New Stadium- Latest Concept Pic (for those who havent seen it)

[A187]

http://www.49ers.com/nm_files/Image/stadium%20pages/largenewdesign.jpg

^latest concept pic

http://www.49ers.com/stadium/images/LARGEbirdseyeFINAL.jpg

^older concept pic


what you think?

http://sf49ers.com/stadium/49ers_stadium2012.php?section=ST%20Stadium%20Tour

[FODY]

Love it! Especially the immortalization of The Catch. Wonder what they'll put on the other side...

I'd still like to see how they plan on fitting that thing in the GA parking lot...

[NikeTalker23]

Lovin it

[Omnipotent]

The old one had an unbeatable view of the City.....

http://www.49ers.com/nm_files/Image/High%20Res%20Stadium/skylineone.jpg

-----------------------------------------


Ohh Well.........

In with the new!

[49erfaith1121]

I think its to plain. I want something like the Seahawks, something like a retractabler roof, a plaza. A see throughy part like the Bucs. I want something better then, an oval. Its too bad the cheapest millionare in the world is planning it...

[DallasNiner]

I think its to plain. I want something like the Seahawks, something like a retractabler roof, a plaza. A see throughy part like the Bucs. I want something better then, an oval. Its too bad the cheapest millionare in the world is planning it...
The only thing I look for in a stadium is a good view...and that it's not falling apart at the seams...like Candlestick is.

[ThiZZ]

i think its the same, just a defferent angle....its really nice! "towel:


its the same thing....

[Money Lawson]

The old one had an unbeatable view of the City.....

http://www.49ers.com/nm_files/Image/High%20Res%20Stadium/skylineone.jpg

-----------------------------------------


Ohh Well.........

In with the new!
it seems as if both pictures has a opnening liek what your picture has....whatever it is that would be sweet if it had a view like this

[49er Faithful]

i going to miss seeing the 49ers play on the grass though, i always loved how the broadcast talked about the water "flowing in" making the grass "boggy" lol

great advantage i think we'll lose when we most likely switch to field turf

oh well

[Ronin 49er]

Yeah I think it's the same concept but from a different perspective. Oh and the scoreboards have been moved. It still looks nice, well anything new will do. :doubleup:

[juice]

new stadium looks like crap compared to all the other new or more recent stadiums. it really is plain in comparison to something like the seattle stadium (don't know the name). nothing is state of the art really. nothing artistic as well. well i dunno, seems like most fans on the message boards are ok with a lot of things, like the niners moving, and the stadium design, etc.

[statniner]

We're using field turf? Is real grass more expensive and injury prone? I am dumbfounded, please let me know whatever turf we're going to use? Thank you.

[Teke]

I hope they incorporate some of Seattle's ideas to make the stadium louder.

[Caliboy49ers]

Wow, the new version looks really good, dont care what city its in.

[English49er]

I like it, I think it has character

[ftn49]

I like it alot...

Looks alittle bit like the one they designed for ohio st. (http://www.hntb.com/portfolio.jsp?co=2)

[chief rocka]

Yeah I think it's the same concept but from a different perspective. Oh and the scoreboards have been moved. It still looks nice, well anything new will do. :doubleup:


Maybe it'll reflect where we'l be geographically when we move and the ground will still have that view?

[49ersFan_vienna]

From my point of view, living here in europe, new stadiums tend to have steep stands, so that the fans are "closer" to the field and have a better view.
Seems like the new stadium will not be that steep really.
Also the design does not look really "up-to-date".

Well, as i will most likely not be ably to see lots of games of the 49ers "live" it should not matter to me, but a stadium somehow should be the "business card" of a franchise.
Unfortunally there will be no roof. Of course there is no real need for a roof from the standpoint of the weather. But compared to stadiums without roof the ones with roof are much louder because of the echo.
Aditionally they a lot more state of the art than those without

[Ice Train]

Looks to me like a plain old college football stadium. I also agree that there should be a roof then maybe our crowd would actually matter during a game.

[NolansTheMan]

The old one had an unbeatable view of the City.....

http://www.49ers.com/nm_files/Image/High%20Res%20Stadium/skylineone.jpg

-----------------------------------------


Ohh Well.........

In with the new!

if the new stadium has it so u can see the city off in the distance and looks relatively close, then i dont feel so bad about move. before i saw anything i just thought the city would be far away but after this photo it doesnt look so bad

[Hopper15]

That stadium design still looks very plain compared to all other nfl stadiums around. Looks like a college stadium.

[bionic3]

The new rendering looks pretty similar to the old mockup, just viewed from the opposite perspective. I do like the enclosed portion at one end which should create a signifigant noise advantage. The 49ers should distribute season tickets around the enclosed section first to get the most loyal and vociferous fans there to creat an effect similar to the Dawg Pound or Black Hole.

The other end is pretty plain though. The stadium developers might consider a plaza seating design similar to that of the north end of Seahawk Stadium. Personally, I find that to be one of the better structures among NFL stadiums.

[Peter Proud]

Latest concept shows a tunnel at one endzone. I have endzone seats (SEZ ROCKS) and if that tunnel is where the players go on and off the field, that's where I want my seats!

[49erRyder]

I think it looks coo. A view of the city would be real nice or the bay. But it seems like it could use another row of seats out there.:sf49:

[49erRyder]

Also I hope there thinking about putting grass out there not some Rams turf bull ****.

[Giedi]

That location is right smack dab in the middle of the Great America parking lot. Now if the Santa Clara folks want to jetzone Great America, then by all means build the stadium there. But I'm pretty sure a significant percentage of Santa Clarans like Great America and will save it from destruction. Because if you keep Great America, you'll have to keep that parking lot, or build another one with the same capacity only a short distance away from the Rides and such.

Giedi

[prospector]

I love the big SF logo....perfect for when we move to Santa Clara. It's like it's taunting those San Francisco politicians who are all worked up right now: "Suck it Dianne!"

[TopHat]

I like it! I hope it has that new car smell:banana5:

[TopHat]

......"Suck it Dianne!"

Dude I don't even want to get a visual of that. That is just wrooooong in so many ways

[Ronin 49er]

I like it alot...

Looks alittle bit like the one they designed for ohio st. (http://www.hntb.com/portfolio.jsp?co=2)
It's the same design company, HNTB Architecture Inc., that did both. INVESCO Field too. And true you could see the similarities.

[LOS41510]

I love the SF logo myself. the stadium looks tight and of course has LUXURY Suites that can help us build revenue.. the only thing i dont like is that its 62k seats? or is it going to be more?

LOS


YEE!!

[AlexSmith5rings]

anyone know the capacity of the stadium(s)? i really hope they can keep it in san francisco

[Mac9er]

For 800 million, I would think the place should have more, character, you know more unique, something that makes a statement and identity. When people see it, they will remember it, like they do with Wrigley Field, or Yankee Stadium. It will cost the Yorks more money, but in the long run...character, builds champions and community identity, thus goodwill.

Maybe something in a California Mission style, just a thought...

[pin0yb0i]

For 800 million, I would think the place should have more, character, you know more unique, something that makes a statement and identity. When people see it, they will remember it, like they do with Wrigley Field, or Yankee Stadium. It will cost the Yorks more money, but in the long run...character, builds champions and community identity, thus goodwill.

Maybe something in a California Mission style, just a thought...


in an article put out in early february, HNTB say that the design of the stadium is still in early stages.

HNTB is still early in the design process -between 2 and 3 on a scale of 1 to 10 -and free to throw around ideas to fit the stadium with its surroundings, such as Great America. 'We've even toyed with the idea of having some sort of amusement ride attached to the stadium,'Gonzales said.
http://www.europaconcorsi.com/db/rec/inbox.php?id=14722

[Peter Proud]

For 800 million, I would think the place should have more, character, you know more unique, something that makes a statement and identity. When people see it, they will remember it, like they do with Wrigley Field, or Yankee Stadium. It will cost the Yorks more money, but in the long run...character, builds champions and community identity, thus goodwill.

Maybe something in a California Mission style, just a thought...

The way to create character now is for it to be a place where history is made, and events become legendary.

[Ohio49erfan]

along with the large SF logo, they need 5 large lombardi trophy pics put up there also, with 3 on one side, 2 on the other, and an area for a 3rd on that side, with the text "coming soon" :cop:

GO GO GOOD GUYS! :sflogo:

[Iamavictory]

For 800 million, I would think the place should have more, character, you know more unique, something that makes a statement and identity. When people see it, they will remember it, like they do with Wrigley Field, or Yankee Stadium. It will cost the Yorks more money, but in the long run...character, builds champions and community identity, thus goodwill.

Maybe something in a California Mission style, just a thought...

I'm with you Mac, our new home should be one like no other. We have to be here for awhile, let's do it right the first time. And no stinking roof! Football is a sport that was meant to be played in the elements. This isn't the AFL....

[Niner Jan]

I like your thinking, OhioFan! :smile: (Why limit it to 6?) j/k At least your thinking has CLASS. Not so the following, which is a slap-in-the-face to Dr. John York:

It's too bad the cheapest millionare in the world is planning it...

This remark shows a lack of respect and CLASS from its source. With all the money that Dr. John York has poured into making the SF CHQ and Facility in Santa Clara the classiest of its kind, that remark reveals more about the writer than about the person written about. I'm just dying to see the new exercise equipment room/locker room area which specifically proclaims it's a 49ers training facility in imperial burgundy and gold! One of these days, I'll get my wish, too. You can bet on that.

It's all to easy to criticize the owner, isn't it? He doesn't fight back. Takes no character at all, no siree...

:pirate: :shoot: :pirate2:

Niner Mom

[dsr4900]

the open space at san francisco would be nice... but i dont want to see downtown santa clara.. fill that empty space with more seats for more niners fans...i like the idea of a retractable roof /or a dome on the stadium...it keeps the rain and wind out

[MadCardDisease]

I think its to plain. I want something like the Seahawks, something like a retractabler roof, a plaza. A see throughy part like the Bucs. I want something better then, an oval. Its too bad the cheapest millionare in the world is planning it...

I agree it lacks an Identity. I wonder if the price of Land in the Bay area is limiting their design options.

Have you seen the design of the new Cowboy stadium. They are going with something similar to the Cardinals stadium. Only making it bigger and better:

http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/

That thing is going to be NICE!

[co2112]

its the same thing....

looks that way to me

[sats0]

I agree it lacks an Identity. I wonder if the price of Land in the Bay area is limiting their design options.

