There are 124 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Stadium question for the people who live in SF

Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
All things being equal, I'd love the Niners to stay at that site....but things aren't equal.

Yes, Gavin Newsome suggested the Ex Navy Shipyard, but you neglect to mention the fact that there is ZERO freeway access to that site and traffic would be MUCH worse as the site is surrounded by water on 3 sides. It would actually require infrastrucure (roads, bridges) that would cost as much as the stadium to make the site viable.

That infrastructure will be done with or without the stadium. People can parrot that that is a problem as much as they want but it's happening. The bridge over Yosemite Slough is coming soon, again stadium or no stadium, and there is going to be all kinds of new roads, as well as mass public transportation going to and from the Lennar site either way.

P.S. As much as people like to say otherwise, the Santa Clara site has no direct freeway access either. The people that live in SC by the site all know this but as long as big money tells everyone that there will be 14 freeways and 8 forms of mass transit funneling right into the stadium I guess people will believe it.
Originally posted by 9erB4Us:
@SonocoNinerFan....

That is Primo Real Estate in the City. I heard that vacant lot right across from AT&T Park is reserved for an Arena to be built, in the hopes that the Warriors will come back to the City when their lease at Oracle expires in 2 years.

That was an idea/plan but the Warriors new ownership not being the ownership the Giants wanted is probably going to make that a non-reality.

That site is now probably going to be used for all that new America's Cup development that is on the way...
Originally posted by sacniner:
Originally posted by SybErkRimInAL:
Originally posted by PaulW:
Because one of the biggest issues with Candlestick is the traffic. There is only 1 way in and 1 way out. It literally takes 2+ hours to get out of the parking lot after games.

that's pretty much the case at any major sports arena though. I don't think it's that bad at Candlestick.

Really? It's bad at all sporting events, but Candlestick is ridiculous... It's a residential area.

Its nice for me, u just have to know where to park.. i can get back to Pleasant Hill in an hour or less!!!
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by 9erB4Us:
1st - I thought this Thread was specifically for Individuals who "Live" in San Francisco. *Stadium Question for the people who live in SF*

@Marvin49 - You are entitled to your Opinion In the Stadium Issue, and I am entitled to my opinion, I respectfully Disagree with you. FYI, the citizens of SF voted a total of 3 times for Stadium Measures in SF...all were successful. the York ownership don't want to be in SF.

Marv...I believe you got the HP Stadium Site, mixed up with the Candlestick Stadium Site....Hunters Point sits on 493 acres of land, that site NEEDS No Parking Garage, and the Condos, & Businesses will sit far off from the proposed Stadium. See it for yourself, Google "Lennar Urban San Francisco"

Candlestick Park was going to build a Parking garage for the Yorks, but the Yorks rejected the garage, saying that it would ruin the gameday experience of their fans. Yet the Yorks are going to build a parking garage in Santa Clara, due to lack of Parking.

Incidently Candlestick sits on 89 Acres of land, and the Santa Clara Proposed Stadium Site sits on 14 Acres of land...

And yeah, I guess you could call me *old school* for honoring the legacy, tradition, and history of the 49ers in the City of SF. The Morabito Family Lobbied the NFL for a reason to bring an NFL team to the City of SF.

The 9ers have been in Santa Clara for 20 years, before that the teams Practice Facility was in Redwood City, that tenure was longer...

Candlestick was built for the SF Giants in 1960, the 49ers played at Kezar up until
1972...Then the 49ers joined the Giants at the Stick, until Giants went to Pac Bell.

As far as the City of SF Not keeping their side of the bargin in the upkeep of the Stick...ATTENTION: S.F. Chronicle 12/24/10 - "49ers, SF likely to extend lease"
*The deal settles a $60 mil maintenance claim the team had filed against the City. The team will get rent credit for completing $6.5mil in lasped maintenance work over the next 2 years that the city was obligated to handle...Like paving the parking Lot, Flood Control work for the Parking Lot, Replacing seats, and Fixing leaks in Luxury Suites, and to fix the Bathrooms.*

Btw...I also lived in Santa Clara too, so I know that area around the proposed SC stadium very well, and Freeway access ain't all that. Great America Amusement park does not sit right in front of the freeway.

Also check this out, this is Candlestick rebuilt - LINK
http://inhabitat.com/will-a-greener-stadium-plan-allow-san-francisco-to-keep-its-49ers/

And Marv...let just say we agree to disagree, cuz I don't want NO back & forth with you. You are entitled to your opinion...

First off, don't get me started on your "Fans that live in SF thing"...thats part of the entire problem, but I digress...

