Levi's Stadium pics and info...

Originally posted by DaDivaRecieva15:
It's a Hilltain

LOL

Originally posted by DaDivaRecieva15:
It's a Hilltain

Don't you DARE try to compromise!

Originally posted by Travisty13:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
Details, details...

It's a HILL of solid rock and it's 4 times the size of the stadium. It's one of the problems with building the new stadium on that site. They are "pinned" between a HILL and the Water.

the stadium seems to have a cool location, but I could definitely see why there's be problems building around there.

From a scenery perspective, Candlestick Point wins hands down. My memories of Candlestick will always be of driving up 101 and coming around the curve to see Candlestick in the distance with the water in the foreground. It was beautiful.

Had they been able to work out the plan for the naval shipyard (see attached pics), I would have preferred it by a long shot. It just wasn't feasable. Talk about traffic nightmare too....there is ZERO Freeway access to that site now and SF wasn't gonna pony up the infrastructure.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
From a scenery perspective, Candlestick Point wins hands down. My memories of Candlestick will always be of driving up 101 and coming around the curve to see Candlestick in the distance with the water in the foreground. It was beautiful.

Had they been able to work out the plan for the naval shipyard (see attached pics), I would have preferred it by a long shot. It just wasn't feasable. Talk about traffic nightmare too....there is ZERO Freeway access to that site now and SF wasn't gonna pony up the infrastructure.

Yeah, you guys that have been there it will be a big difference. You don't have the hill in the background, the water, etc... I'm thinking those of us that watch it on tv they will still show the city of SF coming back from commercial, etc. Probably the same ole shots of Alcatraz, Golden Gate Bridge, SF-Oakland (Bay?) Bridge, the Transamerica Tower, the Painted Ladies type houses, etc. I'm sure they will throw in new shots of Santa Clara with all the big company headquarters (google, apple, etc), probably a lot of Great America as well, maybe the headquarters now. Will be cool with Great America in the background but in person I'm sure Candlestick will have looked a lot better.

Edit:
P.S. Thanks for all your effort on this thread. You have given all of us a lot of good info.

Oh and also about the naval shipyard idea.... remember how some people jokingly said let's put it on Alcatraz back when they were looking for areas (hunters point, etc)? As cool as that would be it's just like the shipyard idea except far more impossible but point being there are a ton of great places scenery wise but how many of them are feasible? You can't have 70,000 people coming into a stadium with one outgoing road. Another would have been on the SF side right before the Golden Gate Bridge in the corner so it would have been right behind the stadium as you watch the game. Talk about jaw dropping beauty. Again, just not feasible.

Originally posted by Gore_21:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
From a scenery perspective, Candlestick Point wins hands down. My memories of Candlestick will always be of driving up 101 and coming around the curve to see Candlestick in the distance with the water in the foreground. It was beautiful.

Had they been able to work out the plan for the naval shipyard (see attached pics), I would have preferred it by a long shot. It just wasn't feasable. Talk about traffic nightmare too....there is ZERO Freeway access to that site now and SF wasn't gonna pony up the infrastructure.

Yeah, you guys that have been there it will be a big difference. You don't have the hill in the background, the water, etc... I'm thinking those of us that watch it on tv they will still show the city of SF coming back from commercial, etc. Probably the same ole shots of Alcatraz, Golden Gate Bridge, SF-Oakland (Bay?) Bridge, the Transamerica Tower, the Painted Ladies type houses, etc. I'm sure they will throw in new shots of Santa Clara with all the big company headquarters (google, apple, etc), probably a lot of Great America as well, maybe the headquarters now. Will be cool with Great America in the background but in person I'm sure Candlestick will have looked a lot better.

P.S. Thanks for all your effort on this thread. You have given all of us a lot of good info.

From the "eye in the sky" perspective, I completely agree.

As for the experience of actually being AT the game, I think SC will be much better. Candestick is closed in all directions, so the only way you know you are close to the water is the temperature and the wind.....and the seaguls.

People not from here won't really understand this, but it can be 10-20 degrees warmer in SC than it will be at the 'stick on any given day. The views from the Stadium ain't all that bad either...the valley with water in the distance and hills in every direction. Should be very nice....but admitedly, not like the 'stick.

Originally posted by Gore_21:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
From a scenery perspective, Candlestick Point wins hands down. My memories of Candlestick will always be of driving up 101 and coming around the curve to see Candlestick in the distance with the water in the foreground. It was beautiful.

Had they been able to work out the plan for the naval shipyard (see attached pics), I would have preferred it by a long shot. It just wasn't feasable. Talk about traffic nightmare too....there is ZERO Freeway access to that site now and SF wasn't gonna pony up the infrastructure.