Have you seen the design of the new Cowboy stadium. They are going with something similar to the Cardinals stadium. Only making it bigger and better:

http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/

That thing is going to be NICE!

Looks like a giant commode with a seat up (roof open) / seat down (roof close) option :hide:

[TheWiz]

the difference is the Cowboys have a great owner, the 49ers and Cards do not.

Yeah. Let's throw out all of the other facts involved...

- The team got over 300M in public funding with virtually no dissent from the public, to build a new stadium. The 49ers brought in 5 trophies in under 15 years and playoff games each year and tons of revenue to San Francisco while playing in a converted baseball stadium. Yet the city won't even give out 100M in bonds for all of the profits it has made from the team.
- Dallas got a 150M G3 loan from the league. A near zero cost amount borrowed from the league that they have a decade to work off.
- Construction is much cheaper in Texas. Somehow, people aren't swarming down to Texas to live and there is a LOT of land to build on. Meanwhile, California is always building and the property values can be exhorbitant. Workers make more in California due to the higher cost of living and we pay a lot more for the same work that might be done in Irving.
- Amazingly, in Irving, the ground doesn't shake on a frequent enough basis to collapse freeways and office buildings.
- Oh, and even though our stadium is cheaper than the one being built by DAL (because they're investing over 400M in a retractable roof), our 'terrible' owner is paying a higher amount and a higher percentage to get it built.

Looks like a giant commode with a seat up (roof open) / seat down (roof close) option :hide:

I love it. Only in California do you get a brand new, state of the art stadium built in a very open commercial area with tons of transportation options and people complain because it's not artsy enough. It's like seeing a guy win a new car on a gameshow when he drives a burnt out '79 Dodge and watching him complain because he likes the trim on the '06 model more. You want decorative molding and a spaceship design with a moving roof? Try and see how that holds up in a 7.0.

[MadCardDisease]

I love it. Only in California do you get a brand new, state of the art stadium built in a very open commercial area with tons of transportation options and people complain because it's not artsy enough. It's like seeing a guy win a new car on a gameshow when he drives a burnt out '79 Dodge and watching him complain because he likes the trim on the '06 model more. You want decorative molding and a spaceship design with a moving roof? Try and see how that holds up in a 7.0.

I agree that a moving roof on a stadium is not the best idea in SF. However that doesn't mean that the new stadium can't have a modern look. I think something like Seahawk stadium would look amazing in SF. They were able to build a beautiful and unique ballpark for the SF Giants. You would think that the 49ers would get a stadium just as nice.

Being from the Bay Area originally and knowing what a great city SF is, I really want to see them get a state of the art stadium that makes the city that much better.

I can also see your point that beggers can't be choosers. I agree that anything is better than Candlestick or whatever they call it these days.

[Fricker 4]

Dallas' New Stadium is actually being built in Arlington, not Irving like the current one. But ya its definately alot cheaper to live and build here then Cali.

[Stumpy]

I guess I'm a traditionalist. I think stadiums should look and feel like a stadium, not some futuristic space-station. The main thing I care about is that the stadium be nice, comfortable, well-lit, plenty of seating, and team-specific.

[Horrorshow 49er]

Yeah I agree that as long as its new I realy don't mind it being simple.

While some other teams can brag all they want about how super cool there stadium is, the best way to stick to them is by reminding them who's team is better. Or in our case has been better and maybe will be better.

p.s. Stumpy, a friend of mine who comes on here thought you were me, cuz my last name is Stump and people call me Stumpy.

[49ers Ephon]

didn't see this posted, newest concept pics:

http://www.49ers.com/nm_files/Image/High%20Res%20Stadium/fivelarge.jpg

http://www.49ers.com/nm_files/Image/High%20Res%20Stadium/fourlage.jpg

http://49ers.com/nm_files/Image/High%20Res%20Stadium/threeimage.jpg

[Tovey21]

Those Stadium designs look to plain.

[niceguyasif]

I think its to plain. I want something like the Seahawks, something like a retractabler roof, a plaza. A see throughy part like the Bucs. I want something better then, an oval. Its too bad the cheapest millionare in the world is planning it...

cheapest?? ???? :mouthclosed: cleamons cheap?

[sandiegojoe]

Interesting, looks like "the view" will be of Great America Park.

I imagine Great America is going to make millions of new dollars due to this stadium, plus the fact that it'll be shown on all of the televised games, either from the stadium views or blimps will be great advertising. They've gotta be stoked about the whole thing.

[niceguyasif]

Also I hope there thinking about putting grass out there not some Rams turf bull ****.

loving not being like those ----ing rams

[Omnipotent]

Interesting, looks like "the view" will be of Great America Park.

I imagine Great America is going to make millions of new dollars due to this stadium, plus the fact that it'll be shown on all of the televised games, either from the stadium views or blimps will be great advertising. They've gotta be stoked about the whole thing.



http://www.49ers.com/nm_files/Image/High%20Res%20Stadium/skylineone.jpg

I like this view a lot better...:whistling:

[BIrwin49]

Now THIS is a new stadium.
http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/

The new proposed Niner stadium doesn't look too great. Like some others said, it looks outdated before it's even made.

[niceguyasif]

when we can say we have more rings than anyone then we can hold our heads up high no matter what the stadium looks like .
raising niner fans in mo

[Giant9erShark]

Now THIS is a new stadium.
http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/

The new proposed Niner stadium doesn't look too great. Like some others said, it looks outdated before it's even made.

WOW now thats modern stadium, what i want (even though we're not going to get it) this is how it seems new stadiums might be built so lets hope we don't get left in the past before we get to the future but hey if we win 5 more superbowls i don't care if we go back to Kezar

[ArmofJustice]

I agree it lacks an Identity. I wonder if the price of Land in the Bay area is limiting their design options.

Have you seen the design of the new Cowboy stadium. They are going with something similar to the Cardinals stadium. Only making it bigger and better:

http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/

That thing is going to be NICE!


Looking at the design, there are several things they did that I would never want to see in California.

* First, retractable roof. Seriously - bad idea for a huge number of reasons.
* Second, Glass covering around 100% of the building. This one is both for aesthetics and practical reasons. Aesthetically, it basically puts a giant mirror in the middle of towns. I don't like that. For practicle reasons, one earthquake would be a major problem with a building enclosed like that.'
* I don't like the "sharp cutout" ends. Personal opinion I know, but they look kinda silly to me.

That being said, I do like the seating capacity and think that the overall design isn't bad.

Some things I like about ours:

* I love open air stadiums. There is just something about one you can't beat. The one drawback to these is you can't have fancy hanging monitors like the Dallas stadium. I don't mind that though - I would trade those for open aired stadiums any day.
* I like the art mockup better than the conceptual computer rendering for the outside walls that are not glass faced. The conceptual computer rendering looks like they are just going to cut it off. The art mockup with the sloped walls to allow for spaces behind the bleachers for clubs/concessions looks good to me.
* I like the classic feel to it. I know most people want ultra-modern. I love the classical feel to things though. A few modern elements are nice, but sometimes the urge to get modern just makes them silly.

Some things I don't like:

* The artists rendering makes the area outside the stadium look small. As much as I think Dallas's cutout endzones look silly, they do provide a couple of large plazas for outside pre and post game events. These can add a lot of fun to the game.
* I am not a fan of visible staircases on the outside of buildings. Never been my thing.

One thing for people to remember when they try to compare our stadium and Dallas's stadium. Most of the pictures you see of ours are not complete renderings. In other words, the stadium is being built up piece by piece in computer models. You probably wont see a full out proposal for another year or so. The concept art is closer to what it will look like, but not complete. In the end when we get the same sort of stylized finished concept art that Dallas has if you totally change your opinion.

[sats0]

I love it. Only in California do you get a brand new, state of the art stadium built in a very open commercial area with tons of transportation options and people complain because it's not artsy enough. It's like seeing a guy win a new car on a gameshow when he drives a burnt out '79 Dodge and watching him complain because he likes the trim on the '06 model more. You want decorative molding and a spaceship design with a moving roof? Try and see how that holds up in a 7.0.

Umm, I was commenting about the roof on the cowboys stadium looking like a toilet bowl cover. I didn't mean to suggest in any way that we need a roof in Santa Clara. The weather in SC is going to be warmer than SF, and I don't think it gets as windy out there as it does at Candlestick, so a roof would just be a waste of money IMO.

Right now the Concept pics just look like generic renditions so I'm not basing too much on that. However, if the 9ers are going to go through the cost and trouble of building a new stadium, I'm sure attempts will be made to make it look attractive. After all, no one wants to build a state of the art stadium and have people think it is a monstrosity.

One thing I like about the Cowboys stadium is their attempt to provide a link to their past with the stadium design. I hope that the new stadium will somehow tie in the gold rush after which the team gets its name. And maybe something that reflects the hi-tech area in which it is located.

So it doesn't have to have decorative moulding and a spaceship design. Fuzzy dice and giant shiny rims would be nice though.

[MadCardDisease]

I hope that the new stadium will somehow tie in the gold rush after which the team gets its name.


So you want something like this?

http://www.keeneengineering.com/pamphlets/images/xx135goldPan.jpg

[sats0]

So you want something like this?

http://www.keeneengineering.com/pamphlets/images/xx135goldPan.jpg

Exactly, Now where's the fuzzy dice??? Dang, can't believe there is no smilie with fuzzy dice in it!

[ninersfan68]

i agree, they look outdated before the stadium is even built. but then again, any stadium, plain or not, are 100x better then what we have.

If we are going to spend this much money, we might as well build one well be happy with, on thats modern and will last a long time,

hell, were the ******* 49ers!! why dont we built the newest, best, most modern one and totall just show up the cowboys, well have the SB in SF:welcome2:

[Jsmooth]

I think its to plain. I want something like the Seahawks, something like a retractabler roof, a plaza. A see throughy part like the Bucs. I want something better then, an oval. Its too bad the cheapest millionare in the world is planning it...

I know that it isn't at Candlestick Point, but i would LOVE a retractable roof. It would make the game more enjoyable to watch, particularly when the sun went down. Some people will probably complain that it takes away from the game...the swirling winds and all, but I think it would be a HUGE improvement and give us the best of both worlds (controlling the climate and a view of the city)

i going to miss seeing the 49ers play on the grass though, i always loved how the broadcast talked about the water "flowing in" making the grass "boggy" lol

great advantage i think we'll lose when we most likely switch to field turf

oh well

Are we switching to field turf? I hope not.

[smoking_rubber]

Why would we switch to turf? I believe the plan is grass.