I know you said no back and forth, and we can agree to disagree....but there are problems with your statements. I'm not going to let you try to blow holes in what I was saying and then walk away without responding. Sorry. ;-)

1) The plan rejected by the Yorks includes not just a parking garage, but the WORLDS LARGEST parking garage. The fan experience the Yorks are referring to is tailgaiting, which you can't do in a garage. The Condos would take up the space that is currently used as a dirt parking lot right next to the regular parking. Those spaces would need to be accounted for....thus, the parking garage.

2) I also didn't get the sites confused. The Ex Navy Shipyard wouldn't require that Parking Garage, but it WOULD require MAJOR road improvements and possibly a flyover bridge. The cost of those improvements could be as much as the stadium. That site currently has ZERO freeway access and is also a Toxic Waste site.

3) The garage that would be built in SC was approved BEFORE the stadium site moved and has nothing to do with the 49ers. It was approved for the Convention Center. Its also MUCH, MUCH smaller and across the street.

4) The 14 Acres of land is a bit inaccurate. Thats the size of the lot the stadium would sit on, but it doesn't account for the overflow parking lot for the Convention Center and Great America that sits NEXT to the stadium.

5) The article you are referencing is from last year. The city hasn't maintained the stadium as the promised for the previous TEN years. Escalators that don't work, Elevators that don't work, flooding parking lots...etc, etc. This one isn't an opinion. Its a fact.

6) Its all good to want the team to stay in SF. Truth be told, I would rather the team stayed there. I'd love it if they could figure some way to put the team in downtown or figure out a workable plan for the Candlestick site. The problem tho is that they haven't.

7) Yes...the 49ers HQ was in Redwood City before it was in SC....and that just serves my point. They belong to the Bay Area, not just the City of SF.

8) The Freeway access is 50 times better than Candlestick. Say whatever you want about it, but the access to the site is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better than Candlestick today. I never said that freeways were right in front of Great America. I may have been confusing, so for that I appologize. I was trying to say that Light Rail is right in front of the stadium site (Tasman Dr.).


Its all good. We can agree to disagree. The SC plan has issues as well. Many residents are worried it would create problems at rush hour. Some of the stadium parking will come from the parking lots of local businesses and they aren't all that wild about fans tailgating there. Great America isn't wild about the idea (tho I think they are just posturing to get someone to buy the park from them).

In the end tho, IMO, the SC plan is much more viable than the SF plan. If all things were equal, I'd want them to stay in SF.

BTW...just to illustrate my points....Before and After shot of the Stadium site. Note th Garage is very small in the grand scheme and is being built for the convention center, not the stadium. Also note that its not a Stadium in the middle of nowhere. Its designed to be an entertainment district and that why it has Great America, the Golf Course, Convention Center, and several Hotels in very close proximity.

Nuff said. ;-)

[img=]

[img=]
[ Edited by Marvin49 on Jan 13, 2011 at 12:33 PM ]
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
All things being equal, I'd love the Niners to stay at that site....but things aren't equal.

Yes, Gavin Newsome suggested the Ex Navy Shipyard, but you neglect to mention the fact that there is ZERO freeway access to that site and traffic would be MUCH worse as the site is surrounded by water on 3 sides. It would actually require infrastrucure (roads, bridges) that would cost as much as the stadium to make the site viable.

That infrastructure will be done with or without the stadium. People can parrot that that is a problem as much as they want but it's happening. The bridge over Yosemite Slough is coming soon, again stadium or no stadium, and there is going to be all kinds of new roads, as well as mass public transportation going to and from the Lennar site either way.

...and how long will that take? Again...Construction Zone. A Decade.
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
All things being equal, I'd love the Niners to stay at that site....but things aren't equal.

Yes, Gavin Newsome suggested the Ex Navy Shipyard, but you neglect to mention the fact that there is ZERO freeway access to that site and traffic would be MUCH worse as the site is surrounded by water on 3 sides. It would actually require infrastrucure (roads, bridges) that would cost as much as the stadium to make the site viable.

That infrastructure will be done with or without the stadium. People can parrot that that is a problem as much as they want but it's happening. The bridge over Yosemite Slough is coming soon, again stadium or no stadium, and there is going to be all kinds of new roads, as well as mass public transportation going to and from the Lennar site either way.

P.S. As much as people like to say otherwise, the Santa Clara site has no direct freeway access either. The people that live in SC by the site all know this but as long as big money tells everyone that there will be 14 freeways and 8 forms of mass transit funneling right into the stadium I guess people will believe it.

