HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 7:57 AM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
San Francisco: 49ers tell SF they're moving

SAN FRANCISCO -- The San Francisco 49ers ended negotiations with the city about building a new stadium and plan to move to Santa Clara or somewhere else in California, The Associated Press learned Wednesday night.

Owner John York notified Mayor Gavin Newsom of the team's decision earlier Wednesday, a city official close to the negotiations told the AP on condition of anonymity because no announcement had been made.

Team spokesman Aaron Salkin declined to comment Wednesday night. Phone messages left on the office and cell phone of Lisa Lang, the 49ers' vice president for communications, were not immediately returned.

The sides had been talking over the past few months about building a privately financed stadium at Candlestick Point that was going to be part of the city's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.

The team's lease at Candlestick runs through the 2008 season, and the team holds three five-year options that could extend it through 2023.

The stadium at Candlestick is one of the most run-down in the NFL, leading the team's desire to seek a new stadium with revenue-generating suites and luxury boxes. The plan to build a stadium also included public housing, retail and office space.

The city was not going to contribute any money to the stadium but was willing to possibly help with infrastructure costs.

The 49ers' headquarters are in Santa Clara, located about 30 miles south of San Francisco.

Los Angeles and Anaheim also are seeking an NFL team. The mayors of the two cities met last month with new commissioner Roger Goodell to offer their competing plans to lure a team back to Southern California.

Los Angeles city leaders want to build a new stadium within the walls of the historic Memorial Coliseum, featuring 200 luxury boxes and 15,000 club seats at a cost of $800 million.

Goodell also met with Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle about his city's plans to sell the NFL 53 acres at the below-market price of $50 million to build a new stadium adjacent to Angel Stadium.

The Los Angeles area hasn't had an NFL team since after the 1994 season, when the Raiders returned to Oakland and the Anaheim-based Rams moved to St. Louis.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 8:12 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
If what's needed to keep them in the city is millions in taxpayers dollars, I hope Newsom holds the door open for them as they leave. I think the day is simply over when smart cities are willing to bribe pro sports teams and their wealthy owners with vast piles of public money. And if the wannabees somewhere else in CA are willing to be so stupid, let them.


Last edited by BTinSF; Nov 9, 2006 at 8:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 8:30 AM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
you know I've always wanted to cheer for the raiders...now I have my excuse
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 9:50 AM
Ronin's Avatar
Ronin Ronin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: District B13
Posts: 1,271
Wow, first San Jose gets the A's, now the Niners. The new mayor has already paid dividends, even though technically neither will be in San Jose proper.

Actually, the entire 49ers organization has little connection with the city of SF other than spending a few Sunday afternoons there. As mentioned, the headquarters is in the South Bay, and most of the players live down there themselves.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 9:57 AM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,213
The Las Vegas Kings and now the Las Vegas 49's... wow they are really cleaning out CA of our pro sports teams.

Very sad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 3:17 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin
The Las Vegas Kings and now the Las Vegas 49's... wow they are really cleaning out CA of our pro sports teams.

Very sad.
huh? Las Vegas Kings?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 3:21 PM
urbanflyer's Avatar
urbanflyer urbanflyer is offline
Ku`u Lei
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 名古屋
Posts: 6,375
The Yorks are absolute gasbags. Childhood memories of glory aside, let 'em go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 4:02 PM
munkyman munkyman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 136
Don't get me wrong, I think John York is an utter idiot...but the 49ers may just be frustrated with how difficult it is to negotiate anything in the city of SF, and how slow the process is. I'm sure they've gotten a really positive response in Santa Clara, as opposed to nothing but headache in SF. Only time will tell.

Perhaps it's a small microcosm of the continuing population loss and decline of the inner Bay Area (Oakland included).

Or, you know, they could just be trying to negotiate a better deal with SF
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 4:26 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Sacramento~City of Trees
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,763
This is just sickening.

There's such a history with the 49ers in San Francisco that they just don't belong anywhere else but SF.
__________________
“Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”~~Theodor Seuss Geisel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 5:20 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 30,044
The San Francisco 49ers of San Jose.

Stop copying the SoCal trends, guys
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 5:31 PM
coyotetrickster's Avatar
coyotetrickster coyotetrickster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by munkyman
Don't get me wrong, I think John York is an utter idiot...but the 49ers may just be frustrated with how difficult it is to negotiate anything in the city of SF, and how slow the process is. I'm sure they've gotten a really positive response in Santa Clara, as opposed to nothing but headache in SF. Only time will tell.

Perhaps it's a small microcosm of the continuing population loss and decline of the inner Bay Area (Oakland included).

