Colts' Stadium

[Teke]

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/LucasOilStadium.htm

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/lucasmain.jpg

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/los904.jpg


Check out the new Colts stadium which opens in 2009. I know that a retractable roof isn't the right fit for tha 49ers, but how come York can't hire engineers to build something that doesn't look like it belongs to a college team? Every stadium built in the last 5 years is better than what the Yorks are getting ready to build.

[Teke]

Here is a picture of Nebraska's stadium, built in 1923:

http://blog.kir.com/archives/ohio_stadium2.jpg

Now here's what we're going to build nearly 90 years later:

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

Don't the team and fans deserve something better and more up to date than a college stadium built in 1923?

[Teke]

Everyone knows letter writing campaigns don't work.

[lil49er]

Here is a picture of Nebraska's stadium, built in 1923:

http://blog.kir.com/archives/ohio_stadium2.jpg

Now here's what we're going to build nearly 90 years later:

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

Don't the team and fans deserve something better and more up to date than a college stadium built in 1923?

thats ohio state's not nebraska's you can even read it in th end zone Ohio State its called the horsse shoe

[Teke]

and btw, i hate the way that colts stadium looks. it reminds me of a storage warehouse or factory

It sort of fits the city wouldn't you say? Indy is an industrial city, maybe the engineers had that in mind. It's nice to see that someone put some thought into that stadium instead of just buying some generic college blueprints.

[A187]

york is also from ohio :stirthepot:

[Teke]

thats ohio state's not nebraska's you can even read it in th end zone Ohio State its called the horsse shoe

Nice catch, I got the picture from this search: http://images.google.com/images?q=nebraska+stadium&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

In the end, Ohio is a better representation of my argument so it worked out.

[Teke]

york is also from ohio :stirthepot:

Ha! It's a conspiracy to bring Ohio to the Bay. :francis:

[Teke]

i suppose you could also construe the stadium idea as "old school", which has its own appeal.

Yea, and to be even more old school maybe we should go back to wearing leather helmets while we're at it.

The NFL is the most successful sporting entity in the USA, they have state of the art equipment for the players and coaches. San Francisco is one of the biggest markets in the NFL. That means, everything being constant, the 49ers make more money than a team like the Colts or the Chargers. This is why Archie Manning refused to allow Eli to go to San Diego.

I don't really buy your point that the stadium has to look "old school" in order allow fans to see the game. You make it seem like if we don't build the stadium this way we're going to have large columns blocking everyone's view. And somehow a jumbotron won't fit in a stadium that has a creative look and feel?

[Eng74]

If a stadium is in the down town area I can see that you want the outside to really look nice when you are near it. It is not like there is a bunch of traffic around the Stick when there isn't a game. I want the stadium to have good access to the seats and to the other areas inside the stadium. If they put it near Pac SBC ATT Park, I think it would look more like that park then. I think if they get the new stadium in SC they outside of the place will be a lttile different than the pics they have done so far.

[Teke]

what the building looks like is irrelevant if you ask me...so long as i can see the field from my seat and the food and drink is of good quality.
What I'm saying is why can't we have both?

I've noticed that all of the stadiums built recently (or in the process of being built) seem to have some sort of flare that our new stadium lacks.

[Peter Proud]

Google the images for Nebraska and Ohio...they are almost identical!

[Eng74]

Remeber that all that flare has to be paid for. I would rather have my ticket price not be in a the $100 a game price.

[Roaring Back]

What I'm saying is why can't we have both?

I've noticed that all of the stadiums built recently (or in the process of being built) seem to have some sort of flare that our new stadium lacks.

I agree that the design for SC leaves a lot to be desired, but I also wouldn't characterize the trendy "airplane hangar" architecture as having flare. Denver, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Detroit, and New England recently built very nice modern stadiums without going down that road. I would like to see the 49ers build a state of the art facility with classic design elements.

[Teke]

no reason we couldnt have both, but do we need both? if we can have a modest, classy stadium that isnt trying to outdo every other stadium in appearance and still presents a high level of enjoyment for the fans, what is there really to complain about?

