There are 116 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

New Stadium - Where do you prefer?

New Stadium - Where do you prefer?

Originally posted by nw9erfan:
Originally posted by Niners99:
the Hunters Point site is a dead dream. its in a bad part of town, and is a toxic waste dump.

Santa Clara makes way more sense, and already is in the works. they would still be in the bay area. i dont know why people get so upset about the Niners leaving the city. the Giants and Jets dont even play in the same state. the Cowboys dont play in Dallas. it doesnt matter. theyd be right near their actual team HQ where they spend all their time, and right in the heart of the fanbase.

Well, AT&T Park was also in a bad part of town and built on a toxic waste dump...and it turned out pretty well.

The biggest problem with the Hunter's Point site is access. Not good as far as public transportation. Also, there is no direct freeway offramp and building one would cost a lot of money. Feinstein and Polosi might be able to help get some fed funds to help but it will still cost either the city, county, or team a lot of money. Is is worth it for the city? Based on what building the Giant's new park did, the answer is yes. I would certainly love to see that.

Now, if Al Davis were open to that site, he could contribute to the project, the NFL probably goes in on it and we happy... I'm cool with sharing a new stadium with dah Raidahs.

A more logical and realistic location however, would probably be in the parking lot of the Oakland Coliseum... Better public transportation, better access, and right off a major freeway. Would help the Oakland economy too... Still, I would much prefer SF.


yeah i remember reading a couple years ago that they were estimating the cost being doubled if they were to rebuild at candlestick. a majority of that would be to reconfigure the 101.
Originally posted by kidash:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
I think its much more viable in Santa Clara, but I'd prefer they stayed in SF.

This.

- 98
If everything is considered equal, then definitely SF. However, there are major issues with the Hunter's point site and Santa Clara would be just a 10-minute light rail ride away, so SC it is!!!
Originally posted by kidash:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
I think its much more viable in Santa Clara, but I'd prefer they stayed in SF.

This.

- 98

Yes.
Originally posted by Niners99:
the Hunters Point site is a dead dream. its in a bad part of town, and is a toxic waste dump.

Santa Clara makes way more sense, and already is in the works. they would still be in the bay area. i dont know why people get so upset about the Niners leaving the city. the Giants and Jets dont even play in the same state. the Cowboys dont play in Dallas. it doesnt matter. theyd be right near their actual team HQ where they spend all their time, and right in the heart of the fanbase.

First, The Giants and Jets play a lot closer to New York than the SC site is from San Francisco. It's about THREE MILES OUTSIDE OF MANHATTAN. You can even see the Manhattan skyline from the Meadowlands site. To compare that to something FIFTY miles away is pretty stupid.

Second, Cowboys Stadium is in Arlington, which is part of the Dallas/Ft Worth Area. It's not 10 miles outside of Dallas. Again, not only a bad comparison but a HORRIBLE one.

Third, both of them are much better projects. They are on much larger parcels with plenty of parking/access and none of the issues and are barely outside of the city the team is named for. So we've got superior/larger sites with better parking/access, one of which is 10 miles outside of the team's namesake city, the other barely three miles outside. Why even bring them up except to show how much the Santa Clara plan is NOT like the new Meadowlands or Cowboys stadiums at all?
Originally posted by Niners99:
the Hunters Point site is a dead dream. its in a bad part of town, and is a toxic waste dump.

Santa Clara makes way more sense, and already is in the works. they would still be in the bay area. i dont know why people get so upset about the Niners leaving the city. the Giants and Jets dont even play in the same state. the Cowboys dont play in Dallas. it doesnt matter. theyd be right near their actual team HQ where they spend all their time, and right in the heart of the fanbase.

Cleaned up, with more funds already allocated, get over that. You probably live in a toxic dump already, since there is so much pollution everywhere.

There is NO comparison to HP and SC. One is in the flatland between freeway interchanges, the other sits on the bay with views nearly 360.

One is IN SF, the other in, well you know.. so picturesque!

Ingress and egress will be fixed more, though anyone who goes to a major event has to know it's not like going to their favorite Safeway; it takes time to get out. If you don't like traffic, THEN DON"T GO, stay home and watch on TV so the sound of whining doesn't fill the air.

Ahhh, I feel much better now..
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by Niners99:
the Hunters Point site is a dead dream. its in a bad part of town, and is a toxic waste dump.

Santa Clara makes way more sense, and already is in the works. they would still be in the bay area. i dont know why people get so upset about the Niners leaving the city. the Giants and Jets dont even play in the same state. the Cowboys dont play in Dallas. it doesnt matter. theyd be right near their actual team HQ where they spend all their time, and right in the heart of the fanbase.

First, The Giants and Jets play a lot closer to New York than the SC site is from San Francisco. It's about THREE MILES OUTSIDE OF MANHATTAN. You can even see the Manhattan skyline from the Meadowlands site. To compare that to something FIFTY miles away is pretty stupid.

Second, Cowboys Stadium is in Arlington, which is part of the Dallas/Ft Worth Area. It's not 10 miles outside of Dallas. Again, not only a bad comparison but a HORRIBLE one.

Third, both of them are much better projects. They are on much larger parcels with plenty of parking/access and none of the issues and are barely outside of the city the team is named for. So we've got superior/larger sites with better parking/access, one of which is 10 miles outside of the team's namesake city, the other barely three miles outside. Why even bring them up except to show how much the Santa Clara plan is NOT like the new Meadowlands or Cowboys stadiums at all?

________

And the Bills are in Orchard Park, about 20 min outside of Buffalo. So what?