[Teke]

If we are going to spend this much money, we might as well build one well be happy with, on thats modern and will last a long time,

hell, were the ******* 49ers!! why dont we built the newest, best, most modern one and totall just show up the cowboys, well have the SB in SF:welcome2:

Yea, we should build our stadium in space. And have an elevator that you take from downtown San Fransisco to the stadium. We can call it the Intel Space Bowl. Green Bay thinks they have a good home field advantage, try playing in our new weightless stadium. Ha!

[TheWiz]

Again, I still don't get why everyone think the stadium design is "low-tech" in any form. It's like we're using large flashbulbs for the scoreboard like it's a high school team in Iowa or something. Amazingly, the inside of the Cowboys stadium? Guess what: It's rather bowl shaped, has similar scoreboards, and has nothing special that has never been seen before. The only thing people are fighting against is that this team didn't get instant NFL and local funding and zero resistance to build. So they had their plan set quickly and produced a lovely, well rendered ground view of their stadium.

1) Forget about Retractable Roofs or a Dome. The unstable activity in the region make these types of structures in the bay area a serious liability. It's all neat until one day a serious 6.5 hits and the multi-ton retracting roof shakes and snaps from its track and tumbles 200+ feet onto the field and lower seats along a a quarter of the field and injures thousands. Even a heavily reinforced dome will take damage in aftershocks.

2) Who said the new stadium would EVER be short of any ammenities? Amazing, if we take on a traditional bowl shape for a field, we're boring? 2 massive HDTV megatron screens don't appeal? Or outstanding cell and internet support for fans? I'm to the point wondering what space age accomodation the team has denied interest in adopting that somehow makes the stadium low-tech. We'd have more technology and capabilities than over 90% of teams in the league!

[Teke]

When we see stadiums like the Seahawks being put up in recent years, we wonder why our team has to have the 1960's bowl look. That is why people are looking at it and complaining.

I agree with your argument that we could use the high def. jumbotrons and such, but isn't that a given for any new stadium built nowadays? Heck, if that's all we wanted they could have just taken out our old screen at the Stick and put one in there.

And I think you and I can both agree that the stadium design (I'm talking construction, not tvs) is a seriously basic design by today's standards.

And internet support? What fan cares about a laptop or PDA when the 49ers have 4th and goal in the 4th quarter? I come to the games to watch the team, not browse the internet. Things like this just don't appeal to me as much as my total game experience. To me and others who have shown disdain for the design of the stadium, ambience definitely is a part of the experience. All we're saying is they could have put a little more thought into the stadium design. Like I said before, look at the Seahawks stadium as an example of an outdoor stadium with a nice aesthetic value.

Also, I think your argument that we have earhquakes is a cop out. Humans have designed highly effected ways to distribute the weight of such a large building in the past 40 or so years. Engineers now have sophisticated computer programs that will tell them how big an earthquake a particular stadium can hold. So to tell me that the owners are afraid the stadium will collapse is not going to be a big enough excuse for me.

Tell me the owners didn't want to spend the money on better engineers to build a highly aesthetic and safe stadium. If you said that I'd believe it.

[smoking_rubber]

Wiz, who said anything about low-tech in the last 2 months? I've heard mention that a modern stadium design was desired. Turf and a roof.
1. A modern design is in the eye of the beholder.
2. You answered the roof question dramaticaly.
3. Still wondering about that grass.

Seems you're a bit defensive. :flex: I'm wondering how personal this issue is to you.

[Teke]

I'm wondering how personal this issue is to you.

You know, a lot of people assume the Wiz is someone who works for the 49ers but he's never come out and said it. I think he might be just some random guy with too much time on his hands. Most of what he says is public knowledge that can't be dug up by the average Joe, the rest is personal opinion.

[smoking_rubber]

. . . we wonder why our team has to have the 1960's bowl look. That is why people are looking at it and complaining.

And I think you and I can both agree that the stadium design (I'm talking construction, not tvs) is a seriously basic design by today's standards.



I can't guess their reasons for choosing this design, but I can deduce a few of the challenges and compromises they dealt with.

The large luxury box in the middle ate up a bunch of center seating, so to obtain the large seating count, they had to fit those seats somewhere else. This is the reason for the continuous corners.

The upper section continues the 'bowl' look by eliminating the scalloped mezenene level. This allows more seating by pushing the upper level back and increasing it's circumference. It also makes the stadium look larger from the luxury boxes (I'm sure that is just an added benifit).

They could have designed a more modern looking structure, but their task was to fit a 70,000 seat stadium, with a single large luxury tower, on a couple small acres of land nestled between a convention center and an amusement park. Not easy to do all that and make it look 'modern' too.

[Stumpy]

You know, a lot of people assume the Wiz is someone who works for the 49ers but he's never come out and said it. I think he might be just some random guy with too much time on his hands. Most of what he says is public knowledge that can't be dug up by the average Joe, the rest is personal opinion.

I completely agree. I don't understand why people are so impressed with the Wiz when most of what he posts can be found elsewhere on the net. Just because his posts are long and partially plagiarized doesn't make him a "GOD." I believe that he is simply a fan with way too much time on his hands. I also believe that all of the butt-kissing that he has received on this board has gone to his head, as many of his posts are self-serving and pompous.

[BEAT LA]

the stadium sucks....:nonono:
hopefully they throw all these plans in the trash and start a new design in hunters point

why?....think about it....the hunters point is an area that needs to change... this stadium would dramatically do that...think about it, if you build the stadium in SC then youre just helping out an already economical area...and if the stadium was built there then that would mean no stadium in hunters point which translates into the area staying crappy for maybe forever...what im trying to say is that by building the stadium in hunters point we would be revitalizing hunters point...

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Hmm.

And perhaps those of you who are posting comments critizing the Wiz would do well to remember that we avoid making personal attacks in these parts. We may be critical of another's opinion, but should avoid critizing individuals themselves.

And may I add, that I personally place a great deal of value in posts from individuals who have consistently and repeatedly provided us with well written, well thought out and properly researched posts over a long period of time. In my humble opinion, those types of posters are few and far between on this board.

How can anyone be critized for presenting "commonly available" information when so many on this board post drek without the slightest attempt at research to substantiate their position?

I have strayed far from the original topic of this thread and apologize for the intrusion - but there are times when I feel compelled to speak my mind - and this is one of them. For what it's worth.....

[The Jerm!]

the stadium sucks....:nonono:
hopefully they throw all these plans in the trash and start a new design in hunters point

why?....think about it....the hunters point is an area that needs to change... this stadium would dramatically do that...think about it, if you build the stadium in SC then youre just helping out an already economical area...and if the stadium was built there then that would mean no stadium in hunters point which translates into the area staying crappy for maybe forever...what im trying to say is that by building the stadium in hunters point we would be revitalizing hunters point...

Or maybe Hunters Point will forever be crappy even with a stadium? Maybe somethings aren't mean't to be fixed so greatly because of still being crappy after the installment. Waste of a time of a spot to even try to put a high-tech stadium into.

[smoking_rubber]

Hunter's Point does need to change. I believe that is the reason the San Francisco Mayor's office is moving ahead with expedited clean-up and reconstruction of the entire area. They're planning on revitalizing the area with, or without the 49ers committed to playing there. So what's your point? Hunter's point will be cleaned up either way.

We still don't like the 'bowl' design.

[Teke]

The large luxury box in the middle ate up a bunch of center seating

The upper section continues the 'bowl' look by eliminating the scalloped mezenene level. This allows more seating by pushing the upper level back and increasing it's circumference.

They could have designed a more modern looking structure, but their task was to fit a 70,000 seat stadium, with a single large luxury tower, on a couple small acres of land nestled between a convention center and an amusement park. Not easy to do all that and make it look 'modern' too.

I just realized this and I think it should be obvious to the owners that maybe this spot probably isn't the best place to build a stadium. So in order to get this spot we're giving up the tailgating experience, adequate parking, possibly our team name (or at the very least, the fact the we plaay in the city where we built our identity as a team), plus we lose the benefit of having one of the best looking stadiums in the league. All so the Yorks can build the stadium in Santa Clara? I really don't see any purpose besides better passage to and from the stadium. To be honest I'd take the kind of traffic we have now in order to still have all the things we're giving up for this spot.



And perhaps those of you who are posting comments critizing the Wiz would do well to remember that we avoid making personal attacks in these parts. We may be critical of another's opinion, but should avoid critizing individuals themselves.


I assume you're talking about me. Isn't your post in itself a personal attack? If you look at what I wrote, you'll see that in no way did I "attack" or insult TheWiz. I merely stated a matter of fact and an observation on my part that I have rarely seen anyone make. If that's insulting to you or TheWiz then I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings.

BTW- Have you ever noticed how when the question comes up about whether or not TheWiz is a part of the organization he/she avoids it? Well we've already seen that TheWiz states nothing but public knowledge so what could he/she possibly have to hide from the 49ers if TheWiz was actually an employee of the team?

Also, the director of this message board is an employee of the 49ers. I'm sure if someone was on here spilling "inside information" and "secrets" about the organization their IP address would be logged and an investigation by the 49ers' IT department would insue. So TheWiz's avoidance of this question only shows the he/she intends to further people's belief the he/she is an employee with inside information when he/she is not.

[smoking_rubber]

I just realized this and I think it should be obvious to the owners that maybe this spot probably isn't the best place to build a stadium. So in order to get this spot we're giving up the tailgating experience, adequate parking, possibly our team name (or at the very least, the fact the we plaay in the city where we built our identity as a team), plus we lose the benefit of having one of the best looking stadiums in the league. All so the Yorks can build the stadium in Santa Clara? I really don't see any purpose besides better passage to and from the stadium. To be honest I'd take the kind of traffic we have now in order to still have all the things we're giving up for this spot.


Me too! Other than the fact that the SC site is approximately 4 miles from my Father's house and almost an hour closer to me, I don't care for all of the compromises. If the traffic is a pain, I'll hang around for another hour and burn more cows. Not a problem for me at all.

[Teke]

Me too! Other than the fact that the SC site is approximately 4 miles from my Father's house and almost an hour closer to me, I don't care for all of the compromises. If the traffic is a pain, I'll hang around for another hour and burn more cows. Not a problem for me at all.

I live in Orange County and drive 6 hours and 45 minutes to get to the stadium (Arizona is closer to me by 2:45). Santa Clara would but nearly an hour off my time, if you include traffic coming out of the stadium, it would cut 2 and a half hours off my trip to see the 49ers play. I'd still rather them be in San Fransisco if we can have tailgating and a better looking stadium.

