page from the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.... They're supposed to be called the the San Jose A's of Fremont. The owner of the A's, Lew Wolffe, has strong ties to San Jose. He developed and was part owner of two of the biggest hotels in the city's core. Wolffe was trying to move them to Downtown San Jose, but the SF Giants have so-called "territorial rights" to San Jose which prevents the A's from moving there. He tried to work some deal out with the Giants, but they wouldn't budge. Now, he's doing the next best thing, and moving them just beyond county lines(only 10 miles from Downtown SJ). The name will help draw corporate support and sponsorship from Silicon Valley and help draw huge fan support the largest city in the Bay Area. The A's already have a partnership with San Jose based Cisco Systems who own the naming rights to the stadium and is helping develop the stadium into some high tech show place.

[diz]

Noooooooo!! Oakland forever! Oh well.

[JoshuaSantos]

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

[surrill]

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

[metropolismayor]

Originally Posted by JoshuaSantos

My vote is for San Jose A's =)

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

[edsg25]

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

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

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

[JoshuaSantos]

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

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

[arturo]

Originally Posted by edsg25

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

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

[mongozx]

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