49ers to present the design of the proposed stadium tonight in Santa Clara

I like what they have shown us so far. The outside is nothing special, but the inside of the stadium is a huge improvement from Candlestick.

Originally posted by Bali-Niner:

Originally posted by dankmeistr:
Has anyone else noticed all the negative articles on the 49ers move/stadium deal with Santa Clara from the SF Chronicle? It seems like they are working for the city by pumping out negative information in order to sway popular opinion. I find it very funny, and interesting at the same time.

The articles don't sound negative to me.

They sound like; these are the SF Niners, they have 63 years of history in SF, they could have a far more killer new stadium on the water front with views across the Bay, than sitting in a bare parking lot in SC. In an area without any ambiance or class.

They are saying the Niners won and lost in Kesar and the Stick, the history is there, not in SC. They are saying after the 500,000 people on th estreets of SF after the first SB win and succeeding huge crowds at the parades in down town SF, what are they going to do if they win again; have a parade in Silicon freakin Valley?

What they say is the truth, SC sucks, the parking lot there sucks, and.. it is ALL ABOUT the money for the York's, still.

I don't want to hear any crap about a toxic dump, smell the air in SC, and they will clean it and it, Hunters Point, would be ONE of the most classic location-venues to tailgate and watch NFL football in the USA. The parking lot in SC will compete on that level, not...

So, how does this compare to a parking lot in a barren area of SC valley? NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!!!!!!

_____________

I read your first sentence and got my hopes up for an objective non-biased argument. But you're right. Why build in a city with 300+ days a year with sunshine in an area with highways that are near by and closer to the majority of 49er fans when you can build on a windy and cold toxic waste site?

For history, right? Because it matters.

I mean, we should hire Jerry Rice as our next offensive coordinator. Even if he is completely inept as a coach, at least we can say we have a link to history!

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by Bali-Niner:

Originally posted by dankmeistr:
Has anyone else noticed all the negative articles on the 49ers move/stadium deal with Santa Clara from the SF Chronicle? It seems like they are working for the city by pumping out negative information in order to sway popular opinion. I find it very funny, and interesting at the same time.

The articles don't sound negative to me.

They sound like; these are the SF Niners, they have 63 years of history in SF, they could have a far more killer new stadium on the water front with views across the Bay, than sitting in a bare parking lot in SC. In an area without any ambiance or class.

They are saying the Niners won and lost in Kesar and the Stick, the history is there, not in SC. They are saying after the 500,000 people on th estreets of SF after the first SB win and succeeding huge crowds at the parades in down town SF, what are they going to do if they win again; have a parade in Silicon freakin Valley?

What they say is the truth, SC sucks, the parking lot there sucks, and.. it is ALL ABOUT the money for the York's, still.

I don't want to hear any crap about a toxic dump, smell the air in SC, and they will clean it and it, Hunters Point, would be ONE of the most classic location-venues to tailgate and watch NFL football in the USA. The parking lot in SC will compete on that level, not...

So, how does this compare to a parking lot in a barren area of SC valley? NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!!!!!!

_____________

I read your first sentence and got my hopes up for an objective non-biased argument. But you're right. Why build in a city with 300+ days a year with sunshine in an area with highways that are near by and closer to the majority of 49er fans when you can build on a windy and cold toxic waste site?

For history, right? Because it matters.

I mean, we should hire Jerry Rice as our next offensive coordinator. Even if he is completely inept as a coach, at least we can say we have a link to history!

Same. I was deceived.

-9fA

LMAO that guy spoke three times already and now he complained about it being a open air stadium lol jeez .....

i want to see more of the interior, hopefully there's a video tomorrow

i couldn't watch tonight

Originally posted by Bali-Niner:

Originally posted by dankmeistr:
Has anyone else noticed all the negative articles on the 49ers move/stadium deal with Santa Clara from the SF Chronicle? It seems like they are working for the city by pumping out negative information in order to sway popular opinion. I find it very funny, and interesting at the same time.

The articles don't sound negative to me.

They sound like; these are the SF Niners, they have 63 years of history in SF, they could have a far more killer new stadium on the water front with views across the Bay, than sitting in a bare parking lot in SC. In an area without any ambiance or class.

They are saying the Niners won and lost in Kesar and the Stick, the history is there, not in SC. They are saying after the 500,000 people on th estreets of SF after the first SB win and succeeding huge crowds at the parades in down town SF, what are they going to do if they win again; have a parade in Silicon freakin Valley?

What they say is the truth, SC sucks, the parking lot there sucks, and.. it is ALL ABOUT the money for the York's, still.

I don't want to hear any crap about a toxic dump, smell the air in SC, and they will clean it and it, Hunters Point, would be ONE of the most classic location-venues to tailgate and watch NFL football in the USA. The parking lot in SC will compete on that level, not...

So, how does this compare to a parking lot in a barren area of SC valley? NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!!!!!!

The Hunter's Point clean-up is depended on one thing, money from the Federal government.

If the Navy doesn't get the funds to clean it up, it doesn't get cleaned up. One thing goes wrong and the 49ers are waiting a while.

So you would rather the 49ers be depended on the federal gov to get their stadium done, which could mean they'll be stuck in Candlestick possibly until 2020 (if the stick will even last that long) or until the Navy gets done cleaning it up.

The 49ers need to get out of Candlestick ASAP, who knows if that stadium could even survive another earthquake. SF gets rocked with another quake like the 89 quake and it will do serious damage to Candlestick.

Originally posted by linkboy:

Originally posted by Bali-Niner:

Originally posted by dankmeistr:
Has anyone else noticed all the negative articles on the 49ers move/stadium deal with Santa Clara from the SF Chronicle? It seems like they are working for the city by pumping out negative information in order to sway popular opinion. I find it very funny, and interesting at the same time.

The articles don't sound negative to me.

They sound like; these are the SF Niners, they have 63 years of history in SF, they could have a far more killer new stadium on the water front with views across the Bay, than sitting in a bare parking lot in SC. In an area without any ambiance or class.

They are saying the Niners won and lost in Kesar and the Stick, the history is there, not in SC. They are saying after the 500,000 people on th estreets of SF after the first SB win and succeeding huge crowds at the parades in down town SF, what are they going to do if they win again; have a parade in Silicon freakin Valley?

What they say is the truth, SC sucks, the parking lot there sucks, and.. it is ALL ABOUT the money for the York's, still.

I don't want to hear any crap about a toxic dump, smell the air in SC, and they will clean it and it, Hunters Point, would be ONE of the most classic location-venues to tailgate and watch NFL football in the USA. The parking lot in SC will compete on that level, not...

So, how does this compare to a parking lot in a barren area of SC valley? NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!!!!!!

The Hunter's Point clean-up is depended on one thing, money from the Federal government.

If the Navy doesn't get the funds to clean it up, it doesn't get cleaned up. One thing goes wrong and the 49ers are waiting a while.

So you would rather the 49ers be depended on the federal gov to get their stadium done, which could mean they'll be stuck in Candlestick possibly until 2020 (if the stick will even last that long) or until the Navy gets done cleaning it up.

The 49ers need to get out of Candlestick ASAP, who knows if that stadium could even survive another earthquake. SF gets rocked with another quake like the 89 quake and it will do serious damage to Candlestick.

i like the idea of a stadium on the water. the giants stadium is awesome. but im not willing to wait 15 or 20 more years for it. if its like u say and the government has to clean it up, it wont happen with the country hurting for money

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by Bali-Niner:

Originally posted by dankmeistr:
Has anyone else noticed all the negative articles on the 49ers move/stadium deal with Santa Clara from the SF Chronicle? It seems like they are working for the city by pumping out negative information in order to sway popular opinion. I find it very funny, and interesting at the same time.

The articles don't sound negative to me.

They sound like; these are the SF Niners, they have 63 years of history in SF, they could have a far more killer new stadium on the water front with views across the Bay, than sitting in a bare parking lot in SC. In an area without any ambiance or class.