I'm not Bengie Molina, but when I look at a map I can see that 101 is one mile to the south of Great America and highway 237 is one mile north. Highway 237 can take you west a couple miles as an alternate route to 101 or east a couple of miles to 880 and 680. There's an ACE Train station that's about a five minute walk away and an existing VTA light rail line already running down Tasman.
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
All things being equal, I'd love the Niners to stay at that site....but things aren't equal.

Yes, Gavin Newsome suggested the Ex Navy Shipyard, but you neglect to mention the fact that there is ZERO freeway access to that site and traffic would be MUCH worse as the site is surrounded by water on 3 sides. It would actually require infrastrucure (roads, bridges) that would cost as much as the stadium to make the site viable.

That infrastructure will be done with or without the stadium. People can parrot that that is a problem as much as they want but it's happening. The bridge over Yosemite Slough is coming soon, again stadium or no stadium, and there is going to be all kinds of new roads, as well as mass public transportation going to and from the Lennar site either way.

P.S. As much as people like to say otherwise, the Santa Clara site has no direct freeway access either. The people that live in SC by the site all know this but as long as big money tells everyone that there will be 14 freeways and 8 forms of mass transit funneling right into the stadium I guess people will believe it.

Jeez...LOL. You are correct, the freeways don't dump directly onto the 50 yard line. Thay are a full MILE away from the stadium site.

LOL!!

The stadium would be located in what is referred to as the "Golden Triangle" between three freeways (101, 880, and 237). 2 minutes down Tasman is "Cisco City"...about 50 Cisco buildings. The whole area is BUILT to accomodate volume traffic.

Thats why light rail runs up and down Tasman Dr.
Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
All things being equal, I'd love the Niners to stay at that site....but things aren't equal.

Yes, Gavin Newsome suggested the Ex Navy Shipyard, but you neglect to mention the fact that there is ZERO freeway access to that site and traffic would be MUCH worse as the site is surrounded by water on 3 sides. It would actually require infrastrucure (roads, bridges) that would cost as much as the stadium to make the site viable.

That infrastructure will be done with or without the stadium. People can parrot that that is a problem as much as they want but it's happening. The bridge over Yosemite Slough is coming soon, again stadium or no stadium, and there is going to be all kinds of new roads, as well as mass public transportation going to and from the Lennar site either way.

P.S. As much as people like to say otherwise, the Santa Clara site has no direct freeway access either. The people that live in SC by the site all know this but as long as big money tells everyone that there will be 14 freeways and 8 forms of mass transit funneling right into the stadium I guess people will believe it.

I'm not Bengie Molina, but when I look at a map I can see that 101 is one mile to the south of Great America and highway 237 is one mile north. Highway 237 can take you west a couple miles as an alternate route to 101 or east a couple of miles to 880 and 680. There's an ACE Train station that's about a five minute walk away and an existing VTA light rail line already running down Tasman.

LOL...exactly.
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
All things being equal, I'd love the Niners to stay at that site....but things aren't equal.

Yes, Gavin Newsome suggested the Ex Navy Shipyard, but you neglect to mention the fact that there is ZERO freeway access to that site and traffic would be MUCH worse as the site is surrounded by water on 3 sides. It would actually require infrastrucure (roads, bridges) that would cost as much as the stadium to make the site viable.

That infrastructure will be done with or without the stadium. People can parrot that that is a problem as much as they want but it's happening. The bridge over Yosemite Slough is coming soon, again stadium or no stadium, and there is going to be all kinds of new roads, as well as mass public transportation going to and from the Lennar site either way.

P.S. As much as people like to say otherwise, the Santa Clara site has no direct freeway access either. The people that live in SC by the site all know this but as long as big money tells everyone that there will be 14 freeways and 8 forms of mass transit funneling right into the stadium I guess people will believe it.

Jeez...LOL. You are correct, the freeways don't dump directly onto the 50 yard line. Thay are a full MILE away from the stadium site.

LOL!!

I understand where it's at. I used to be able to walk to Great America from my townhouse. The Hunters Point site has 101 and 280 just a MILE AND A HALF away. If a mile is no big deal according to you (and you're right), neither is a mile and a half.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
The stadium would be located in what is referred to as the "Golden Triangle" between three freeways (101, 880, and 237). 2 minutes down Tasman is "Cisco City"...about 50 Cisco buildings. The whole area is BUILT to accomodate volume traffic.

Thats why light rail runs up and down Tasman Dr.