[smoking_rubber]

I live in near San Luis Obispo. You drive right by me if you come up 101 :) It takes me 4+ hours to get up to Candlestick. I too would prefer to keep the tailgating and drive the extra distance each week.

We should get together for a training camp carpool.

[captnkos]

No doubt I would LOVE to have the stadium in Santa Clara. I live down here, so it would be awesome. That said if its still in SF in 10 years, I'm happy with that too.

I couldn't tell if the new stadium picute can accomidate HUGE TVs like the ones in Philidelphia. That's what I'm really looking forward to.

[Believer]

the stadium sucks....:nonono:
hopefully they throw all these plans in the trash and start a new design in hunters point

why?....think about it....the hunters point is an area that needs to change... this stadium would dramatically do that...think about it, if you build the stadium in SC then youre just helping out an already economical area...and if the stadium was built there then that would mean no stadium in hunters point which translates into the area staying crappy for maybe forever...what im trying to say is that by building the stadium in hunters point we would be revitalizing hunters point...

haha... lets built the new stadium in East Palo Alto then...

[Teke]

I live in near San Luis Obispo. You drive right by me if you come up 101 :) It takes me 4+ hours to get up to Candlestick. I too would prefer to keep the tailgating and drive the extra distance each week.

We should get together for a training camp carpool.

Sounds like a good offer, but I'm not going to be going to training camp this season. I'll be at the opener though. UR 49, Row 1 Seats 1 and 2 if anyone wants to say hi.

[ozzcows]

They have to keep the stadium red and gold. And keep the grass, no turf. No roof either, I want to see rainy and foggy games, I hate how everyone is sissifying the sport with the luxury boxes and fancy chairs with a cup holder and air conditioning. This is football people, not a 5 star hotel.

[Roaring Back]

They have to keep the stadium red and gold. And keep the grass, no turf. No roof either, I want to see rainy and foggy games, I hate how everyone is sissifying the sport with the luxury boxes and fancy chairs with a cup holder and air conditioning. This is football people, not a 5 star hotel.

I agree. Open air, natural grass. A lot of these new retractable roof stadiums look like airport hangars, and that field turf looks great for the first few years, until it fades and gets all mangy and matted down. I'd like to see the 49ers buck the trend and build something more intimate and aesthetically pleasing than the huge stadiums going up around the league. Maybe some traditional arches in one endzone like Kezar or the old Orange Bowl, and seats right on top of the action for fan noise.

That soon to be vacant spot on the other side of McCovey Cove at China Basin that the Port of San Francisco is trying to decide how to develop might be a nice location. If not, then it should be Hunter's Point. In any case, keep them in SF.

[Nevyn]

I think its to plain. I want something like the Seahawks, something like a retractabler roof, a plaza. A see throughy part like the Bucs. I want something better then, an oval. Its too bad the cheapest millionare in the world is planning it...

I'm sorry, but I really take issue with all the ideas that we need some themed or futuristic monstrosity. Those types of stadiums get old very fast. A stadium isn't meant to be exciting, its meant to be easy to get too, fun to tailgate at, easy to get in/out of, and comfortable to be in with good views and acoustics.

[smoking_rubber]

. . . its meant to be easy to get too, fun to tailgate at, easy to get in/out of, and comfortable to be in with good views and acoustics.

:dance2: Could we get one of those PLEASE?!!!!! That's all I want! :help:

[Stumpy]

I'm sorry, but I really take issue with all the ideas that we need some themed or futuristic monstrosity. Those types of stadiums get old very fast. A stadium isn't meant to be exciting, its meant to be easy to get too, fun to tailgate at, easy to get in/out of, and comfortable to be in with good views and acoustics.

I agree. Trendy future-type stadiums do get old in a hurry. It's the classic looking stadiums that stand the test of time. In 3-5 years we will all be talking about how lame the Cardinals stadium is, and what a stupid idea it was to have a field that rolls in and out of the dome. I personally think it's pretty lame right now.

[smoking_rubber]

I agree. Trendy future-type stadiums do get old in a hurry. It's the classic looking stadiums that stand the test of time. In 3-5 years we will all be talking about how lame the Cardinals stadium is, and what a stupid idea it was to have a field that rolls in and out of the dome. I personally think it's pretty lame right now.

I think it's great idea. It wouldn't work on the tiny SC site, but it's still a good idea. Mostly, it enables the stadium to be used for non-football events without the concern of destroying the playing field. It would allow the stadium to be easily set up for events like the X Games or Monster Truck Rallies.

Of course, the 49ers are footing most of the bill and all of the over-runs. AND, they don't get the proceeds from those events. So any push to include a movable field in the design would have to be originated and paid for by the new Stadium Authority.

[Vader]

:ph34r:

[sgfried]

I like the idea of a "steeper" stadium, so that the fans are closer to the field AND have more than 62K seating. I want our fans to rock that place, plus if we have an 80k or so stadium, we could have a chance at hosting a super bowl. If we are going to have a stadium, make it complete, I think we use a completely oval shape with no open areas where you can see the city. I am there to see my Niners kick butt, not to view the landscape. Plus, its more seats for us! Lastly, NO DOME OR ROOF! How many classic games had some sort of weather to contend with? Lets play in the wind and the rain, it makes the victory that much sweeter! If someone won't go to the game because of a little rain, then get a real fan in there, screaming and stomping and high fiving everyone in sight when our new D scoops up a fumble and rumbles 75 yards for the go ahead TD! Gawd I love my niners, I think I just messed my depends!

[smoking_rubber]

"STEEPER" does not mean MORE seats. Steeper and closer makes the total circumference smaller. Therefore LESS seats. You could compensate by going HIGHER too, but that defeats the purpose of CLOSER.

They've said the stadium will have the capability of expanding to 80,000 for certain events. I don't know if those 'certain' events include football games or not.

One concern I have is the San Jose International Airport. Great America sits approximately 3 miles from the end of the main runway, DIRECTLY under the main flight path. What kind of limitations this will cause for blimps, I don't know. I don't imagine it will be the greatest of situations for events like the Super Bowl. If we do have a blimp up there on game day, it won't be very high. It may also limit our fly-overs. I'm not an air-traffic controller so maybe 3 miles is enough, but I doubt it for an International airport.

[sandiegojoe]

"STEEPER" does not mean MORE seats. Steeper and closer makes the total circumference smaller. Therefore LESS seats.

not really, it just depends on the layout/tiers. it could mean less seats, it could mean more.

[smoking_rubber]

I believe they're not going to be utilizing tiers. They don't want posts in anyone's way. I can't argue with that! Posts suck (if you're behind one)!!!!

[Referee]

A hallowed franchise such as the 49ers with a 5-0 super bowl winning record should have a world class stadium... AT&T Park made a big difference towards baseball in San Francisco. Why is that some millionaires don't know how to play ball with politicos who are just aching to get their bellies rubbed?

Let's get it done already!

[UNDERGROUND]

co-sign!!

[UNDERGROUND]

I like the idea of a "steeper" stadium, so that the fans are closer to the field AND have more than 62K seating. I want our fans to rock that place, plus if we have an 80k or so stadium, we could have a chance at hosting a super bowl. If we are going to have a stadium, make it complete, I think we use a completely oval shape with no open areas where you can see the city. I am there to see my Niners kick butt, not to view the landscape. Plus, its more seats for us! Lastly, NO DOME OR ROOF! How many classic games had some sort of weather to contend with? Lets play in the wind and the rain, it makes the victory that much sweeter! If someone won't go to the game because of a little rain, then get a real fan in there, screaming and stomping and high fiving everyone in sight when our new D scoops up a fumble and rumbles 75 yards for the go ahead TD! Gawd I love my niners, I think I just messed my depends!

lol

[Iamavictory]

I like the idea of a "steeper" stadium, so that the fans are closer to the field AND have more than 62K seating. I want our fans to rock that place, plus if we have an 80k or so stadium, we could have a chance at hosting a super bowl. If we are going to have a stadium, make it complete, I think we use a completely oval shape with no open areas where you can see the city. I am there to see my Niners kick butt, not to view the landscape. Plus, its more seats for us! Lastly, NO DOME OR ROOF! How many classic games had some sort of weather to contend with? Lets play in the wind and the rain, it makes the victory that much sweeter! If someone won't go to the game because of a little rain, then get a real fan in there, screaming and stomping and high fiving everyone in sight when our new D scoops up a fumble and rumbles 75 yards for the go ahead TD! Gawd I love my niners, I think I just messed my depends!

Dude, my exact feelings to the letter. Excellent post! :sf49:

[Scottish 9er]

Ok so the proposed design is in some peoples eyes plain, but there is a very famous design philosophy: Less is More.

While it may not have all the bells and whistles that the new Dallas stadium has on the outside, who really cares? All the stadiums i've ever been too i've sat, believe it or not, on the inside! So really couldn't give a **** if there is a massive jumbo tron screen on the outside of the building so passers by can see the game. Looking at the new design i can only see two areas where you may not be able to get a 100% clear view of every area of the field and surely the quality of the view is the MOST important thing in any new stadium design.

Retractable roof... Why? Extra expense and as many have pointed out in earthquake country a serious health and safety liability and they also remove all sense of home field advantage. There are two things that create home field advantage, fans and the elements. How many people in Greenbay want a roof? Not many i'd bet as the conditions up there give them a massive advatage late in the year and into the playoffs. Ok so the elements in SF are not quite as extreme but we have the wind and fog which has helped us out as we're used to it and visitiing teams are not. Why neutralise an advantage you have when playing at home? It makes no sense to me.

Field turf and roofs in my opinion should be banned. Football is about elements and dirt. I hate getting to the end of a game and seeing players in clean jerseys! There is just something wrong with it. I will wait to see the final proposal, as has been mentioned earlier this is just the preliminary design, but right now i can think of worse stadiums than what has been proposed.

[Passepartout]

49ers need a new stadium unless they want
The stadium to collapse all by itself
They need one and fast!:ohmy:

[sats0]

Here's the best concept picture I've seen of the stadium so far. Of course, I may be biased as it was my son's creation :francis:

http://supportourniners.com/spotlight/neeraj.php

[mike addison]

49er fan living in seattle, I like it better than the seattle stadium, it`s a perfect fit.

[getitback]

new stadium looks like crap compared to all the other new or more recent stadiums. it really is plain in comparison to something like the seattle stadium (don't know the name). nothing is state of the art really. nothing artistic as well. well i dunno, seems like most fans on the message boards are ok with a lot of things, like the niners moving, and the stadium design, etc.It's as boring as their play calls.