I never said it had to be better than every stadium built before it. But I'd like to see it in line some of the more recent ones instead of stadiums 70's.


Eng74 said: Remeber that all that flare has to be paid for. I would rather have my ticket price not be in a the $100 a game price.

You'd think that your $50 tab for 4 beers would've helped cover it. I wonder how these other owners in poor markets are managing.

[SBbound49ers]

Wow.....nice stadium. Looks like Ford Field. (Detroit)

[Ed the Vet]

Back East they aren"t as lucky as we are with the weather. Closed Stadiums bring in paying customers. Players don't have the snow or rain fault their footing and spoil either an offensive or defensive move by either team. Most younger people brave the outdoor experience.

[NinerCubBoiler]

thats ohio state's not nebraska's you can even read it in th end zone Ohio State its called the horsse shoe

:laugh: I was going to say the same thing

[Peter Proud]

Both Ohio's and Nebraska stadiums are quite similar.

[Eng74]

You'd think that your $50 tab for 4 beers would've helped cover it. I wonder how these other owners in poor markets are managing.

I don't know where you were buying yours. But remember most public places (stadiums and fairgrounds) have a tap or a cap fee. The minute that that it is opened they have to pay the fee for it. I want to say that the 18 oz.(?) bottles were $7.50 I think last year and yiou can bet half of that is given back to the city. By the way which city that has a NFL team is in a poor market? I don't think there is a team that is looking for a new stadium that has to deal with as much local politics. I bet the land for the Colts new stadium cost only about a 1/4 of what it would cost for the 49ers anywhere in the Bay Area. I bet the Colts ar not paying for the whole thing too.

[TheWiz]

Just some ideas to consider...

1) The city of Indianapolis and its home state are not in record debt. They also have been a top flight competing team for over half a decade now and just won a Superbowl, the first in that city. All of their previous victories (and infamies) were in Baltimore. Meanwhile last time I checked the state of California had billions in debt and an economy bigger than many of the worlds countries. Getting state support and bonds in a very democratic, big government atmosphere is a far cry from the city of Indianapolis. One where the state has money and a less polarized financial view.

2) How does that stadium look any better? It almost looks like it could be build next to Camden Yards an no one would notice the change in scenery. Sure it has a retractable roof, something that those not living on an active fault line can risk, but otherwise it's a box!

3) When will people stop heaping blame on York for things he has little control over? Every bad football player acquisition or release is blamed on him as if he was consulted by the front office. The architects behind that design have designed and built other pro stadiums across several sports.

I hope that people realize that it's a football field. Seats will need to be built around it in a more or less ovular design. Upper decks will be built and will be arranged in a similar seating pattern. Hundreds of stadiums from the east to west coast are built this way. Hundreds of 'soccer' stadiums with similar dimensions are built this way around the world and in the USA as well. You're not going to find a unique or revolutionary seating pattern! Amazingly, inside that new IND stadium, there will be lower and upper decks around the field.

What you're all complaining about is pointless, mindless window dressing. So the outside of the stadium isn't new-wave or flashy, who cares! You're really debating that the new stadium is boring, based on one preliminary and far-from final artist's rendering that lacks flare. How sad. In the end, you'd be paying more money per ticket just for fancy trim and for a stadium design that you never appreciate or see from your seat. If you think a 'neat exterior design' is worth an extra $5 per ticket, write the team a letter and tell them. The front office and people involved will be thrilled to know that you will pay more for things that have nothing to do with your experience inside the stadium.

I'm really beginning to believe that people complaining about the design fall into only 2 categories. They never attend games and don't realize that once you're in the stadium, the overall architecture has nothing to do with your game day experience. They want a pretty exterior they can daydream about during games instead of actually being there. The others just feel the need to blame the ownership for something else with little realization of how solid it has actually been. We can got 11-5 but blame the owners, not for hiring a great new staff and paying for players, but because they need a 'cooler' stadium design.

[Peter Proud]

Excellent observation!

As a STH, here's what I consider important:

1. How well can I see the game....no matter where I sit.

2. Comfortable seating. A little more leg room, a little more butt room, and something to put my drink in.

3. JUMBOTRON access...so everyone can see replays. Being pro-active, the 49ers recently added another one an upgraded the picture quality.

