SANTA CLARA - Levi's Stadium (68,028)

[will101]

Originally Posted by pesto

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.

Yeah, I already got called on that by a friend who lurks here. I was just mentally running down the list of local biggies, and not thinking enough about who bought whom.

[Jericho-79]

@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.

[will101]

Originally Posted by Jericho-79

@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]

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]

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]

"... 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.

[Jericho-79]

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

[will101]

Originally Posted by Jericho-79

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

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]

Originally Posted by will101

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]

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 Raiders should seriously go back to LA...

[bd popeye]

Originally Posted by shadyunltd

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.

Originally Posted by shadyunltd

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]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Gondolier

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]

Originally Posted by shadyunltd

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]

Originally Posted by Jericho-79

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]

Originally Posted by Gondolier

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]

Originally Posted by shadyunltd

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]

Originally Posted by will101

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]

Originally Posted by Gondolier

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).