Santa Clara 49ers Stadium in bad location

[Throwdown]

I'm fine with never having a Super Bowl held here, honestly

 

[Popeyejones]

So when does the Santa Clara 49ers logo get unveiled anyways?

Right after the New Jersey Giants and New Jersey Jets get around to changing their names.

 

[seahawksflow]

So when does the Santa Clara 49ers logo get unveiled anyways?

Right after the New Jersey Giants and New Jersey Jets get around to changing their names.

And the Landover Redskins and Arlington Cowboys....

 

[Brahn]

Minneapolis Vikings.... Nashville Titans....

 

[Subzero717]

Not that I care but how on earth can traffic be worse in Samta Clara on a Thurday night than it is in Sodo?

 

[Missing_Clink]

That sounds like a train wreck. 40 miles away from San Fran? That is terrible. Having a world class stadium in the heart of downtown like the CLink is something many take for granted. it is so awesome. Its what you would expect from a first rate organization like the Seahawks though.

 

[Subzero717]

That sounds like a train wreck. 40 miles away from San Fran? That is terrible. Having a world class stadium in the heart of downtown like the CLink is something many take for granted. it is so awesome. Its what you would expect from a first rate organization like the Seahawks though.

That's also how you kill tailgating. Also with the population spread out the way it is, its probably advantageous to have it in Santa Clara.

 

[Missing_Clink]

That sounds like a train wreck. 40 miles away from San Fran? That is terrible. Having a world class stadium in the heart of downtown like the CLink is something many take for granted. it is so awesome. Its what you would expect from a first rate organization like the Seahawks though.

That's also how you kill tailgating. Also with the population spread out the way it is, its probably advantageous to have it in Santa Clara.

I'll forgo tailgating to be able to walk to the stadium and meet my friends at one of the tons of options for food or drinks

 

[Subzero717]

That sounds like a train wreck. 40 miles away from San Fran? That is terrible. Having a world class stadium in the heart of downtown like the CLink is something many take for granted. it is so awesome. Its what you would expect from a first rate organization like the Seahawks though.

That's also how you kill tailgating. Also with the population spread out the way it is, its probably advantageous to have it in Santa Clara.

I'll forgo tailgating to be able to walk to the stadium and meet my friends at one of the tons of options for food or drinks

Me too. Just sayin. A lot of people rather have a tailgating option. The stadium they currently play in you can't walk to restraunts and bars so for them its a wash. Also, I haven't seen where they are avtually building it but Santa Clara isn't Walla Walla. Im guessing but I'd imagine its going to sonething like Reliant as far as proximity to retail etc.

Another thing to keep in mind is a lot of there fans don't live in Frisco anway. They for the most part live in the surrounding areas and I would guess most of them are south just based on the cities etc south of Frisco.

 

[DavidSeven]

I don't really have an opinion on the logistical issues, but I do think playing that far away from the city's downtown removes a lot of the big city aura of the team. Giants/Jets are good examples. They just don't feel as truly "New York" to me as the Knicks/Yankees. Same thing with the LA Angels. They can change their name as much as they want, but as as long as they're stuck by Disney, they will never be more LA than the Dodgers.

 

[Popeyejones]

Its what you would expect from a first rate organization like the Seahawks though.

LOL. TBF I think it takes three things:

1) a billionaire owner
2) a city (or in the case of the CLink) state that is willing to ignore the advice of practically the entire fields of economics, urban planning, and public policy that study the public financing of stadiums. (This is true of all publicly financed stadiums but PARTICULARLY football stadiums).
3) a non-global city that doesn't attract international investment so that real estate prices aren't drawn up to the point where even if you have 1 & 2 a football stadium isn't feasible (see: real estate prices in Manhattan and from San Francisco through the heart of Silicon Valley). Finance and Tech are the two most resource rich fields in the entire country right now. You can't just plop down a football stadium that's going to be virtually empty 335+ days a year in these areas.