4. Restroom facilities designed for maximum use and cleanliness.

5. Concession stands that are accessible and fast.

6. Better TV screens in the concourse areas for when you have to leave your seat.

Notice that everything I am concerned about is within the stadium structure and has to do with comfort, ease, and game experience. While it is certainly ideal to have a unique facility in appearance, it's what happens inside that is my main focus.

Certainly fans want a stadium they can point to and say how nice it looks, but when you're there, it's the game and the game experience that you most remember!

[Teke]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think either side of the debate is going to change the other's view of the situation.

[Peter Proud]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think either side of the debate is going to change the other's view of the situation.

Thank God there is still someone who thinks and expresses rationally!

[smoking_rubber]

Hopefully, the current lull in activity and fan response has prompted the design team to spice it up a bit. We don't expect Taj Ma Stadium, but for almost 1 BILLION dollars, we expect to be impressed.

Why can't the team ask for proposals? I like what the Transbay Terminal crew has done. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/07/BATMRD67A1.DTL

Why is the stadium design contract just handed to one firm?

[Nevyn]

Hopefully, the current lull in activity and fan response has prompted the design team to spice it up a bit. We don't expect Taj Ma Stadium, but for almost 1 BILLION dollars, we expect to be impressed.

Why can't the team ask for proposals? I like what the Transbay Terminal crew has done. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/07/BATMRD67A1.DTL

Why is the stadium design contract just handed to one firm?

Sorry, what does this have to do with the Colts?

[smoking_rubber]

Sorry, what does this have to do with the Colts?

What do the Colts have to do with the 49ers Stadium?

[Nevyn]

What do the Colts have to do with the 49ers Stadium?

My bad. I clicked the link from the red zone and it took me to the first post of page 2 (the one I quoted), so it looked like you created a topic about the colts' stadium and then didn't mention the colts at all.

But , FWIW, I don't like that Colts stadium at all and would probably much prefer going to a game in the niners new stadium.

[ninersfan68]

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/LucasOilStadium.htm

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/lucasmain.jpg

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/los904.jpg


Check out the new Colts stadium which opens in 2009. I know that a retractable roof isn't the right fit for tha 49ers, but how come York can't hire engineers to build something that doesn't look like it belongs to a college team? Every stadium built in the last 5 years is better than what the Yorks are getting ready to build.

i agree, we arnt going to build another one for a long time, so lets go big this time and get one we will enjoy for a long time and not regret, lets outdo the **** cowboys, who do they think they are:bat:

[ninersfan68]

we have never had anything sweet :mad:

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb270/jimmyboger08/kezar.jpg

[TheWiz]

Hopefully, the current lull in activity and fan response has prompted the design team to spice it up a bit. We don't expect Taj Ma Stadium, but for almost 1 BILLION dollars, we expect to be impressed.

Why can't the team ask for proposals? I like what the Transbay Terminal crew has done. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/07/BATMRD67A1.DTL

Why is the stadium design contract just handed to one firm?

1) What lull in activity? The team owners and leaders are still regularly meeting with groups in Santa Clara and campaigning. The feasibility study is actually starting to wind down a now is the biggest hurdle aside from any proposed vote next winter. Trust me, the stadium proposal has not been more active in years.

2) I hope you do realize that the team isn't just throwing away a BILLION dollars. It's not cheap to build in CA! Even if we're given the land to lease by the city we've got to pay construction companies and unions to work the job. We've got to pay a billion to build the stadium. There are state and county and city permits and fees to be paid. There are costs for infrastructure and materials from local suppliers. It's not like the stadium will only cost 800M and the team has 200M to throw into niceties. If we were building in eastern Texas where everything cost a two-thirds as much then yes, we can expect to waste millions on trim and gadgets that will be pointless in a decade.