Yeah, you guys that have been there it will be a big difference. You don't have the hill in the background, the water, etc... I'm thinking those of us that watch it on tv they will still show the city of SF coming back from commercial, etc. Probably the same ole shots of Alcatraz, Golden Gate Bridge, SF-Oakland (Bay?) Bridge, the Transamerica Tower, the Painted Ladies type houses, etc. I'm sure they will throw in new shots of Santa Clara with all the big company headquarters (google, apple, etc), probably a lot of Great America as well, maybe the headquarters now. Will be cool with Great America in the background but in person I'm sure Candlestick will have looked a lot better.

Edit:
P.S. Thanks for all your effort on this thread. You have given all of us a lot of good info.

Oh and also about the naval shipyard idea.... remember how some people jokingly said let's put it on Alcatraz back when they were looking for areas (hunters point, etc)? As cool as that would be it's just like the shipyard idea except far more impossible but point being there are a ton of great places scenery wise but how many of them are feasible? You can't have 70,000 people coming into a stadium with one outgoing road. Another would have been on the SF side right before the Golden Gate Bridge in the corner so it would have been right behind the stadium as you watch the game. Talk about jaw dropping beauty. Again, just not feasible.

NP. It's kinda become a hobby of mine to follow this whole thing since the first measure passed back in the 90's.

I agree with you. I'd have LOVED to see a Waterfront stadium on the Naval Shipyard. The pictures I saw were incredible. I just never saw how it was a feasable solution.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
From the "eye in the sky" perspective, I completely agree.

As for the experience of actually being AT the game, I think SC will be much better. Candestick is closed in all directions, so the only way you know you are close to the water is the temperature and the wind.....and the seaguls.

People not from here won't really understand this, but it can be 10-20 degrees warmer in SC than it will be at the 'stick on any given day. The views from the Stadium ain't all that bad either...the valley with water in the distance and hills in every direction. Should be very nice....but admitedly, not like the 'stick.

That's true inside the stadium (not having been there) it looks like you got the hill which is cool but I heard the sun is blinding. Then from the other side you really can't see anything... you can't see the water from inside any part of the stadium correct? Yeah, Santa Clara will be a lot warmer, without the swirling winds, seagulls, etc because no water. SC will be cool with Great america in the background but can't offer some of the skyscrapers in the background like some of the baseball parks or the arch for Busch stadium.

Originally posted by Gore_21:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
From the "eye in the sky" perspective, I completely agree.

As for the experience of actually being AT the game, I think SC will be much better. Candestick is closed in all directions, so the only way you know you are close to the water is the temperature and the wind.....and the seaguls.

People not from here won't really understand this, but it can be 10-20 degrees warmer in SC than it will be at the 'stick on any given day. The views from the Stadium ain't all that bad either...the valley with water in the distance and hills in every direction. Should be very nice....but admitedly, not like the 'stick.

That's true inside the stadium (not having been there) it looks like you got the hill which is cool but I heard the sun is blinding. Then from the other side you really can't see anything... you can't see the water from inside any part of the stadium correct? Yeah, Santa Clara will be a lot warmer, without the swirling winds, seagulls, etc because no water. SC will be cool with Great america in the background but can't offer some of the skyscrapers in the background like some of the baseball parks or the arch for Busch stadium.

You can see the water if you go out to the bathroom or to get a soda, but not from your seat.

If you look at the stadium in the SF/Naval Shipyard design, you will see that it's slightly different. Its much more closed on one end and completely open on the other. The reason is that it's aligned to see downtown SF in the distance. Thats one of the reason's I really liked that project. Again tho....not feasable.

.....and BTW...yes...if you are on the visiting sideline for a 1PM kickoff, you will go blind. LOL. ;-) Night games are OK tho as the sun drops behind the hill around 5PM or so.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
You can see the water if you go out to the bathroom or to get a soda, but not from your seat.

If you look at the stadium in the SF/Naval Shipyard design, you will see that it's slightly different. Its much more closed on one end and completely open on the other. The reason is that it's aligned to see downtown SF in the distance. Thats one of the reason's I really liked that project. Again tho....not feasable.

Can you really see SF let's say if they made that and you were sitting on the other side of the opening? Can you see it from Candlestick park at all? Like going up those escalators (?) to get to your seat. I always thought Candlestick was too far away from the city?

Edit: i'm talking about seeing the main group of buildings like the transamerica tower and that group....

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by Gore_21:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
From the "eye in the sky" perspective, I completely agree.

As for the experience of actually being AT the game, I think SC will be much better. Candestick is closed in all directions, so the only way you know you are close to the water is the temperature and the wind.....and the seaguls.

People not from here won't really understand this, but it can be 10-20 degrees warmer in SC than it will be at the 'stick on any given day. The views from the Stadium ain't all that bad either...the valley with water in the distance and hills in every direction. Should be very nice....but admitedly, not like the 'stick.

That's true inside the stadium (not having been there) it looks like you got the hill which is cool but I heard the sun is blinding. Then from the other side you really can't see anything... you can't see the water from inside any part of the stadium correct? Yeah, Santa Clara will be a lot warmer, without the swirling winds, seagulls, etc because no water. SC will be cool with Great america in the background but can't offer some of the skyscrapers in the background like some of the baseball parks or the arch for Busch stadium.

You can see the water if you go out to the bathroom or to get a soda, but not from your seat.

If you look at the stadium in the SF/Naval Shipyard design, you will see that it's slightly different. Its much more closed on one end and completely open on the other. The reason is that it's aligned to see downtown SF in the distance. Thats one of the reason's I really liked that project. Again tho....not feasable.

.....and BTW...yes...if you are on the visiting sideline for a 1PM kickoff, you will go blind. LOL. ;-) Night games are OK tho as the sun drops behind the hill around 5PM or so.

It could of been possible but i don't think they really planned it and was a half arse job to counter the move.

also the SC stadium is going to have the sun in the regular fans face as well since the majority of the seating is on the east section

Originally posted by Gore_21:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
You can see the water if you go out to the bathroom or to get a soda, but not from your seat.

If you look at the stadium in the SF/Naval Shipyard design, you will see that it's slightly different. Its much more closed on one end and completely open on the other. The reason is that it's aligned to see downtown SF in the distance. Thats one of the reason's I really liked that project. Again tho....not feasable.

Can you really see SF let's say if they made that and you were sitting on the other side of the opening? Can you see it from Candlestick park at all? Like going up those escalators (?) to get to your seat. I always thought Candlestick was too far away from the city?

Well, the stadium was never built so I can't tell you for sure, but that was the idea behind the design. SF really isn't all that big (it's boxed in by water as you can see in the last diagram), so I'm pretty sure you would be able to see the Skyscrapers from the stadium.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by Gore_21:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
From the "eye in the sky" perspective, I completely agree.

As for the experience of actually being AT the game, I think SC will be much better. Candestick is closed in all directions, so the only way you know you are close to the water is the temperature and the wind.....and the seaguls.

People not from here won't really understand this, but it can be 10-20 degrees warmer in SC than it will be at the 'stick on any given day. The views from the Stadium ain't all that bad either...the valley with water in the distance and hills in every direction. Should be very nice....but admitedly, not like the 'stick.

That's true inside the stadium (not having been there) it looks like you got the hill which is cool but I heard the sun is blinding. Then from the other side you really can't see anything... you can't see the water from inside any part of the stadium correct? Yeah, Santa Clara will be a lot warmer, without the swirling winds, seagulls, etc because no water. SC will be cool with Great america in the background but can't offer some of the skyscrapers in the background like some of the baseball parks or the arch for Busch stadium.

You can see the water if you go out to the bathroom or to get a soda, but not from your seat.

If you look at the stadium in the SF/Naval Shipyard design, you will see that it's slightly different. Its much more closed on one end and completely open on the other. The reason is that it's aligned to see downtown SF in the distance. Thats one of the reason's I really liked that project. Again tho....not feasable.

.....and BTW...yes...if you are on the visiting sideline for a 1PM kickoff, you will go blind. LOL. ;-) Night games are OK tho as the sun drops behind the hill around 5PM or so.

It could of been possible but i don't think they really planned it and was a half arse job to counter the move.

also the SC stadium is going to have the sun in the regular fans face as well since the majority of the seating is on the east section

It would have been possible if the city had been willing to help. They weren't. They wanted the thing for free. Even more rediculous, they blamed the 49ers for the failed Olympic bid. They wanted the 49ers to fund the stadium 100% (the $100 originally approved was a loan) but also wanted to use it for the Olympics.

As for the sun issue, that's true. Not sure how you combat that.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
Well, the stadium was never built so I can't tell you for sure, but that was the idea behind the design. SF really isn't all that big (it's boxed in by water as you can see in the last diagram), so I'm pretty sure you would be able to see the Skyscrapers from the stadium.

Thanks, I know it wasn't built I was just wondering in general from that area if you could see the SF skyline. Like at Candlestick if you get high enough on those escalators taking you to your seat if you could see the city as well.

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by DaDivaRecieva15:
It's a Hilltain

Don't you DARE try to compromise!

Maybe we should just bring it with to SC? Our players can run up it.

...and BTW...I had to add this. For anyone not from here that doesn't understand the ridiculousness of the "move"...this is how far the Niners are moving. 38.43 miles.

You'd think they were moving to Idaho by listening to the uproar.


....and all those arguments about "how can you move to the tiny town of Santa Clara?".

SF: 49.6 Square Miles, Population 805,235
SC: 18.4 Sqare Miles, Population 116,468

However....
The city RIGHT NEXT to Santa Clara (both in Santa Clara County) and the reason SC is a good site?
San Jose: 180 Square Miles, Population 945,942

San Jose is considered the capitol if the Silicon Valley...even if peeps in SF think nothing exists south of the Peninsula. The fact is that a very large % of season ticket holders are from the South Bay. A LARGER % (by alot) than people from the City.

End Rant. Was arguing about this with a guy at work today. Sorry.