In all of the cases you mentioned the teams are closer to the OVERWHELMING majority of their fan base.

Where do most Bay Area 49er fans live? Hint: not San Francisco.

This is a business, not some romance novel. Don't get it twisted, money is the only thing that matters. And that means being closer to your customers and giving them an unbelievable experience.

The San Francisco 49ers are not tied to the city of San Francisco. Just like most sports teams are not tied to the "big city" that shares their namesake. They are tied to their fan base. Which, in most cases, does not live in the big name city. The same can be said for Cardinals, Cowboys, Jets, Giants, Bills, etc.

And being from NY, I can tell you that generally speaking the fan base in Manhattan is dismal. All those passionate fans you see rooting for NY are from Queens, the Bronx, New Jersey. Basically anywhere not named Manhattan. Using Manhattan as a reference for the NY teams is asinine.

You have some kind of romanticism that the city should match the team name. Thats nice, warm and cuddly. But dumb. If I'm a fan going to watch a game and I'm going to pay $60 or more per ticket... I want to get in and out of the stadium without any trouble, and have it be as close to my home as possible.

"But, but, but...what about all that illustrious history in the city of San Francisco and those sight lines. OMG THE SIGHT LINES!" If that is all the SF stadium proponents got...they will lose. Badly.

Solve the parking problem so I'm out in 20 minutes and make the 45 minute drive you've forced me to take since I don't live in the city... and we can talk.
a new stadium in SF would be awesome, but realistically SC is a really good alternative
LA...
Los Angeles.
i prefer santa clara i mean do u really trust the lowest bidder to really clean a toxic sight 100 % mother nature clean ? in a perfect world sf would add some express ways to hwy101 and to hwy380 and to hwy280 look at the south bay expressways (such as lawrence) /ferry/bart/amtrak/bus/to where candle stick is now and just pay up the money to fix there city anyway...actually im even okay if they were to move to concord near the old navy thing thats near hwy4 or to vallejo mare island and just buy the whole island (lynaar cleaned that site too) thers two ways in and out one leads straight to hwy 37 that leads to 80 101 780 680 they can even have ferry train bus access the other leads to the city(vallejo) about 5 min to my house..i would even be okay if they go by SAN. FRANCISCO BAY AREA 49ERS.. just DONT CHANGE THE LOGO and dont move more than say 45 mile from the city(sf)
  • mod
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 31,946
Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
Originally posted by Niners99:
the Hunters Point site is a dead dream. its in a bad part of town, and is a toxic waste dump.

Santa Clara makes way more sense, and already is in the works. they would still be in the bay area. i dont know why people get so upset about the Niners leaving the city. the Giants and Jets dont even play in the same state. the Cowboys dont play in Dallas. it doesnt matter. theyd be right near their actual team HQ where they spend all their time, and right in the heart of the fanbase.

Well, AT&T Park was also in a bad part of town and built on a toxic waste dump...and it turned out pretty well.

The biggest problem with the Hunter's Point site is access. Not good as far as public transportation. Also, there is no direct freeway offramp and building one would cost a lot of money. Feinstein and Polosi might be able to help get some fed funds to help but it will still cost either the city, county, or team a lot of money. Is is worth it for the city? Based on what building the Giant's new park did, the answer is yes. I would certainly love to see that.

Now, if Al Davis were open to that site, he could contribute to the project, the NFL probably goes in on it and we happy... I'm cool with sharing a new stadium with dah Raidahs.

A more logical and realistic location however, would probably be in the parking lot of the Oakland Coliseum... Better public transportation, better access, and right off a major freeway. Would help the Oakland economy too... Still, I would much prefer SF.


yeah i remember reading a couple years ago that they were estimating the cost being doubled if they were to rebuild at candlestick. a majority of that would be to reconfigure the 101.

Its 101, not "The" 101 you southern Californian
Originally posted by modninerfan:
Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
Originally posted by Niners99:
the Hunters Point site is a dead dream. its in a bad part of town, and is a toxic waste dump.

Santa Clara makes way more sense, and already is in the works. they would still be in the bay area. i dont know why people get so upset about the Niners leaving the city. the Giants and Jets dont even play in the same state. the Cowboys dont play in Dallas. it doesnt matter. theyd be right near their actual team HQ where they spend all their time, and right in the heart of the fanbase.

Well, AT&T Park was also in a bad part of town and built on a toxic waste dump...and it turned out pretty well.

The biggest problem with the Hunter's Point site is access. Not good as far as public transportation. Also, there is no direct freeway offramp and building one would cost a lot of money. Feinstein and Polosi might be able to help get some fed funds to help but it will still cost either the city, county, or team a lot of money. Is is worth it for the city? Based on what building the Giant's new park did, the answer is yes. I would certainly love to see that.

Now, if Al Davis were open to that site, he could contribute to the project, the NFL probably goes in on it and we happy... I'm cool with sharing a new stadium with dah Raidahs.

A more logical and realistic location however, would probably be in the parking lot of the Oakland Coliseum... Better public transportation, better access, and right off a major freeway. Would help the Oakland economy too... Still, I would much prefer SF.


yeah i remember reading a couple years ago that they were estimating the cost being doubled if they were to rebuild at candlestick. a majority of that would be to reconfigure the 101.

Its 101, not "The" 101 you southern Californian

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Los Angeles.

Unfortunately, it seems inevitable. I hope I'm wrong.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Los Angeles.

uh no. They won't move to LA besides they hate the 49ers over there anyway, the Rams fans are still there.It's like the Giants moving to LA pretty much.