3) "Why can't the team ask for proposals?" Because that's not how it works. You see, architectural firms routinely compete with new ideas and send them to cities because the topic is almost always design, not cost. Any tower built will be glass and metal and have defined infrastructure and so on. They sell their ideas based on the look and later engineers determine feasibility. Amazingly, there aren't many firms that do stadiums. Usually because firms that do them only get paid to create the designs, not build them.

Lastly, when will everyone stop getting hung up over a preliminary computer picture?

The team doesn't have any guarantee the spot of land will be available, approval from the city council, a defined structure on how it will all be paid for, and the money and guarantees to make it all happen. It's like we're still trying to find the keys and someone is crying about how poorly the car may shift from 2nd to 3rd gear.

Don't you think the team should actually have the money, location, and right to build a stadium before people complain about what it might look like?

[smoking_rubber]

1) What lull in activity? The team owners and leaders are still regularly meeting with groups in Santa Clara and campaigning.

The design firm is not out knocking on doors as far as I know. They should be using this time to refine their plan. I'm sure they are.

2) I hope you do realize that the team isn't just throwing away a BILLION dollars. It's not cheap to build in CA! Even if we're given the land to lease by the city we've got to pay construction companies and unions to work the job. We've got to pay a billion to build the stadium. There are state and county and city permits and fees to be paid. There are costs for infrastructure and materials from local suppliers. It's not like the stadium will only cost 800M and the team has 200M to throw into niceties. If we were building in eastern Texas where everything cost a two-thirds as much then yes, we can expect to waste millions on trim and gadgets that will be pointless in a decade.

You can't make a blanket proclamation that trim and gadgets are pointless now or in the next decade. The right design and accent could produce an iconic facility that would remain contemporary for decades.

Lastly, when will everyone stop getting hung up over a preliminary computer picture?

When they release another preliminary computer picture with more appealing ascetics.

It's like we're still trying to find the keys and someone is crying about how poorly the car may shift from 2nd to 3rd gear.

Don't you think the team should actually have the money, location, and right to build a stadium before people complain about what it might look like?

If someone handed you a picture of a Yugo and released a Ferrari budget . . . the best time to complain is BEFORE they make any more mistakes.

Wiz, I'm still wondering why they even want to build a stadium DIRECTLY below the landing pattern of an International Airport? They won't be able to fly the blimp, they won't be able to secure the airspace for super events. What is their thinking on that topic?

[TheWiz]

The design firm is not out knocking on doors as far as I know. They should be using this time to refine their plan. I'm sure they are.

The design firm was hired to come up with a design. You can't refine a plan when there is no plan. There is no guarantee of funding. There is no budget to work with. All of the 900M-1.05B estimates are just that, estimates. Until an actual financing plan is in place, nothing else happens. Even take todays news for example:

" "We now look forward to finalizing all of the design plans so that we can deliver the best stadium experience possible to our fans and the state of New Jersey," McGillion said."

( http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ag0PY7TdZhlDDAaJuXIaZMxDubYF?slug=ap-giants-jetsstadium&prov=ap&type=lgns )

They've just worked out 1.3B in financing and NOW they go back to the drawing board and determine what they can and cannot afford and change.

You can't make a blanket proclamation that trim and gadgets are pointless now or in the next decade. The right design and accent could produce an iconic facility that would remain contemporary for decades.


If someone handed you a picture of a Yugo and released a Ferrari budget . . . the best time to complain is BEFORE they make any more mistakes.

Are you aware that basic street jeans like Levi's go for almost three times as much in countries like France? Same material, same style, and the equivalent of $80+ American dollars. Guess what, where we are building and with the costs involved, you've got to pay Ferrari prices to get a basic car.

And it's your opinion that the stadium is a "Yugo". When will people realize that it's a FOOTBALL STADIUM. It's going to be seats build around a rectangular playing field. FedEx Field, Gilette Stadium, Pro Player Stadium hosted Super Bowls and was just seats around a field. Inside of that spaceship looking Dallas Cowboys stadium design? Guess what, seats around a field! I can't believe people are complaining because they don't think the outside and the trim aren't pretty enough. Guess what, you'll never see it at the game anyhow! Not to mention that what you think is hip and neat is what half of everyone else thinks is architectural vomit.