Again, I used to live there. I know how it all works. And what's funny is it already has a problem with volume traffic on a regular old Saturday in the summer time, without an NFL game.
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
All things being equal, I'd love the Niners to stay at that site....but things aren't equal.

Yes, Gavin Newsome suggested the Ex Navy Shipyard, but you neglect to mention the fact that there is ZERO freeway access to that site and traffic would be MUCH worse as the site is surrounded by water on 3 sides. It would actually require infrastrucure (roads, bridges) that would cost as much as the stadium to make the site viable.

That infrastructure will be done with or without the stadium. People can parrot that that is a problem as much as they want but it's happening. The bridge over Yosemite Slough is coming soon, again stadium or no stadium, and there is going to be all kinds of new roads, as well as mass public transportation going to and from the Lennar site either way.

P.S. As much as people like to say otherwise, the Santa Clara site has no direct freeway access either. The people that live in SC by the site all know this but as long as big money tells everyone that there will be 14 freeways and 8 forms of mass transit funneling right into the stadium I guess people will believe it.

Jeez...LOL. You are correct, the freeways don't dump directly onto the 50 yard line. Thay are a full MILE away from the stadium site.

LOL!!

I understand where it's at. I used to be able to walk to Great America from my townhouse. The Hunters Point site has 101 and 280 just a MILE AND A HALF away. If a mile is no big deal according to you (and you're right), neither is a mile and a half.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
The stadium would be located in what is referred to as the "Golden Triangle" between three freeways (101, 880, and 237). 2 minutes down Tasman is "Cisco City"...about 50 Cisco buildings. The whole area is BUILT to accomodate volume traffic.

Thats why light rail runs up and down Tasman Dr.

Again, I used to live there. I know how it all works. And what's funny is it already has a problem with volume traffic on a regular old Saturday in the summer time, without an NFL game.

Yeah, with what, 2 lane roads leading up through Hunter Point?

If you are lucky enough to be in the paved lot, its pretty easy to get out. The exit to 101 is about the same distance.

However, ALOT of peeps end up in the dirt lot and are directed the other way and take several hours to get out.

I live in the area too. In fact I'm currently sitting 4.5 miles from the site (just off Trimble), so I'm aware of the distances and the traffic.
How many people that go to the games actually live in San Francisco? Half? screw the other people who don't go to the game and just want to have the 49ers for the money that it brings in. The other thing not mentioned in regards to the original post, is how the tide affects the playing field. Another is hunters point location is not an ideal location as someone mentioned in more ways than one. Plus the need to clean up the place. However lets be honest it is bout money. Mayor Gavin didn't want to give the 49ers what they wanted. So he cries foul, when they find someone who might, it may not be right to some but it is a business, the one that gives a better deal is going to land the deal. Santa Clara was willing. Plus it is better for the niners to just hop over from the training facility to the stadium.
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
All things being equal, I'd love the Niners to stay at that site....but things aren't equal.

Yes, Gavin Newsome suggested the Ex Navy Shipyard, but you neglect to mention the fact that there is ZERO freeway access to that site and traffic would be MUCH worse as the site is surrounded by water on 3 sides. It would actually require infrastrucure (roads, bridges) that would cost as much as the stadium to make the site viable.

That infrastructure will be done with or without the stadium. People can parrot that that is a problem as much as they want but it's happening. The bridge over Yosemite Slough is coming soon, again stadium or no stadium, and there is going to be all kinds of new roads, as well as mass public transportation going to and from the Lennar site either way.

P.S. As much as people like to say otherwise, the Santa Clara site has no direct freeway access either. The people that live in SC by the site all know this but as long as big money tells everyone that there will be 14 freeways and 8 forms of mass transit funneling right into the stadium I guess people will believe it.

Jeez...LOL. You are correct, the freeways don't dump directly onto the 50 yard line. Thay are a full MILE away from the stadium site.

LOL!!

I understand where it's at. I used to be able to walk to Great America from my townhouse. The Hunters Point site has 101 and 280 just a MILE AND A HALF away. If a mile is no big deal according to you (and you're right), neither is a mile and a half.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
The stadium would be located in what is referred to as the "Golden Triangle" between three freeways (101, 880, and 237). 2 minutes down Tasman is "Cisco City"...about 50 Cisco buildings. The whole area is BUILT to accomodate volume traffic.

Thats why light rail runs up and down Tasman Dr.

Again, I used to live there. I know how it all works. And what's funny is it already has a problem with volume traffic on a regular old Saturday in the summer time, without an NFL game.

Yeah, with what, 2 lane roads leading up through Hunter Point?

If you are lucky enough to be in the paved lot, its pretty easy to get out. The exit to 101 is about the same distance.

However, ALOT of peeps end up in the dirt lot and are directed the other way and take several hours to get out.

No, not 2 lane roads. Have you reviewed the plans at all or seen the funding that's already been approved and the fact that the bridge construction is no far away?

The current lots would be irrelevant. Candlestick has nothing to do with it. Only that it wont be there any more and the new infrastructure allowed by the fact that there will be no stadium will only make it easier for people that need to get to 101 to get out of there. Which will be just one of many routes in the new plan.
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
All things being equal, I'd love the Niners to stay at that site....but things aren't equal.

Yes, Gavin Newsome suggested the Ex Navy Shipyard, but you neglect to mention the fact that there is ZERO freeway access to that site and traffic would be MUCH worse as the site is surrounded by water on 3 sides. It would actually require infrastrucure (roads, bridges) that would cost as much as the stadium to make the site viable.

That infrastructure will be done with or without the stadium. People can parrot that that is a problem as much as they want but it's happening. The bridge over Yosemite Slough is coming soon, again stadium or no stadium, and there is going to be all kinds of new roads, as well as mass public transportation going to and from the Lennar site either way.

P.S. As much as people like to say otherwise, the Santa Clara site has no direct freeway access either. The people that live in SC by the site all know this but as long as big money tells everyone that there will be 14 freeways and 8 forms of mass transit funneling right into the stadium I guess people will believe it.

Jeez...LOL. You are correct, the freeways don't dump directly onto the 50 yard line. Thay are a full MILE away from the stadium site.

LOL!!

I understand where it's at. I used to be able to walk to Great America from my townhouse. The Hunters Point site has 101 and 280 just a MILE AND A HALF away. If a mile is no big deal according to you (and you're right), neither is a mile and a half.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
The stadium would be located in what is referred to as the "Golden Triangle" between three freeways (101, 880, and 237). 2 minutes down Tasman is "Cisco City"...about 50 Cisco buildings. The whole area is BUILT to accomodate volume traffic.

Thats why light rail runs up and down Tasman Dr.

Again, I used to live there. I know how it all works. And what's funny is it already has a problem with volume traffic on a regular old Saturday in the summer time, without an NFL game.

Yeah, with what, 2 lane roads leading up through Hunter Point?

If you are lucky enough to be in the paved lot, its pretty easy to get out. The exit to 101 is about the same distance.

However, ALOT of peeps end up in the dirt lot and are directed the other way and take several hours to get out.

No, not 2 lane roads. Have you reviewed the plans at all or seen the funding that's already been approved and the fact that the bridge construction is no far away?

The current lots would be irrelevant. Candlestick has nothing to do with it. Only that it wont be there any more and the new infrastructure allowed by the fact that there will be no stadium will only make it easier for people that need to get to 101 to get out of there. Which will be just one of many routes in the new plan.

Given the history of this thing in SF, I'll believe that when I see it.

I've actually looked at the plans in SF and from the perspective of what it would look like and the overall space available (at the shipyard, not the current site of the 'stick) I wouldn't at all mind seeing the stadium there.

I said before that if something workable could be done there, I'd be in favor of it.

Given the current economy and SFs past willingness to do much of ANYTHING, I am seriously doubtful of this taking place and of the city shelling out ANYTHING to help this thing go.

If they prove me wrong, hey, thats great....build the thing, but the city has been nothing but a roadblock for 20 years. The Yorks get all the heat, but the city is just as much to blame as anyone for the 49ers focus change to SC.

EDIT: Attaching the current SF Plans. Very nice to look at, but I don't see much access and I see ALOT of stuff that has to happen before ground can be broken. As I've said before, if there is a VIABLE plan in SF, I'd be in favor. As yet, I'm not convinced its viable.

Very nice to look at tho. ;-)

[img=]

[img=]
[ Edited by Marvin49 on Jan 13, 2011 at 1:22 PM ]
Originally posted by PatrickJira411:
Always heard stories at how bad the traffic coming in and out of Candlestick was. I thought it could not be as bad as people claimed it was. Went to a game in 09, the MNF game against Arizona. Getting in was bad but man getting out...I had never seen anything as bad as that and I have been to NFL games in New Jersey/NY, Tampa, Miami and Atlanta. I mean you don't move for like 2-3 hours. It took us a good 4 hours to get out.

But i bet it wasnt that bad considering the outcome of the game, i smiled all the way home!
Is candlestick park and hunter's point on landfill lands? If they are that is bad if even a small quake hits it was my thinking.