They are saying the Niners won and lost in Kesar and the Stick, the history is there, not in SC. They are saying after the 500,000 people on th estreets of SF after the first SB win and succeeding huge crowds at the parades in down town SF, what are they going to do if they win again; have a parade in Silicon freakin Valley?

What they say is the truth, SC sucks, the parking lot there sucks, and.. it is ALL ABOUT the money for the York's, still.

I don't want to hear any crap about a toxic dump, smell the air in SC, and they will clean it and it, Hunters Point, would be ONE of the most classic location-venues to tailgate and watch NFL football in the USA. The parking lot in SC will compete on that level, not...

So, how does this compare to a parking lot in a barren area of SC valley? NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!!!!!!

_____________

I read your first sentence and got my hopes up for an objective non-biased argument. But you're right. Why build in a city with 300+ days a year with sunshine in an area with highways that are near by and closer to the majority of 49er fans when you can build on a windy and cold toxic waste site?

For history, right? Because it matters.

I mean, we should hire Jerry Rice as our next offensive coordinator. Even if he is completely inept as a coach, at least we can say we have a link to history!

Same. I was deceived.

-9fA

How, can an argument not be biased? If I agree with you, then there is no conversation except for back slapping. I don't get that.

I repeat, there is no comparison between the two sites, and the US Gov has ALREADY approved the money to clean it the rest of the way so sissy folks won't freak if they want to go there.

The article synopsis were not biased, but mine sure was; and damn proud of it too.

Hey, f*t girls are convenient too, easy to meet and greet, but is that what you want?

BurgerKing and the rest are convenient, but do you want a steady diet of it?

Heck, I'm just jaded, I saw it all, all the way to parts of the last couple years, in person, every game.

I like the Stick, I like the smell in the morning with all the Q's cookin, I like the old asphalt flooded with fantastic memories..

I've always made fun of that parking lot with the dumb amusement park every time I drove past it on the way to the Stick, IF, I noticed it at all...

You guys can talk it up all you want, but you can't put a dress on a hog and fool me..

* Don't know if it will be natural or artificial turf, roof will be plants not grass.

49ers unveil details of stadium plan

So the stadium might have an artificial surface? In this day and age, I can not believe that is even a possibility. Players hate the fake stuff, most new stadiums have grass and there are no weather concerns with being able to maintain a grass field. That surprises me, never even thought it would be a consideration.

Originally posted by 49erfaninPA:
So the stadium might have an artificial surface? In this day and age, I can not believe that is even a possibility. Players hate the fake stuff, most new stadiums have grass and there are no weather concerns with being able to maintain a grass field. That surprises me, never even thought it would be a consideration.

I'd be shocked if it isn't natural grass.

If they're using recycled water, I would think natural grass would work. In the Mercury article they mentioned that the lower bowl would be one of the largest in the NFL and that parts of the stadium could be accessed during non-game days by the public.

Great ideas here.

Originally posted by mayo63:

Originally posted by 49erfaninPA:
So the stadium might have an artificial surface? In this day and age, I can not believe that is even a possibility. Players hate the fake stuff, most new stadiums have grass and there are no weather concerns with being able to maintain a grass field. That surprises me, never even thought it would be a consideration.

I'd be shocked if it isn't natural grass.

If it's a single team stadium I'd expect natural grass. If we share with the . . . gulp . . . Raiders, I'd expect artificial Field Turf to allow for weekly logo / endzone changes.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8114e703&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Just a hunch, but I think its fair to assume that we are all 9er fans here and fans of the game itself. We all know that the 9ers are wanting to build a new stadium...fine. At the bottom of the article it states that Santa Clara voters will get to decide if they will foot $114 million of the bill to build that stadium.

Lets say that the minimal voter percentage is reached to do this.

Do you think it is fair to the voters who said no....and even the ones who didn't vote to help foot that bill? How can you justify this to them? Shouldn't public funds help the community? (you could argue that it does, but its not a necessity)

V.I. LENIN!



VLADIMIR ILYICH ULINOFF!