Dozens of fans have posted on here how we should be forced to stay at Candlestick because it's old school and all of the memories. But if we build a new, classically designed stadium that is the same as the inside of any stadium (save indoor heating and cooling) we're producing a Yugo? Try 'googling' aerials photos of other outdoor stadiums. When you find a few that you think are amazingly different and more original post them.


Wiz, I'm still wondering why they even want to build a stadium DIRECTLY below the landing pattern of an International Airport? They won't be able to fly the blimp, they won't be able to secure the airspace for super events. What is their thinking on that topic?

Because airports, especially an 'international' one, doesn't just have one runway in use facing one direction? Airports are more than capable of getting incoming and outgoing planes to not use the NW facing runways and have them circle around to approach from an angle away from the stadium for a period of 3 to 4 hours a few times a year. San Jose really would require planes to go around the airport in a half circle and land from the SW. Besides, if airlines know it will be a pain and there will be a no-fly zone over the NW runways, they will adjust their schedules on those days.

San Francisco Airport is only 7-8 miles south of Candlestick Point but have planes always been a problem there? That's an even bigger airport that handles a lot more international flights.

[smoking_rubber]

Because airports, especially an 'international' one, doesn't just have one runway in use facing one direction? Airports are more than capable of getting incoming and outgoing planes to not use the NW facing runways and have them circle around to approach from an angle away from the stadium for a period of 3 to 4 hours a few times a year. San Jose really would require planes to go around the airport in a half circle and land from the SW. Besides, if airlines know it will be a pain and there will be a no-fly zone over the NW runways, they will adjust their schedules on those days.

San Francisco Airport is only 7-8 miles south of Candlestick Point but have planes always been a problem there? That's an even bigger airport that handles a lot more international flights.

Airports determine the direction of takeoff and landing so that they are flying INTO the wind. They do not take off and land in opposite directions, so jets will cross over the stadium in one direction or the other. San Jose has only one landing pattern.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/smoking_rubber/stadiumairport.jpg

The San Jose airport is only about 3 miles from the proposed site and it sits DIRECTLY in it's oncoming path. It's highly unlikely that San Jose International Airport will divert or suspend their flights 10 times a year (or more).

The San Francisco airport is over 7 miles away and NOT in line with the landing pattern. So the two sites are not comparable at all in regards to aerial limitation.

[Teke]

The San Francisco airport is over 7 miles away and NOT in line with the landing pattern. So the two sites are not comparable at all in regards to aerial limitation.

You make some great points but there's no use in qrguing with TheWiz. He's already made up his mind and all the evidence in the world that this stadium isn't a good idea is not going to sway his mind. He's for it and that's that.

But by all means keep posting stuff like this. It helps others to see why this needs to be reorganized.

[smoking_rubber]

I didn't say the stadium was a bad idea. It's just in a bad location IMO. So far, the only thing this site has going for it is: pre-existing light rail access and it's across the street from HQ. Hardly the best reasons to build a huge stadium on a tiny lot in front of a runway.

TheWiz can be educated I believe. He's been pretty honest about the facts (that support his position). All I can do is research and share. If he still chooses to proclaim this site's superiority . . . well everyone has an opinion. Even though his M.O. is to avoid or ignore unflattering facts, at least he doesn't just make up information to support his opinions like so many others. I enjoy his commentary, it's always educational.

[smoking_rubber]

The airport is so close, I'm surprised they didn't suggest we tailgate there!

Just kidding Wiz.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Goodness gracious - you'd think the stadium was being built out on the tarmac...

First it's three miles from the airport, then it's at the end of the runway. Hyperbole much?

Uhmm. do we need to call a pilot into the conversation, or perhaps a FCC Flight controller - or can we use some common sense and a little direct observation.

Have a good look at those big jets as they take off - they climb real high, real fast. Three miles away from the airport? I'm willing to bet they are a few thousand feet up in the air. I'd guess that's enough room underneath for a blimp to float around unmolested. Especially if they bank to the east - which they invariably do.

Gent's, this is a non-issue. But then again, what do I know - I'm just another fan.