[CaliCuzn]

Hunter's Point does need to change. I believe that is the reason the San Francisco Mayor's office is moving ahead with expedited clean-up and reconstruction of the entire area. They're planning on revitalizing the area with, or without the 49ers committed to playing there. So what's your point? Hunter's point will be cleaned up either way.

We still don't like the 'bowl' design.

Right..we build with or without the ''TEAM'' staying in SF

And when i say team, i mean they're free to leave..the name SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS stays in SF.

So bye bye Doctor!...play Walt Disney if ya want to...you wont be missed around here.

[DavisNiner]

It looks like they slightly changed the stadium concept again. I like the two large jumbotrons on each side of the field. Overall, I think its a great stadium. Doubt it will be built anytime soon though.

http://sf49ers.com/stadium/49ers_sta...Stadium%20Tour

[49ers Ephon]

i like this one

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6618/stadium1wy6.png

[ninerjeff]

Here's the best concept picture I've seen of the stadium so far. Of course, I may be biased as it was my son's creation :francis:

http://supportourniners.com/spotlight/neeraj.php

that's cute how about a lego sourdough sam?:biggrin: :dance3:

[DavisNiner]

Here is another one. I like the Jumbotrons on both sides of the field.

http://www.49ers.com/nm_files/Image/High%20Res%20Stadium/fourlage.jpg

[Kezar Niner]

I don't like the designs with the open ends or open space. why leave something open where you could fill it with seats, or a jumbotron for the fans and to run ads on? we need to put something there.

The A's are putting a swimming pool in their stadium, which i think is lame, but its a good fill for space. Maybe a statue to Walsh or something if we have to have an open end? a bar, something!

[Peter Proud]

I'm just waiting to here the team say: We have a place to build and the agreement is signed.

Actual design will come later.

[difussion3]

They have to come to an agreement soon. We need a new stadium!

[bucksniners]

I would like to see the upper decks closer to the field, one deck on top of the other, it that's possible. Everone would get a good fiew of the field

[DavisNiner]

I would like to see the upper decks closer to the field, one deck on top of the other, it that's possible. Everone would get a good fiew of the field

I agree

[Hobbes2d]

We are so never getting a new stadium.

[DavisNiner]

We are so never getting a new stadium.

I agree

[JonnyT]

who cares at this point? Let this crappy team move to L.A. They deserve eachother...

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Quite a few people still care.

It's the losers who have quit supporting their team that don't care.

I figure there is plenty of room in LA for quitters.

The true Faithful will remain.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

: pieinthesky :Hmmm.

Are you saying you're serving up pie?

I'm sure the Faithful will appreciate your kindness.

[college_fan]

new stadium looks like crap compared to all the other new or more recent stadiums. it really is plain in comparison to something like the seattle stadium (don't know the name). nothing is state of the art really. nothing artistic as well. well i dunno, seems like most fans on the message boards are ok with a lot of things, like the niners moving, and the stadium design, etc.

I agree. There's nothing here that grabs anyone's attention.

It should be open at both ends with a view of the bay at one; the city on the other.

Also, if the 49ers want a unique fan experience, why not have fans arrive by boat whether it be the ferrys or private boat. A marina with tailgating in mind.

Fans at the University of Washington and the University of Tennessee are the only ones that travel via boat.

[Tyler]

Looks fantastic. The sooner the new stadium deal is finalized, the better. The team needs a morale boost that a new stadium could provide -- not to mention the fans deserve a positive experience (which isn't happening now at all with the dicrepid Candlestick stadium and poor offensive performance).

[Hobbes2d]

There won't be a new stadium. Not sure why other people haven't caught on yet. Yorks = inept. California Government = red tape. Kinda hard to build a new stadium when your owners don't have the $ and the state and local government's take decades to pass measures that would allow for such a big project.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

I agree. There's nothing here that grabs anyone's attention.

It should be open at both ends with a view of the bay at one; the city on the other.

Also, if the 49ers want a unique fan experience, why not have fans arrive by boat whether it be the ferrys or private boat. A marina with tailgating in mind.

Fans at the University of Washington and the University of Tennessee are the only ones that travel via boat.
Views of the what?

Uhm. You really can't get a view of SF Bay from Santa Claraa unless you're building something really, REALLY tall.

Sorry to dissapoint.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

There won't be a new stadium. Not sure why other people haven't caught on yet. Yorks = inept. California Government = red tape. Kinda hard to build a new stadium when your owners don't have the $ and the state and local government's take decades to pass measures that would allow for such a big project.
Whew - well thank goodness the Niners aren't depending upon folks with attitudes like yours in order to get a new stadium built.

The Santa Clara City Council members have so far displayed a real "Can Do" attitude. Of course, they do temper their enthusiam by assuring the voters they will wait for the results of the feasibility study before taking any action.

[fabie]

I would rather have a winning team than a new stadium.....let us have rotten stadiums but with superbowls!:wheel:

[Hobbes2d]

Whew - well thank goodness the Niners aren't depending upon folks with attitudes like yours in order to get a new stadium built.

The Santa Clara City Council members have so far displayed a real "Can Do" attitude. Of course, they do temper their enthusiam by assuring the voters they will wait for the results of the feasibility study before taking any action.

I'm realistic, you are not. Things take decades to get done in this area, or state for that matter.

Look at LA, they would have an NFL team right now if there was a chance of ever getting a stadium built, but its not even feasible due to all the bs politics.

And I live in Santa Clara, trust me the city doesn't want a stadium here. It would get voted down. Especially when they want CITY money to pay for it.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

I'm realistic, you are not. Things take decades to get done in this area, or state for that matter.

Look at LA, they would have an NFL team right now if there was a chance of ever getting a stadium built, but its not even feasible due to all the bs politics.

And I live in Santa Clara, trust me the city doesn't want a stadium here. It would get voted down. Especially when they want CITY money to pay for it.True, some things do take decades, but the current proposal is to have a stadium ready for use in considerably less time than 20 years. Let's see - 2012 was the year last metioned, and that's only 5 year away - not decades.

At this point, who cares about LA. We're talking about Santa Clara here. I've attended a few city council meetings and I've obviously seen and heard things a little differently than you.

After all, the city is NOT going to "pay for" the stadium. The current plan is for the city to contribute less than 20% of the costs in order to own 100% of the finished stadium. Over 80% of the construction costs will be paid for by the Yorks, the NFL, sale and marketing of the team's name and the fans. And let's not forget, once it's built, the citizens of Santa Clara will OWN the entire stadium.

Now, most of the people I've spoken to, after they hear the full story, seem to think this is a pretty good deal.

[Hobbes2d]

True, some things do take decades, but the current proposal is to have a stadium ready for use in considerably less time than 20 years. Let's see - 2012 was the year last metioned, and that's only 5 year away - not decades.

At this point, who cares about LA. We're talking about Santa Clara here. I've attended a few city council meetings and I've obviously seen and heard things a little differently than you.

After all, the city is NOT going to "pay for" the stadium. The current plan is for the city to contribute less than 20% of the costs in order to own 100% of the finished stadium. Over 80% of the construction costs will be paid for by the Yorks, the NFL, sale and marketing of the team's name and the fans. And let's not forget, once it's built, the citizens of Santa Clara will OWN the entire stadium.

Now, most of the people I've spoken to, after they hear the full story, seem to think this is a pretty good deal.

I know the story about the money, and I'm still against it. It would be taking away money that's reserved for emergencies, and seeing as we're prime for another earthquake at any time I think it would be kind of stupid to give away 250 million dollars. Especially when the city is being used as a bargaining chip to get a stadium deal done in SF. And 2012 isn't a realistic timetable anymore since it will be at least another year before the feasibility report is even finished. Plus does that report include environment and geological studies? Im assuming it would, or would hope so since that would be even more time.

Not to mention the planned site is an awful place to put a professional sports stadium. People complain about parking now, just wait until you have to park in ugly *** parking structures and everyone is trying to leave at the same time, and then there's only 1 road to exit out of the stadium parking lot from.

Disaster.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

I know the story about the money, and I'm still against it. It would be taking away money that's reserved for emergencies, and seeing as we're prime for another earthquake at any time I think it would be kind of stupid to give away 250 million dollars. Especially when the city is being used as a bargaining chip to get a stadium deal done in SF. And 2012 isn't a realistic timetable anymore since it will be at least another year before the feasibility report is even finished. Plus does that report include environment and geological studies? I'm assuming it would, or would hope so since that would be even more time.

Not to mention the planned site is an awful place to put a professional sports stadium. People complain about parking now, just wait until you have to park in ugly *** parking structures and everyone is trying to leave at the same time, and then there's only 1 road to exit out of the stadium parking lot from.

Disaster.Well Hobbes - I admire your persistence. And you are consistent as well. You have consistently posted incorrect information from the start and haven't let up. :laugh:

First you say it will take decades to build. I say five years, you say one year more than that-but we still haven't arrived at a single decade, let alone a multiple of same.

You are now protesting that funds used for Emergency Services would be impacted. That is incorrect too. Those funds come from the city's "General Fund" - moneys set aside for basic operations. There is NO WAY they would spend money needed to run the city fire/police/maintenance) in order to build a stadium. Both the city and the team have agreed from the start that the General Fund would not be touched.

You're saying the city is going to give away $250 Million. Hmm. Aside from the fact that your total amount is wrong - "give away" is also factually incorrect. The proposal calls for the city to INVEST $180 Million to pay less than 20% of the cost to build it. They would then own 100% of the stadium once completed. It's just wrong to call this "giving away" money when they will receive so much in return.

And now you're suggesting I would not be happy with the parking garage -pretending to know how the structure will be built and what plans are in place for entry and exit from the structure. Do you have information the rest of us do not? Besides, based on what is in the WRITTEN proposal, there will be plenty of surface parking for tailgaters, optional parking garage spaces for those who want to park close and have no desire to tailgate, excellent access via Public Transit, and superior roads, highways and freeways into and adjacent to the site. This site makes Candlestick point look ridiculous when talking about traffic into and out of the premises. Your claim about one road in and out is again - factually incorrect.

If you really are a citizen of Santa Clara, and not another SF homer disappointed with their Mayor for blowing the stadium deal, I highly recommend you visit the website created by the City of Santa Clara regarding the stadium project. As a resident of Santa Clara, you may very well have an opportunity to vote on the project, and I hope you would take that right seriously enough to fully understand what you were voting for or against. At this point, it appears someone has been feeding you some very, very bad information.

[Hobbes2d]

Well Hobbes - I admire your persistence. And you are consistent as well. You have consistently posted incorrect information from the start and haven't let up. :laugh:

First you say it will take decades to build. I say five years, you say one year more than that-but we still haven't arrived at a single decade, let alone a multiple of same.

You are now protesting that funds used for Emergency Services would be impacted. That is incorrect too. Those funds come from the city's "General Fund" - moneys set aside for basic operations. There is NO WAY they would spend money needed to run the city fire/police/maintenance) in order to build a stadium. Both the city and the team have agreed from the start that the General Fund would not be touched.

You're saying the city is going to give away $250 Million. Hmm. Aside from the fact that your total amount is wrong - "give away" is also factually incorrect. The proposal calls for the city to INVEST $180 Million to pay less than 20% of the cost to build it. They would then own 100% of the stadium once completed. It's just wrong to call this "giving away" money when they will receive so much in return.

And now you're suggesting I would not be happy with the parking garage -pretending to know how the structure will be built and what plans are in place for entry and exit from the structure. Do you have information the rest of us do not? Besides, based on what is in the WRITTEN proposal, there will be plenty of surface parking for tailgaters, optional parking garage spaces for those who want to park close and have no desire to tailgate, excellent access via Public Transit, and superior roads, highways and freeways into and adjacent to the site. This site makes Candlestick point look ridiculous when talking about traffic into and out of the premises. Your claim about one road in and out is again - factually incorrect.

If you really are a citizen of Santa Clara, and not another SF homer disappointed with their Mayor for blowing the stadium deal, I highly recommend you visit the website created by the City of Santa Clara regarding the stadium project. As a resident of Santa Clara, you may very well have an opportunity to vote on the project, and I hope you would take that right seriously enough to fully understand what you were voting for or against. At this point, it appears someone has been feeding you some very, very bad information.

Its called the newspaper. :laugh:

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Its called the newspaper. :laugh:
Like I said .....

[SF_49ers_Kezar]

The proposal calls for the city to INVEST $180 Million to pay less than 20% of the cost to build it.
1) Currently the Construction costs to the City of Santa Clara are $222M:
this includes the a) Stadium construction funding, b) moving a power substation and also c) the parking garage.
Over 80% of the construction costs will be paid for by the Yorks, the NFL, sale and marketing of the team's name and the fans
2) The City as the "Stadium Authority" would be responsbile for the naming rights, selling the seat licences, etc. If there is a short fall in this area the City would have to make up the difference ... the 49ers have not said they would make up the short fall. So the City as the "Stadium Authority" is responsible of this 40% plus the 20% above for a total 60%!
They would then own 100% of the stadium once completed.
3) Of course owning (and operating) the Stadium is the big issue. The Stadium would be empty 355 days a year (this is why the 49ers do not what to own). Taxes, insurance, maintenance, and security must be paid every day. Notice that if extra events are scheduled, that the 49ers eventually get some of these monies! After 30 years and the 49ers move somewhere else, the City is responsible to tear down the stadium ... just like SF will have to do in a few years. We need to look no further than Oakland to see the pit falls of stadium ownership and selling seat licenses.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

1) Currently the Construction costs to the City of Santa Clara are $222M:
this includes the a) Stadium construction funding, b) moving a power substation and also c) the parking garage. No, the way I look at it - "stadium construction" costs are only $180M. I understand some folks are attempting to exaggerate costs by trying to add in the costs for a parking garage. However, the city has been planning to build that garage to add parking for the convention center for some time now. Money has already been set aside for that project. The same applies to the power substation, which will be obsolete and need retrofitting in 5 or six years anyway. These two items are going to be paid for by the city whether or not a stadium is built - trying to lump those costs into the stadium project is wrong.2) The City as the "Stadium Authority" would be responsible for the naming rights, selling the seat licenses, etc. If there is a short fall in this area the City would have to make up the difference ... the 49ers have not said they would make up the short fall. So the City as the "Stadium Authority" is responsible of this 40% plus the 20% above for a total 60%!False. The Stadium Authority would be a separate legal entity from the city. The purpose of creating such an authority is to insulate the city from those liabilities. During the last city council meeting I attended, this subject was discussed in detail. Besides, the published studies suggest the estimated revenues in this area cited by the Niners are conservative. Your "short fall" may actually be a wind fall. And the Niners indicated they would be willing to cover construction cost over runs. (Which suggests to me that they know their numbers are conservative.) To me, that is a better offer than covering the costs for a few unsold seat licenses. 3) Of course owning (and operating) the Stadium is the big issue. The Stadium would be empty 355 days a year (this is why the 49ers do not what to own). Taxes, insurance, maintenance, and security must be paid every day. Notice that if extra events are scheduled, that the 49ers eventually get some of these monies! Now that sounds like a flat out fabrication. In all of the material I've read on the subject, I have yet to see anything remotely like that. Do you have a link? A quote? Some attribution please? The way I understand it, the Stadium Authority would be free to generate revenue during any of those 355 days. Studies have shown they would start to break even if as few as 14 to 15 events were scheduled. From my point of view, it sounds like an opportunity to add to city revenues if they hold 20 or more per year.
After 30 years and the 49ers move somewhere else, the City is responsible to tear down the stadium ... just like SF will have to do in a few years. We need to look no further than Oakland to see the pit falls of stadium ownership and selling seat licenses. For starters, I am offended that you would try to compare the Niners to Al Davis and his Faiders. I would also expect the Santa Clara city council members to learn from Oakland's mistakes. Considering how much time they all spent in and out of court - all of those lessons are now part of the public record. I doubt anyone - anywhere - is going to sign a deal remotely like Oakland's ever again.

That is why the Santa Clara city council is taking their time, doing their homework and studying this issue carefully. I suggest more fans of the team do the same.

[SF_49ers_Kezar]

However, the city has been planning to build that garage to add parking for the convention center for some time now. Money has already been set aside for that project. The same applies to the power substation, which will be obsolete and need retrofitting in 5 or six years anyway. These two items are going to be paid for by the city whether or not a stadium is built - trying to lump those costs into the stadium project is wrong

a)The City was planing on building a garage next to the Convention Center to be used by attendees of various shows at the Convention Center. The 49ers plan requires that the parking garage be in a different location. Thus, the monies already paid to the architect and for the plan are now wasted. Also the 49ers location is not convenient for Convention Center Attendees; the original purpose of the garage.
b) Doing retrofitting on a substation in 5 years and moving a substation in 5 years are two different tasks. Moving the substatiion and redoing the power distribution is a more costlly activity.
So both of these items are a direct result of the the 49ers Stadium proposal.

And the Niners indicated they would be willing to cover construction cost over runs. (Which suggests to me that they know their numbers are conservative.) To me, that is a better offer than covering the costs for a few unsold seat licenses

Yes, the 49ers said they would cover construction costs overruns. So, if the costs go from $850M to $1B, the 49ers would make up the difference. But this does still does not cover any short fall in the selling of licenses and naming rights that the Stadium Authority must deliver for its 40% of the $850M. Note that if the cost of the Stadium increases, then the taxes and the insurance that is paid by the Stadium Authority also increases.

Now that sounds like a flat out fabrication. In all of the material I've read on the subject, I have yet to see anything remotely like that. Do you have a link? A quote? Some attribution please? The way I understand it, the Stadium Authority would be free to generate revenue during any of those 355 days. Studies have shown they would start to break even if as few as 14 to 15 events were scheduled. From my point of view, it sounds like an opportunity to add to city revenues if they hold 20 or more per year

Yes, the Stadium Authority is responsible to attempt to book extra events at the new Stadium (note that the Giants own their stadium and book all events at AT&T). Today there are ZERO extra events at Monster Park; so where are all these extra events?

Please look at slide 17 of this presentation:
http://www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/pdf/collateral/49ers-20070424-stadium-proposal.pdf
Lets see:
extra events $1M profit: all $1M to capital reserve
extra events $2M profit: $1M to capital reserve and $1M to City
extra events $4M profit: $1M to reserve, $1M to City, $2M Operating Reserve.
After $4M profit, the 49ers get 1/3 of the profits, though they only rent the stadium 10 days a year.

The fact the the Stadium will not have a dome will reduce the number of possible events. There is no guarentee on any number of extra events; and no guarentee any possible extra events will make a profit.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

a)The City was planing on building a garage next to the Convention Center to be used by attendees of various shows at the Convention Center. The 49ers plan requires that the parking garage be in a different location. Thus, the monies already paid to the architect and for the plan are now wasted. Also the 49ers location is not convenient for Convention Center Attendees; the original purpose of the garage. Ahh - so you do know the city planned on building a garage. Bravo. Points for you - that is more knowledge than some have displayed. I wouldn't say costs so far have been wasted. Blue prints for the old plan can be put to use in the new location with minor modification. Now cost for modifying the plans, and any costs above the original project CAN be attributed to the stadium project. But NOT the entire cost of the parking garage. Remember, the garage will be built no matter what.b) Doing retrofitting on a substation in 5 years and moving a substation in 5 years are two different tasks.... Double dipping now are we? No - moving the costs up a few years might be a direct result of the stadium proposal, not the entire costs The expenditures have to be made no matter what. It may even be cheaper to build a clean new substation than to retrofit an old one. Hot swapping power service from one station to another is much easier than doing it piece by piece. There are extra labor costs involved if the upgrade in a performed in a piece meal fashion. Yes, the 49ers said they would cover construction costs overruns. So, if the costs go from $850M to $1B, the 49ers would make up the difference. But this does still does not cover any short fall in the selling of licenses and naming rights .... Yes, but your argument is predicated on one word - "IF". I could just as easily say that the income from naming rights and seat licenses will be higher than projected. In fact, experts hired by the City of Santa Clara said exactly that. So your argument holds no watter.Yes, the Stadium Authority is responsible to attempt to book extra events at the new Stadium (note that the Giants own their stadium and book all events at AT&T). Today there are ZERO extra events at Monster Park; so where are all these extra events?Monster park is currently managed by the city of San Francisco. Their mismanagement has resulted in the current condition of the crumbling relic which was once Candlestick Park. And you want them to try managing events there too? No, they can barely keep the lawn mowed and the lights on. That's why there are no events at Monster Park. Please look at slide 17 of this presentation:

Lets see:
extra events $1M profit: all $1M to capital reserve
extra events $2M profit: $1M to capital reserve and $1M to City
extra events $4M profit: $1M to reserve, $1M to City, $2M Operating Reserve.
After $4M profit, the 49ers get 1/3 of the profits, though they only rent the stadium 10 days a year.FINALLY - someone reads the information available to the public and tries using it to support their argument. Kudos to you for giving it a try! Unfortunately, you missed it by "that" much.