Or, you know, they could just be trying to negotiate a better deal with SF
I'm with BT on this. I'm not subsidizing the York Family Trust or Alex Smith's salary with a new stadium. I could careless where they end up. Yes, $800 million to $1 billion is a lot of dollars. Sorry they're timing coincided with a worldwide construction boom, but it ain't my team and the skybox revenue isn't going to fill one pothole on geary, pay for one pre-natal exam at a city clinic or get the Central Boondoggle, er subway built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 6:18 PM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
To me this lose wouldn't be as great as losing the A's and I am a big 49er fan from the crib

Football sort of lends itself to suburban locals with all the parking for tailgaters and long distance fans. Were they not proposing parking stuctures and housing around the stadium? San Francisco and the area have changed so much since Candlestick was built. Maybe a more intensive use of that land is more appropriate now

For me the A's going to a field in Fremont from a potential downtown site in Oakland is a much bigger shame. Baseball is best when the park in an urban neighborhood near tranist. See At&T, Fenway, Yankee stadium etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 6:47 PM
SoCal Alan SoCal Alan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco_Zig
To me this lose wouldn't be as great as losing the A's and I am a big 49er fan from the crib

Football sort of lends itself to suburban locals with all the parking for tailgaters and long distance fans. Were they not proposing parking stuctures and housing around the stadium? San Francisco and the area have changed so much since Candlestick was built. Maybe a more intensive use of that land is more appropriate now

For me the A's going to a field in Fremont from a potential downtown site in Oakland is a much bigger shame. Baseball is best when the park in an urban neighborhood near tranist. See At&T, Fenway, Yankee stadium etc.
Excellent points.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 7:31 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Comprehensive study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City of the public value of sports franchises here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...n8942029/pg_14

Conclusion:

Quote:
U.S. metro areas have had to compete with each other to retain and attract major league sports franchises. The resulting large public outlays to finance the construction of sports facilities have been quite controversial. Proponents of using public funds to finance stadium construction argue that the benefits from increased economic activity and increased tax revenue collection exceed the public outlays. But independent economic studies universally find such benefits to be much smaller than claimed.

So does it makes sense for metro areas to use public funds to attract and retain major league sports franchises? The answer is definitely not if benefits are limited to increases in economic activity and tax revenue collection.
A strong case can be made, however, that the quality-of-life benefits from hosting a major league team can sometimes justify the large public outlays associated with doing so.

Quality-of-life benefits are rarely explicitly included in the debate on using public funds to attract and retain a major league sports franchise. Acknowledging that the main benefit from hosting a team comes from improved metro-area quality of life should help to value this contribution. Doing so does not require impact studies. Residents and elected officials who understand that the benefits of a sports team are the same sort that flow from parks, zoos, museums, and theater can decide on their own how much hosting a major league team is worth.
The difference, of course, is that a park, zoo, museum or theater usually belongs to the public or is at least immobile, but the sports team that a city spends hundreds of millions to please today can pack up and move tomorrow. I'd be all for building the 49ers a new stadium if the city OWNED the team, but not as long as the Yorks or any other private party owns it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 7:31 PM
Ronin's Avatar
Ronin Ronin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: District B13
Posts: 1,271
Yeah, football is more of a good old country style game, with bbq's and tailgating, whereas basketball is more "urban." That's not to say that SF is above football, however.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 7:35 PM
J Church J Church is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 12,883
__________________
San Francisco Cityscape
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 8:51 PM
coyotetrickster's Avatar
coyotetrickster coyotetrickster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Yeah, football is more of a good old country style game, with bbq's and tailgating, whereas basketball is more "urban." That's not to say that SF is above football, however.

I'm trying to remember if I made this up or heard it from one of the talking heads on the morning news shows (TV), but York didn't like the parking configurations because it would have curtailed the convenience of tailgating partiers... OMFG. That is all I can say there. If that is even on the list of issues, go to Santa Clara, do not pass go and cancel that $100 million bond capacity we voted for...

Now that's done, I offer you NYC (Bronx/Manhattan). I believe both of the major football stadiums in NY are in the bigger burroughs. Candlestick/HP-Bayview, all of the southeastern areas of the city, are under new development pressures in response to the affordability crisis in this city (I don't think anyone here would disagree). J Church even offered up a Cityscape proposal for a new neighborhood at Candlestick and I thought it was pretty awesome. Is the best use for that much land a monstrous (not Monster) stadium with acres of parking when a one bedroom condo is costing $600K in this city. Santa Clara is 35-40 minutes in good traffic. Big whoop. People live in neighborhoods 24/7, 365 days a year, not just 10 days out of a five month season. I have no civic ego in whether the 49's decamp or not. If it's a bluff/negotiating ploy, York is more than clueless, he's just stupid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 8:54 PM
SunMonTueWedThuFriSa's Avatar
SunMonTueWedThuFriSa SunMonTueWedThuFriSa is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: City of Angles
Posts: 145
There goes SF's olympic bid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 9:11 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I think this is the biggest insult in the history of the 49ers organization towards the public. Its like a slap in the face, to me anyways, as I have been a lifelong 49ers fan. As far as I'm concerned, this would never have happened had Eddie DeBartolo still been the man instead of the Yorks. And to make matters worse, it does put our olympics bid in jeopardy.

the Yorks ... sigh.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2006, 9:38 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Niners to leave SF, move to Santa Clara
- Phil Matier, Andrew Ross and Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writers
Thursday, November 9, 2006


(11-09) 11:14 PST -- The San Francisco 49ers will abandon their namesake city and look to build a stadium in Santa Clara, after concluding that their plan to build a stadium and retail-housing complex at Candlestick Point will not work.

The 49ers said Candlestick Point, where the team has played since 1971, cannot support a "new state-of-the-art NFL stadium and adjacent major mixed-use project." The decision to look at Santa Clara -- the team's headquarters and the site of their training facility -- came after "careful deliberation" and a year of study, the team said.

"The team came to the conclusion that the (San Francisco) project would not have offered the optimal game day experience it is seeking to create for fans, and has therefore decided not to move forward with the public approval process at Candlestick Point," the 49ers said in a statement.

The team said it would look elsewhere in the Bay Area if the Santa Clara site, near the Great America Amusement park, does not pan out. The team would keep the "San Francisco" name, co-owner John York said.

In a video posted on the 49ers Web site, York said the team has looked at more than 20 Bay Area sites, including several in San Francisco.

"After numerous hours and millions of dollar of study, analysis, it comes down fact that Candlestick Park cannot accommodate all we asked it to do and still provide fans with ultimate experience," York said.

Although the team said San Francisco's approval process would make it difficult to reach its goal of opening a new stadium by 2012, York did not blame the city for the collapse of its plans. He said city officials have worked "diligently" to make the project work.

York told San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and several supervisors about the plans Wednesday in a series of phone calls.

The team's major issue with the San Francisco site was the "incompatible land requirements" of Candlestick Point.

The team said the need for more mass transit and new infrastructure -- including "one of the largest parking structures in the world" -- pose huge challenges, and that the proposed development would "take up much of the space fans currently use for parking and tailgating."

The team said the proposed Santa Clara project site is near numerous roads that can accommodate heavy traffic and has public transportation nearby.


An aerial depiction on the team's Web site shows the envisioned stadium just off the Great America Parkway, on the Tasman East line of the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority's light rail line and near an ACE train station.

While not blaming San Francisco, York was annoyed at the city's insistence that any stadium deal be approved at the ballot box, sources said. A campaign to win voter approval would cost around $6 million, York complained.

In the statement, the team also noted that the stadium's price tag could balloon past $800 million when all the infrastructure improvements are taken into account.

York's decision followed a meeting Wednesday with representatives of Lennar Corp., the would-be developers of the housing and retail stores that were to accompany the proposed 80,500-seat stadium. York gave his decision during the meeting and began contacting city officials.

Newsom spokesman Peter Ragone said Wednesday that the call came in early evening, stunning and perplexing officials who had been meeting weekly with team representatives.

In his calls to the mayor and to supervisors, York repeatedly said his decision was final. The team could not stay in San Francisco, he said, because the stadium deal "didn't pencil out" and because provisions for transportation and parking at the proposed site at Candlestick Point were inadequate.

The announcement also apparently ends a possible bid by San Francisco to host the 2016 Summer Olympics, which would have been tied to the construction of a new stadium in San Francisco.


The timing of the 49ers' news means that even should some reconciliation between the city and the football team be reached, it might be too late to help the Olympic bid. San Francisco 2016 must submit its bid document, some 250 to 300 pages, by Jan. 22. The certainty of a bid's plans is one criterion the USOC will use in assessing it.

In the video on the 49ers Web site, York said he hoped the Bay Area still has a shot at hosting the Olympics, suggesting the opening and closing ceremonies could be hosted at Monster Park or the new Santa Clara location.

York also said that the team twice attempted to modify the stadium plans to accommodate the Olympic bid but had to balance that consideration with the original intent of the project.

"We constantly reminded the city this stadium is an NFL stadium for the team and fans for the next 30 years, so it had to be feasible in itself," he said.

York told Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin that "Santa Clara has become the team's first priority'' as a new location and that the team was "not playing one city off the other,'' Peskin said Wednesday.

York apparently reached his decision on his own, without consulting advisers or partners.

"We're disappointed, but we're not planning on mortgaging the future for a deal,'' Ragone said.

Previous plans for a new stadium have called for a $600 million to $800 million complex to be built southeast of the current stadium.

In 1997, voters approved a controversial ballot proposition authorizing $100 million for a stadium, but that plan never got off the ground.

York said Wednesday that his next move is to begin talks with Santa Clara officials.

"We're proud to have the San Francisco 49ers as part of our community," said Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan. "We have been looking to expand our entertainment options in the Great America/Convention Center area for years, and this stadium can be a great addition ... we are ready to give this project our full attention."

Chronicle staff writers Steve Rubenstein, Kevin Lynch and Cecilia Vega contributed to this report.

E-mail the writers at pmatier@sfchronicle.com, aross@sfchronicle.com and mlagos@sfchronicle.com


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AGHUM9FAH6.DTL
You know, I think York's points are all pretty valid and are consistent with what others here have said. San Francisco, in its 49 sq. miles, just doesn't really have room to spare for a football stadium with monster parking lot for bridge and tunnel tailgaiters. They SHOULD go to the burbs. I'm not so sure how viable is the plan to hold onto the SF name, though. As I've said with regard to the "A's", I can get to Raiders games on BART, fairly quickly and easily. I predict they will become the team of most San Franciscans. And how long will the folks of San Jose/Santa Clara put up with "their" team being called the "San Francisco" anything?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:55 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.