[TheWiz]

Airports determine the direction of takeoff and landing so that they are flying INTO the wind. They do not take off and land in opposite directions, so jets will cross over the stadium in one direction or the other. San Jose has only one landing pattern.

...

The San Jose airport is only about 3 miles from the proposed site and it sits DIRECTLY in it's oncoming path. It's highly unlikely that San Jose International Airport will divert or suspend their flights 10 times a year (or more).

The San Francisco airport is over 7 miles away and NOT in line with the landing pattern. So the two sites are not comparable at all in regards to aerial limitation.

I know full well where the airport is and its orientation, you don't need to show me a photo of it. It's also hard to call it an international airport, it serves Mexico and western Canada. It mostly serves smaller flights and planes taxi-ing from major terminals in the western US than it does regularly accept long-range flights.

A lot of stadiums are right next to airports. Don't you remember 2001 when every stadium had a no-fly zone around it? Flights in and out of San Francisco had to constantly divert themselves from the stadium even more back then. Land new airports often the best places with open land as well. No one wants residential locations underneath loud engines and large business shy away from being too close as well. So finding large amounts of open land near an airport is not unusual.

Lastly, I don't think you get the flexibility of airplane flights. I mean, this is an industry where takeoff times are constantly delayed and even when you takeoff on time, half the time you don't land when they say you would. If I cared to spend the time I'd love to find how many flights actually depart or arrive from 1-4 on Sundays and common prime time hours.

You also make it sound like the team intentionally chose a stadium site so that it would be in the path of an airport. It's more like the team found a site that happens to be as such. They didn't build the site and place it there as if by the Will of God.


You make some great points but there's no use in qrguing with TheWiz. He's already made up his mind and all the evidence in the world that this stadium isn't a good idea is not going to sway his mind. He's for it and that's that.

But by all means keep posting stuff like this. It helps others to see why this needs to be reorganized.

No, I'm just waiting for someone who actually has a really good argument. Something other than "But it doesn't look cool" or "I will need to drive an extra 20 minutes" or the "the must stay inside the city limits!" which is opinion, not a point.

Yes, the Stadium is near an airport. Many of them are. Unfortunately owners are not Gods. They can't make a site from scratch that will magically satisfy everything that every single person wants. No site will be perfect, hate to tell you. They talked to realtors and local bay area builders who know the area for suitable sites and after many candidates, Santa Clara was chosen.


I didn't say the stadium was a bad idea. It's just in a bad location IMO. So far, the only thing this site has going for it is: pre-existing light rail access and it's across the street from HQ. Hardly the best reasons to build a huge stadium on a tiny lot in front of a runway.

The only thing? Selective memory

- Let's see, it's ridiculously well supported by infrastructure. The city will not need to tear up asphalt for 2 years to put in the plumbing and electrical lines, among other utilities. Sufficient lines already run right by the site and this drastically reduces the disturbance to traffic as well as keeps costs down.
- Highway access. The stadium is within a few miles of multiple on ramps for large arteries that feed the bay area with the closest ones well within a mile of the stadium. Say what you want but Santa Clara has as much local transport ability as Candlestick does and a much, much better traffic and highway situation.
- Say what you will but an airport only a few miles away is a big bonus for ability to host big games and to attract foreign fans and fans from outside CA who would fly to games. It's a terribly small perk, but it does exist.

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

Here is a general reality that I'd like everyone to think over.

So, ideally you'd love for your stadium to be far from airports. It needs to be near lots of highways for light traffic. It needs a LOT of open space so everything is surface parking for tailgaiting. Apparently it must also have a beautiful skyline, since fans around here need a stadium where the view while looking away from the field is 'nice'.

I'm contending that no such thing exists. Any site that even comes close is one that was built over half a century ago before urban sprawl exploded and the city built around the stadium as opposed to the stadium being built inside the city, which is what we're trying to do.
1) If a site has amazing traffic access, a beautiful view of a city or a landmark, then why isn't the land developed? Wouldn't some place with excellent traffic and location already be crowded? Think about it, the state doesn't just build freeways that go by open, boring plots of land.
2) Any largely open plot of land that has traffic access is most likely going to be in an area that is not developed for a reason. Either it's near an airport or a bad part of town that is vacant for easy to understand reasons. This is largely why so many stadiums end up near airports, it's better than building on the edge of a city slum.
3) Any large piece of open land without annoyances and a picturesque view is going to be far from good traffic access.