If you wanna know why the 49ers are building (or having a stadium built for them) in Santa Clara it's pretty simple: Sadly for Santa Clara, the Santa Clara city government was the only city government near the San Francisco peninsula dumb enough to give them a stadium. The same is sadly true for East Rutherford New Jersey, and they're even getting twice the bang for their buck. The real tragedy is that ON TOP of each team's profits the (supposedly non-profit) NFL is making about 2 billion dollars a year in profit, and has somehow deluded municipalities into building their profit centers for them. It's a classic race-to-the-bottm scenario, and really messed up (and one of the many things that makes it kinda hard to be a football fan, at least personally).

 

[Marvin49]

Hadn't posted over here in months and decided just to chime in on this one. No interest in commenting on the football stuff as that was why I left the site to begin with...

1) The assumption here that the 49ers are moving AWAY from their fanbase is faulty. They are actually moving CLOSER to their fanbase. SF is SMALLER than San Jose in both size and population. San Jose is the heart of the Silicon Valley. Santa Clara borders San Jose. There is a far larger % of the existing fanbase living in the South Bay than in the city. With far more public transport options, it will actually be EASIER to get to the game for a larger % of the fans than it has been in the past. It should also be mentioned that the new stadium is being built adjacent to the 49ers training facility that has been their home for over 25 years.

2) As much as I respect you Popeye, I'm gonna have to disagree with your "Only SC was dumb enough" idea there. That ain't how it went down. I've been following this for a long, long time. Did SC offer a better package than SF did? Yes...which is to say they were willing to offer something compared to nothing. SC didn't offer sh*t compared to what cities are offering in other parts of the country. The city bears the load on a small % of the cost and is now reaping the benefits of mall complexes being built adjacent to the stadium. Hosting the Super Bowl will be huge economically. Don't believe me? Go look how many locations that host a SB try to get another one. The comment there about plopping a stadium down in a "Tech Rich" area is PRECISELY what they did. The new stadium is smack dab in the middle of Silicon Valley. It wasn't just some empty plot of land in the middle of nowhere. There is a reason they did so and its all about $$$. They are after that South Bay tech $$$. Why do you think the A's want to be in SJ so bad?

3) The "Bad Location" concept. LOL. At issue here is that the stadium isn't being built in the boonies (even tho SF stadium supporters would like you to believe that). Its being built in an area next to an amusement park, next to a convention center, next to hotels, next to a golf course (that is likely about to become a mall), and amid some huge Tech companies (Yahoo, Citrix, etc). At issue here on the Monday/Thurs Night games is simply that they want to figure out the traffic issues during the first season in the building. The new building also has both heavy and light rail access, something SF could never provide. Anyone who think that peeps lived in SF and walked to the games or something has never been to Hunters Point. Walking to Candlestick can get you shot...and it has nothing to do with unruly 49er fans. SC will be completely different. Instead of being greeted by a slum when you leave the stadium, you will be in a MUCH, MUCH nicer area with Montans restaurant/bar and several small shops and new hotels (built by Montana and Debartolo across the street from the stadium). If any of you have been to Baltimore, I'd envision it much more like that. The Inner Harbor (Mall) is right next to Camden Yards and whatever the Ravens stadium is called.

 

[Popeyejones]

Hadn't posted over here in months and decided just to chime in on this one. No interest in commenting on the football stuff as that was why I left the site to begin with...

1) The assumption here that the 49ers are moving AWAY from their fanbase is faulty. They are actually moving CLOSER to their fanbase. SF is SMALLER than San Jose in both size and population. San Jose is the heart of the Silicon Valley. Santa Clara borders San Jose. There is a far larger % of the existing fanbase living in the South Bay than in the city. With far more public transport options, it will actually be EASIER to get to the game for a larger % of the fans than it has been in the past. It should also be mentioned that the new stadium is being built adjacent to the 49ers training facility that has been their home for over 25 years.

2) As much as I respect you Popeye, I'm gonna have to disagree with your "Only SC was dumb enough" idea there. That ain't how it went down. I've been following this for a long, long time. Did SC offer a better package than SF did? Yes...which is to say they were willing to offer something compared to nothing. SC didn't offer sh*t compared to what cities are offering in other parts of the country. The city bears the load on a small % of the cost and is now reaping the benefits of mall complexes being built adjacent to the stadium. Hosting the Super Bowl will be huge economically. Don't believe me? Go look how many locations that host a SB try to get another one. The comment there about plopping a stadium down in a "Tech Rich" area is PRECISELY what they did. The new stadium is smack dab in the middle of Silicon Valley. It wasn't just some empty plot of land in the middle of nowhere. There is a reason they did so and its all about $$$. They are after that South Bay tech $$$. Why do you think the A's want to be in SJ so bad?

3) The "Bad Location" concept. LOL. At issue here is that the stadium isn't being built in the boonies (even tho SF stadium supporters would like you to believe that). Its being built in an area next to an amusement park, next to a convention center, next to hotels, next to a golf course (that is likely about to become a mall), and amid some huge Tech companies (Yahoo, Citrix, etc). At issue here on the Monday/Thurs Night games is simply that they want to figure out the traffic issues during the first season in the building. The new building also has both heavy and light rail access, something SF could never provide. Anyone who think that peeps lived in SF and walked to the games or something has never been to Hunters Point. Walking to Candlestick can get you shot...and it has nothing to do with unruly 49er fans. SC will be completely different. Instead of being greeted by a slum when you leave the stadium, you will be in a MUCH, MUCH nicer area with Montans restaurant/bar and several small shops and new hotels (built by Montana and Debartolo across the street from the stadium). If any of you have been to Baltimore, I'd envision it much more like that. The Inner Harbor (Mall) is right next to Camden Yards and whatever the Ravens stadium is called.

Hey, no problem at all w/ disagreement, and welcome back to the hornet's nest, man.

On #1 & #3 absolutely agreed.

On #2, I think we disagree, although only along the margins. Agreed that SC didn't offer what others have offered, but any money at all is still most likely a bad deal for Santa Clara. The city and its constituencies have essentially given the 49ers $100 million to move there, and taken on the debt risk. This is without factoring in any of the additional costs they will incur, or the loss of revenue on free services that are part of the deal.

As for the Super Bowl, it's more than a little questionable if it will be a net gain or net loss for the city, particularly given the concessions around revenue that SC had to make to GET the Super Bowl, and if we're being honest, the concessions SC made and Miami wouldn't (because they were being asked to make it an unprofitable venture for their city on the ledger sheet) are the main reason the Super Bowl was even awarded to SC in the first place:

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfoot ... ms-imposed
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22817607/ ... host-super
http://www.ninersnation.com/2013/3/15/4 ... mption-nfl

And absolutely 100% agreed that they want to be in the heart of tech country, although Santa Clara is really one of the only municipality there who both CAN and NEED to spend public funds on a stadium as a form of image management. It's a rough measure but if you look at median home prices for cities in San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, you can narrow down where a stadium might have been built remarkably quickly:

http://www.dqnews.com/Charts/Annual-Cha ... CAR12.aspx

 

[mikeak]

Its what you would expect from a first rate organization like the Seahawks though.

LOL. TBF I think it takes three things:

1) a billionaire owner
2) a city (or in the case of the CLink) state that is willing to ignore the advice of practically the entire fields of economics, urban planning, and public policy that study the public financing of stadiums. (This is true of all publicly financed stadiums but PARTICULARLY football stadiums).
.

Seattle made a good deal. I know most people like to live a life based on being jealous and hate any deal that make a rich person richer. But if we ignore those kind of feelings and look at the facts it was good.

Seattle was capped at a $300million risk. That money has easily been returned when you look at taxes for spending surrounding the games and the boom to the area and taxes related to businesses that would not be around if the Seahawks wasn't in the area. Seattle also put several things in place to keep some seats affordable and it's citizens allowed to bring in good etc.

Yes Paul Allen made a great business deal. Yes the NFL can afford to build stadiums but that is not relevant if you are looking at did Seattle make a good business deal.

Life is not about looking at if others made a good deal. It is happier lived by focusing on ones own accomplishments even though I know that that is not a popular thing in today's society.

Other examples. Winter Olympics in Russia coming up - awful deal. So are the sponsoring if Olympics bad? Not if you ask Barcelona that is reaping benefits 20 years later. It is about doing things right.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ While there are admittedly some substantive points that are worth debating in your post, LOL at trying to reduce substantive disagreement on my part to jealousy, hate, and the moral failings of today's society. Seriously dude? C'mon.

While heading down such a silly road, it's probably at least worth acknowledging that:

a) I'm a 9ers fan.
b) Santa Clara by any measure made a MUCH more favorable deal than did the state of Washington/City of Seattle.
c) As a 9ers fan I am still critical of the 49ers organization, the NFL and the city of Santa Clara. Read that again.
d) I haven't lived in the Bay Area for well over a decade and couldn't give a rat where the stadium is. Heck, I've been to the CLink (once) as many times as I've been to Candlestick in the last ten years.

What in the world would I have to be jealous about on this topic?

 

[Shadowhawk]

I'm fine with never having a Super Bowl held here, honestly

In complete agreement with you there. Why would we want one? The Seahawks probably wouldn't be playing in it, and even if they did most of the fans wouldn't get to go so it would be nothing like a typical home game.

I'd much rather watch Seattle win a Super Bowl in the 49ers' new stadium in a few years.

 

[mikeak]

^^^ While there are admittedly some substantive points that are worth debating in your post, LOL at trying to reduce substantive disagreement on my part to jealousy, hate, and the moral failings of today's society. Seriously dude? C'mon.

While heading down such a silly road, it's probably at least worth acknowledging that:

a) I'm a 9ers fan.
b) Santa Clara by any measure made a MUCH more favorable deal than did the state of Washington/City of Seattle.
c) As a 9ers fan I am still critical of the 49ers organization, the NFL and the city of Santa Clara. Read that again.
d) I haven't lived in the Bay Area for well over a decade and couldn't give a rat where the stadium is. Heck, I've been to the CLink (once) as many times as I've been to Candlestick in the last ten years.

What in the world would I have to be jealous about on this topic?

My point was that your arguments as it related to the city of Seattle paying some for the stadium aligned exactly with how certain media and groups if people have been portraying this issue the last 10 years. Arguments that are correct when it comes to the deal that Miami made with the Marlins but often not correct if the deals are done right. You are the one that stated that they need a city that ignores what everyone says is the right thing to do...

 

[Marvin49]

Hadn't posted over here in months and decided just to chime in on this one. No interest in commenting on the football stuff as that was why I left the site to begin with...

1) The assumption here that the 49ers are moving AWAY from their fanbase is faulty. They are actually moving CLOSER to their fanbase. SF is SMALLER than San Jose in both size and population. San Jose is the heart of the Silicon Valley. Santa Clara borders San Jose. There is a far larger % of the existing fanbase living in the South Bay than in the city. With far more public transport options, it will actually be EASIER to get to the game for a larger % of the fans than it has been in the past. It should also be mentioned that the new stadium is being built adjacent to the 49ers training facility that has been their home for over 25 years.

2) As much as I respect you Popeye, I'm gonna have to disagree with your "Only SC was dumb enough" idea there. That ain't how it went down. I've been following this for a long, long time. Did SC offer a better package than SF did? Yes...which is to say they were willing to offer something compared to nothing. SC didn't offer sh*t compared to what cities are offering in other parts of the country. The city bears the load on a small % of the cost and is now reaping the benefits of mall complexes being built adjacent to the stadium. Hosting the Super Bowl will be huge economically. Don't believe me? Go look how many locations that host a SB try to get another one. The comment there about plopping a stadium down in a "Tech Rich" area is PRECISELY what they did. The new stadium is smack dab in the middle of Silicon Valley. It wasn't just some empty plot of land in the middle of nowhere. There is a reason they did so and its all about $$$. They are after that South Bay tech $$$. Why do you think the A's want to be in SJ so bad?

3) The "Bad Location" concept. LOL. At issue here is that the stadium isn't being built in the boonies (even tho SF stadium supporters would like you to believe that). Its being built in an area next to an amusement park, next to a convention center, next to hotels, next to a golf course (that is likely about to become a mall), and amid some huge Tech companies (Yahoo, Citrix, etc). At issue here on the Monday/Thurs Night games is simply that they want to figure out the traffic issues during the first season in the building. The new building also has both heavy and light rail access, something SF could never provide. Anyone who think that peeps lived in SF and walked to the games or something has never been to Hunters Point. Walking to Candlestick can get you shot...and it has nothing to do with unruly 49er fans. SC will be completely different. Instead of being greeted by a slum when you leave the stadium, you will be in a MUCH, MUCH nicer area with Montans restaurant/bar and several small shops and new hotels (built by Montana and Debartolo across the street from the stadium). If any of you have been to Baltimore, I'd envision it much more like that. The Inner Harbor (Mall) is right next to Camden Yards and whatever the Ravens stadium is called.

Hey, no problem at all w/ disagreement, and welcome back to the hornet's nest, man.

On #1 & #3 absolutely agreed.

On #2, I think we disagree, although only along the margins. Agreed that SC didn't offer what others have offered, but any money at all is still most likely a bad deal for Santa Clara. The city and its constituencies have essentially given the 49ers $100 million to move there, and taken on the debt risk. This is without factoring in any of the additional costs they will incur, or the loss of revenue on free services that are part of the deal.

As for the Super Bowl, it's more than a little questionable if it will be a net gain or net loss for the city, particularly given the concessions around revenue that SC had to make to GET the Super Bowl, and if we're being honest, the concessions SC made and Miami wouldn't (because they were being asked to make it an unprofitable venture for their city on the ledger sheet) are the main reason the Super Bowl was even awarded to SC in the first place:

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfoot ... ms-imposed
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22817607/ ... host-super
http://www.ninersnation.com/2013/3/15/4 ... mption-nfl

And absolutely 100% agreed that they want to be in the heart of tech country, although Santa Clara is really one of the only municipality there who both CAN and NEED to spend public funds on a stadium as a form of image management. It's a rough measure but if you look at median home prices for cities in San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, you can narrow down where a stadium might have been built remarkably quickly:

http://www.dqnews.com/Charts/Annual-Cha ... CAR12.aspx

Lets be real. The Super Bowl not going to Miami wasn't because of the concessions Miami wouldn't make. It was because the stadium measure didn't even go on the ballot. That was a big F U to the legislature in Miami who thought they'd get the game anyway.

While it's debatable that the city will or will not make money on the stadium itself, it WILL make money on the DeBartolo/Montana venture next to the stadium and the mall/hotel/condensed living project that will likely be built on what is right now a golf course that's losing money. Those other project don't even happen if the stadium isn't built.

My point is that the stadium isn't built in a vacuum. It can drive revenue even when it doesn't come directly from the stadium.

If your "objection" is municipalities paying AT ALL for stadiums, that's a different conversation. There is definitely a conversation there. From the "did they pay too much" category tho the Stadium in SC is probably one of the sweetest deals in the NFL for the host city. It had to be or the thing would never have been built in CA. You are talking about 100 mil for a 1.3 billion stadium.

 

[47degreesn]

 

[RichNhansom]

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
....
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


I hope traffic is TERRIBLE for years to come.

Oh NOES! Someone's jealous their stadium can't host a Superbowl.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

We can host a super bowl we just thought it would be funner to win one in your house first.

At least in your stadium it is normally nice and quiet so our opponent might have a chance even if in some hypothetical parallel universe type scenario the Niners made it there. A super bowl hosted in Seattle with the Seahawks involved would be seen as nothing short of unfair.

I have to admit when you guys throw out your five rings it will be fun to point out we have won more in your house than you have.