The proposal does NOT say where profits from "extra events" will go. You notes above are close, but not spot on. That section describes how NET REVENUE might be allocated. NET as in - what ever is left after ALL expenses are paid, not just special events.

Even so you will note that anything left over up to $1 million will be plowed right back into the Stadium as capital reserve. These funds will be used to remodel the stadium as needed to ensure it remains state-of-the-art beyond the initial 30 year life span.

Anything left over after the first million goes to THE CITY of Santa Clara. It goes directly to their general fund and can be spent anyway they like. (New libraries, parks, whatever - Stadium Opponents don't want you to know about that.)

Anything left over after the first two million will be banked against future operating expenses. This ensures money from good years is held in reserve for possible slow years.

It is not until AFTER $4 MILLION in net profits are achieved before profits start getting divvied up - and the Niners are suggesting they only receive 1/3 of that profit. Considering how much money the team is investing in this project, I can't begrudge them a little return, especially since they won't see anything until the previous folks get paid - especially the city.

And lets not forget - they will be PAYING for the right to play in the stadium they built. The proposal includes $5 million in rent from the Niners every year. But again, the opponents don't want you to hear that.The fact the the Stadium will not have a dome will reduce the number of possible events. There is no guarantee on any number of extra events; and no guarantee any possible extra events will make a profit.First you complain the Niners are taking a piece of the profit, and then you say there will be no profit to take. Boy - you're spinning so fast you're making me dizzy.

As for the dome thing - I won't bother arguing this with you, all I have is my opinion. I believe real football is played on real grass. And before you say "retractable" - think earthquakes, liquefaction and the added costs this would entail. I just don't believe it financially feasible.

[SF_49ers_Kezar]

It is not until AFTER $4 MILLION in net profits are achieved before profits start getting divvied up - and the Niners are suggesting they only receive 1/3 of that profit. Considering how much money the team is investing in this project, I can't begrudge them a little return, especially since they won't see anything until the previous folks get paid - especially the city.

And lets not forget - they will be PAYING for the right to play in the stadium they built. The proposal includes $5 million in rent from the Niners every year. But again, the opponents don't want you to hear that

a) Lets start with one big issue first, the City of Santa Clara is now considering issuing Bonds for its $222M (includes garage & substation move.) Looking at only the $180M portion: municipal bonds at 4% are about $7M in interest a year; need another $5M a year amortizing over 30years to pay principal; then should not the Ciy of Santa Clara expect some ROI?? With an annual ROI of only 10% and paying off the Bonds in 30 years ... the City would have to receive $30M a year for its $180M! Where are these monies in the 49ers proposal? Do you begrude the City a return but not the 49ers? The City can get 5% in 30yr T-Bonds with zero risk.

b) Yes the proposal shows 1/3 going back into the Stadium, 1/3 going to the 49ers, and only 1/3 to the City. This is great for the 49ers, 1) a well kept stadium, 2) possible Stadium profit with no risk, 3) when the Stadium is finished the value of the 49er's franchise will increase by $100's of Millions of dollars, this is their return; but the City's return is not sufficient.

c) $5M rent on a New $850M stadium is a pittance; this is what the 9ers pay to SF now for a 47 year old stadium (though most may be forgiven to pay for maintenance in SF); Cedar Fair pays $6M yearly with NO public subsidy for Great America! The $5M is constant for 30 years; taxes, insurance, maintenance, and security all increase!

d) The Stadium they built? The 9ers are only putting in 20%; just about the same as the City. Now the SF Giants did build AT&T without any public monies ... why can't the 49ers just follow this example?

Ahh - so you do know the city planned on building a garage. Bravo. Points for you - that is more knowledge than some have displayed. I wouldn't say costs so far have been wasted. Blue prints for the old plan can be put to use in the new location with minor modification. Now cost for modifying the plans, and any costs above the original project CAN be attributed to the stadium project. But NOT the entire cost of the parking garage. Remember, the garage will be built no matter what.


We will just have to agree to disagree. A parking garage next to a stadium for use 10 days a year, is not the same as a parking garage next to a Convention Center that can be used 365 days a year.
Minor modifications! So as an architect, structural Engineer, and as a licensed Land Surveyor you believe little needs to changed. Ho, Ho
These plans will be useless!

[NC49ersfan]

love it

[TheWiz]

First of all, thanks to 3dRow for doing an excellent job making the correct facts clear.

a) Lets start with one big issue first, the City of Santa Clara is now considering issuing Bonds for its $222M (includes garage & substation move.) Looking at only the $180M portion: municipal bonds at 4% are about $7M in interest a year; need another $5M a year amortizing over 30years to pay principal; then should not the Ciy of Santa Clara expect some ROI?? With an annual ROI of only 10% and paying off the Bonds in 30 years ... the City would have to receive $30M a year for its $180M! Where are these monies in the 49ers proposal? Do you begrude the City a return but not the 49ers? The City can get 5% in 30yr T-Bonds with zero risk.

This is compeltely incorrect because you're attributing issues that are not due entirely to the stadium deal to the stadium deal.

- The city was going to build a parking garage at the convention center by issuing bonds before the team even made an offer. Secondly, the city did spend on the order of several hundreds of thousands to design that garage. The stadium deal has them spending at most an extra 175k estimated to design a modified garage on a slightly modified location. At worst, a whopping 1M gets added to the project that Santa Clara was going to do anyhow. Why exactly suddenly the owners of the 49ers should be on the hook for a public works project they did not initiate is beyond me. Moving a garage the city was ready to fund on its own a couple of feet and slightly modifiying its design does not warrant a 42M charge in my book.

- Secondly, 20M of that 180M is commonly misallocated. Here is how it goes. Santa Clara has their big windfall in utility funds and 20M or so is allocated to pay for entirely replacing the substation equipmenton that site as well as power line replacements and upgrades. That is scheduled to be done in 5-10 years. Doing it5 in 3-6 years involves a minor penalty in terms of immeditate costs and moving the substation by destruction and laying new cement and fences off the site is minimal.


b) Yes the proposal shows 1/3 going back into the Stadium, 1/3 going to the 49ers, and only 1/3 to the City. This is great for the 49ers, 1) a well kept stadium, 2) possible Stadium profit with no risk, 3) when the Stadium is finished the value of the 49er's franchise will increase by $100's of Millions of dollars, this is their return; but the City's return is not sufficient.

I'm lost here. Are you not aware that the stadium and the city are one in the same? As in money that goes to the stadium only goes to the funds owned by the stadium authority which is run entirely by Santa Clara officials?

I also don't see how it's a stadium with no risk. They're asking for a grand total of about 160M-165M in initial funds. Past that, any costs will go to the team to build the stadium. Any maintenance overruns go to the team. HECK, how is the team fleecing the city? Any building or maintence costs go where? TO THE TEAM!

That well kept stadium? Paid for by profits from the team.

Possible stadium with no risk? NO RISK?! Heck, they don't even own the structure and are contractually on the hook for maintenance and construction costs.


c) $5M rent on a New $850M stadium is a pittance; this is what the 9ers pay to SF now for a 47 year old stadium (though most may be forgiven to pay for maintenance in SF); Cedar Fair pays $6M yearly with NO public subsidy for Great America! The $5M is constant for 30 years; taxes, insurance, maintenance, and security all increase!

Surprisngly, a 47 year old stadium is falling apart. So every penny goes to keeping it from dropping lights and/or speakers the size of volkswagons on fans. Cedar fair also does not offer its usage to the public most of the year! Sure, Cedar Fair pays 6M per year. But, the 49ers stadium will be OWNED by the city! Does the city get to use Great America as it wills over 350 days per year and earn all of the profits from doing so? Of course not! Yet the city will be able to do as it wishes for 350 days per year with the stadium it will own, pure and simple.


d) The Stadium they built? The 9ers are only putting in 20%; just about the same as the City. Now the SF Giants did build AT&T without any public monies ... why can't the 49ers just follow this example?

ONLY 20%?! Here is a bit of a reality check. The team isn't forgoing some cash but immense future profits! The income from advertising rights? Goes to the stadium construction. Concession rights? Sold. Equipment rights? Sold. Publishing rights? Sold. The team offers up all of its revenue to build the stadium and continuing revenue to maintain it and the owners are being cheap?! Avenues like Concessions Rights and Advertising often go right into the pockets of owners. As it is stands, it won't be for 5+ years the Yorks would break even on most of the profits they'd forego to get a new stadium.


We will just have to agree to disagree. A parking garage next to a stadium for use 10 days a year, is not the same as a parking garage next to a Convention Center that can be used 365 days a year.
Minor modifications! So as an architect, structural Engineer, and as a licensed Land Surveyor you believe little needs to changed. Ho, Ho
These plans will be useless!

Let's see...surprisingly, a parking garage can be used for two different purposes! I know, collect your breath, it will be alright. A garage designed for convention attendess can in fact by move a few yards closer and be increased in size and the world will not end! In fact, it can STILL be used 355+ days per year for a convention.

Ho ho ho, if you tell me millions are need to build the same garage but built on the same plot of land in slightly modified direction then I'd need to laugh. So you think a plan to build a house or building become useless if it must be built a few feet from its proposed location? That must be some variable landscape!

[SF_49ers_Kezar]

Of course, you did not answer the key question. How are the City of Santa Clara and its citizens going to be reimbursed for its $160M in bonds (actual amount will be $222M)? Using the smaller construction bond amount of $160M, the City would need to receive at least $25M per year (Interest, Principle, & ROI) into its general fund.


I'm lost here. Are you not aware that the stadium and the city are one in the same? As in money that goes to the stadium only goes to the funds owned by the stadium authority which is run entirely by Santa Clara officials?


As far as the distribution of any Stadium cash flow they are not the same. The Stadium Authority may be managed by the City Council (not decided). The 1/3 portion of revenues that goes into the Stadium Authority can only be used for reserve funds: such as an operating reserve account or a capital reserve account; these accounts just make sure the Stadium would be well kept. This 1/3 for the Stadium Authority is not flowing into the Santa Clara City’s general fund ; this 1/3 does not provide the taxpayers any reimbursement for their $160M in bond funding. Only the 1/3 portion of the monies that flow into the City of Santa Clara bucket will go to the general fund and be used to fund projects for the general population of the City of Santa Clara; these monies would be a return for the $160M in bonds. These monies are inadequate compensation for the $160M in bonds.

The City of Santa Clara is considering enacting a JPA to try isolating the Stadium from the City; this may be an attempt to try to indemnify the City of Santa Clara against possible lawsuits. With the JPA, the City and Stadium Authority would be two separate legal entities.


I also don't see how it's a stadium with no risk. They're asking for a grand total of about 160M-165M in initial funds. Past that, any costs will go to the team to build the stadium. Any maintenance overruns go to the team. HECK, how is the team fleecing the city? Any building or maintence costs go where? TO THE TEAM!


The 49ers said that they would pay for any construction cost overruns; this was their own proposal. But this may not have significant negative impact to the team’s income or value:

The 49er’s rent is fixed at $5M a year; whether the Stadium cost is $850M or $1B
If the cost of the new Stadium increases, then the owners will be compensated by a higher value placed upon the 49ers’ franchise. Thus, the owners receive a greater capital gain.
The Stadium Authority’s expenses for taxes, insurance, security, and maintenance would all increase because of the higher cost; the 49ers income would not be affected by these items. So the 49ers would have no risk concerning the 30 years for the stadium operating expenses and revenues.



That well kept stadium? Paid for by profits from the team.


NO paid for by the revenues from the Stadium; which under the 49ers own proposal would be owned by the City of Santa Clara.


Possible stadium with no risk? NO RISK?! Heck, they don't even own the structure and are contractually on the hook for maintenance and construction costs.


It is the 49ers own proposal not to own the Stadium; this is the 49ers choice. I wish the 49ers would take ownership of the new Stadium and also the extra events that are needed to make it break even.

The 49ers are only on the hook for $5M a year; I have not read anywhere that the 49ers are contributing to maintenance. Yearly maintenance is paid for by the Stadium Authority. The fact that the 49ers will not own the Stadium is why their risk is low. Every year the owners of the SF Giants need to scramble to find extra events; the City of SF does not need to be concerned, and the City of SF is isolated from any AT&T Park financial issues.
The 49ers want to isolate themselves from the daily operations and finances of the Stadium for at least 30 years.


Surprisngly, a 47 year old stadium is falling apart. So every penny goes to keeping it from dropping lights and/or speakers the size of volkswagons on fans. Cedar fair also does not offer its usage to the public most of the year! Sure, Cedar Fair pays 6M per year. But, the 49ers stadium will be OWNED by the city! Does the city get to use Great America as it wills over 350 days per year and earn all of the profits from doing so? Of course not! Yet the city will be able to do as it wishes for 350 days per year with the stadium it will own, pure and simple.


Of course this is apples and oranges. The City of Santa Clara did not have to provide $160M in construction funding for Great America, but receives a positive cash flow of $6M a year.
The City is supposed to provide the 49ers with $160M in construction funding with NO guarantee of positive cash flow! Also the burden is on the City of Santa Clara to attempt to book extra events and make the Stadium profitable, whereas for Great America, Cedar Fair is responsible for operation and profitability.

The fact is that the City of San Francisco now owns Candlestick (Monster Park); there are zero extra events. The City of SF cannot do anything with the Stadium the other 355 days (nada).

It will be up to the Stadium Authority to attempt to book extra events; if none are booked, or events happened to be booked and do no make a profit, the Citizens of Santa Clara will not be reimbursed at all for their bond funding of the stadium construction.

At some point even the new stadium will become old; by the year 2035 all the costs will have at least doubled for maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc. The 49ers will still be paying only $5M a year!


ONLY 20%?! Here is a bit of a reality check. The team isn't forgoing some cash but immense future profits! The income from advertising rights? Goes to the stadium construction. Concession rights? Sold. Equipment rights? Sold. Publishing rights? Sold.


Hmmm
Concession rights Sold? How much revenue did the City get??
Real Reality check -The facts are:
Nothing has been sold!
The Council has yet to accept the 49ers proposal.
The citizens will not even vote until 2008 either in June or in November .



The team offers up all of its revenue to build the stadium and continuing revenue to maintain it and the owners are being cheap?! Avenues like Concessions Rights and Advertising often go right into the pockets of owners.


It is the 49ers own proposal to use the naming rights, advertising right, pouring rights etc to fund the stadium construction. Again this is the 49ers choice. The 49ers have placed a value on these items of about $330M. But instead of selling these items directly, the 49ers have chosen to have the Stadium Authority sell these rights. The catch is, if the naming rights or seats licenses fall short, then it is up to the Stadium Authority to make up this short fall; the 49ers have not committed to make up the differences if seat licenses do not sell. I do not blame the 49ers for isolating themselves from the sale of seat licenses; most fans will not be happy. The 49ers will point the finger at the City of Santa Clara for the cost of seat licenses.



As it is stands, it won't be for 5+ years the Yorks would break even on most of the profits they'd forego to get a new stadium.


The 49ers will receive all the revenues from the Luxury Suites in the new Stadium; $10’s of millions of dollars. The 49ers currently share this Suite revenue with SF, but will not be sharing it with SC. The 49ers still have TV rights and revenue sharing from the NFL.
On the day the Stadium is complete, the Yorks will be financial winners. The Yorks bought the 49ers for $13M in 1977; now the team is valued at $799M. A new Stadium plus a winning team will bring the value of the 9ers to about $1B. I think the Yorks will not be suffering too much; so please don’t fret.


Let's see...surprisingly, a parking garage can be used for two different purposes! I know, collect your breath, it will be alright. A garage designed for convention attendess can in fact by move a few yards closer and be increased in size and the world will not end! In fact, it can STILL be used 355+ days per year for a convention.

Ho ho ho, if you tell me millions are need to build the same garage but built on the same plot of land in slightly modified direction then I'd need to laugh. So you think a plan to build a house or building become useless if it must be built a few feet from its proposed location? That must be some variable landscape!


I was saying the plans are useless. As soon as the entry/exits related to the Garage are changed, then all structural aspects need to be redone. Also the composition of the land/soil needs to be analyzed at the new location; as well as how the garage will be oriented on the lot. But, I do not believe that it makes sense for convention goers to walk out of their way a possible 355 days a year, while SF 49er fans would only have to walk further 10 days a year. The original concept of the garage was to bolster events at the Convention Center; this intent is now greatly diminished.

[ethanh]

An article based on this argument in todays Merc.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/content/news/view.php?id=12066
The team appears to have overstated how much cash will come from ticket surcharges, seat licenses, corporate partners and naming and pouring rights at the new stadium, according to the economists. Although construction and unknown finance costs are expected to eat up most of that revenue, the team still expects to have more than $8 million a year left over for operating costs. Economists say that may be too optimistic.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

An article based on this argument in todays Merc.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/content/news/view.php?id=12066
Yeah - the article you posted is very interesting. The writer claims to cite facts from four different economic experts. And yet, she cites quotes and provides attribution to only two of them. Who are the other mystery experts she claims to have consulted with? And what exactly did THEY say?

All in all, this strikes me more as an OpEd piece than any real attempt at reporting facts and informing the public. And to top it off - she sounds like she has an agenda.

In my opinion, it's a sad day when we are forced to look elsewhere to find unbiased objective information about what's going on in the community.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

.... So as an architect, structural Engineer, and as a licensed Land Surveyor you believe little needs to changed. Ho, Ho
These plans will be useless! Uhm, well, while I don't actually carry those titles, I have been involved in multiple construction projects beginning from first pour. And one of them did involve a parking garage.

Truth be told, once you get above the foundation and base infrastructure - yeah - all those plans for the first floor and above CAN be reused, as long as the base was re-designed properly. In fact, if a relocation was involved, it would be silly not too. After all, you've already paid for the building design - why pay for the entire thing again? (Unless of course, you're just trying to exaggerate costs for some reason....)

But let's not get too personal. No one really needs - or wants - to know what I do outside of my Football Fanatic life.:whistling:

[Derek120816]

Not much better

[FaithfulSince46]

What about York's plan to charge a PSL for season ticket holders? Any more word on that?

[Coldrain85]

What about York's plan to charge a PSL for season ticket holders? Any more word on that?

There is no plan to offer PSL's.

The plan is to offer SBL's (Stadium Builders License). There are significant differences between the two by the way. Discussions regarding this issue have been taking place in some of these threads for quite some time now.

Details like this are of little concern though until ground is broken for the new stadium. I'm not going to rest easy until I can actually go to Santa Clara and see the stadium being constructed. I know that they need to get the deal done on paper first, but until the concrete starts pouring it's all lip service as far as I'm concerned

[PATB1978]

Willis Is An Animal

[nick5211]

not a bad design i think the 49ers should have a statue of montana like how the giants have of mccovey mays n maricial ..i think a statue of Joe when he would have his hands up after throwing a td would be nice then one of rice catching a ball and one of lot running thats my thoughts on it and maybe one of bill walsh would be nice too

[ninersfan68]

how many can it seat?

[CSRKing15]

in the new stadium they should have like a Hall of fame room of the Hall of Fame 49ers

[ninersfan68]

that would be cool..

[fabie]

...and should be renamed as THE BILL WALSH STADIUM.

[boiler9er]

I think its to plain. I want something like the Seahawks, something like a retractabler roof, a plaza. A see throughy part like the Bucs. I want something better then, an oval. Its too bad the cheapest millionare in the world is planning it...

I go to the stadium to watch a football game, not the razzle dazzle of the stadium. When Apple makes our iStadium, the whole thing will be wireless and technologicaly advance stadium in the country (or even the world). Point is, you don't need all that stuff to take away from the experience of the game

[mason04]

were did you guys fine these pic from ? because from what I know this is the new stadium
http://49ers.com/stadium/49ers_stadium2012.php?section=ST%20Stadium%20Tour

http://www.supportourniners.com/


http://www.49ers.com/nm_files/Image/High%20Res%20Stadium/fourlage.jpg

http://49ers.com/nm_files/Image/High%20Res%20Stadium/threeimage.jpg

http://www.49ers.com/nm_files/Image/High%20Res%20Stadium/fivelarge.jpg

[mason04]

http://www.49ers.com/nm_files/Image/stadium%20pages/largenewdesign.jpg

^latest concept pic

http://www.49ers.com/stadium/images/LARGEbirdseyeFINAL.jpg

^older concept pic


what you think?

http://sf49ers.com/stadium/49ers_stadium2012.php?section=ST%20Stadium%20Tour

Dont get me wrong I really like this stadium.. I love how it has the SF on the outside wall