In the end, you'll always find a fault and it's a choice of one fault versus another. If you want wide open space to tailgate and no airport, sure. Just expect 1 hour plus long waits as fans drive the 10 miles to the nearest single highway on ramp. And forget about even a 'yugo' of a stadium. Cities with large swaths of open land also can't afford to support a stadium. That and they also don't run large sewage and power lines capable of supporting an NFL stadium and they don't have neighborhood building contractors capable of such a large project. So the stadium ends up being a lot smaller, in the middle of nowhere, and yet still costs the team 900M+ to pay for infrastructure demands. You would have a 12% ticket price hike and hour long traffic jams since everyone must drive to the middle of nowhere to see the game. That's what you'd pay for maximal 'tailgaiting space' and no airports.

[DraconisRex]

Here is a general reality that I'd like everyone to think over.

So, ideally you'd love for your stadium to be far from airports. It needs to be near lots of highways for light traffic. It needs a LOT of open space so everything is surface parking for tailgaiting. Apparently it must also have a beautiful skyline, since fans around here need a stadium where the view while looking away from the field is 'nice'.

I hope to heck no one's said that... Because, unless you're in the nosebleed section, you're not looking out at the horizon and skyline.

I'm contending that no such thing exists.

I know of one. I've been to it. And it's a very new, modern stadium. You would not be able to build it without the city condemning large tracts of land, like they did to build this stadium. And there were a lot of other factors that managed to combine to make it possible.

1) If a site has amazing traffic access, a beautiful view of a city or a landmark, then why isn't the land developed? Wouldn't some place with excellent traffic and location already be crowded? Think about it, the state doesn't just build freeways that go by open, boring plots of land.

As I indicated somewhat above, in this particular city an unusual series of events happened. They were able to buy land being used by a barge building company that was going out of service as the transportation methods changed in the region. The city aggressively condemned other land. The city also owned land and condemned some of their own civil buildings, including a general sessions court house and a juvenile justice court house.

Another advantage is that the city doesn't have the problems of San Francisco. This is a relatively small city and the state itself has less population than just the Bay Area and, in fact, there simply isn't anything like this within an hour of the City. You MIGHT get a location like this in Sacramento. But there's nothing like it in the Bay Area.

So, yeah, we can find places like that. But they'll be MUCH MUCH farther away from San Francisco than Santa Clara. For example, a stadium near UC Davis would be a great location to meet those requirements. We've got I-5 & I-80. The Airport is north of town. Sacramento has developed, primarily, to the east (towards the mountains) and south. And I have relatives there so I wouldn't need a hotel to take in a game...

Now, if you want to keep the team in the Bay Area... Then the Santa Clara site is an excellent site. And of all the sites I've seen thrown about, the best.

So, if a person were arguing for such a site. They'd be arguing the 49ers move even further away.

[TheWiz]

Just because your post begs the question, what stadium are you speaking about?

[smoking_rubber]

I'm no expert on available land in the bay area, but there are definately more sites to choose from than you'd like us to believe. It's a matter of infrastructure, like you said. Santa Clara has it already. If they truely searched for the best location, and their TRUE intension was to serve the fans, they wouldn't have placed existing water mains and existing bus routes as the top priority in their 'extensive' search. Hey, they picked the spot they've always had their eye on! Plain and simple.

Maybe blimps are cool with 747's passing 500 ft over their heads? I'm not a blimp pilot, or an avaition expert. I merely asked a question and provided a picture to illustrate my valid concern (for anyone unaware of the airport's orientation). I'm sure the planes are a couple thousand feet up by the time they cross GA. Blimps fly/float at 1000 ft? Hopefully it won't be a problem. I asked if it's been taken under consideration.

[Redtown9ers]

I just want more restrooms and less beer lines in the stadium...:banana5: