[H-man]

SAN FRANCISCO
First look at 49ers' new stadium plan
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, July 18, 2006


The San Francisco 49ers presented a preliminary outline for a privately funded stadium and adjacent development at Candlestick Point on Monday, and said the team would seek the Board of Supervisors' approval for the project once plans are firmed up.

The 68,000-capacity stadium would be built on landfill just southeast of the current Monster Park and would cost between $600 million and $800 million. Team officials said during a Chronicle editorial board meeting that they planned to partner with Lennar Corp., which would build housing, retail and office space around the stadium, but that those elements were in the early stages.

Critics have voiced concern that the development will veer too far from the stadium-mall plan that voters approved with two 1997 ballot measures. Proposition D authorized $100 million in revenue bonds to subsidize the project, and Proposition F allowed rezoning of 77 acres for the stadium and mall.

That plan, hatched by the 49ers and mall developer and operator Mills Corp., never got off the ground. Lisa Lang, a spokeswoman for the 49ers, said Monday that the team no longer needs the public financing but believes that it is still entitled to the land because the new project would qualify under the Prop. F rezoning.

Nonetheless, Lang said the team would seek Board of Supervisors approval.

"We want the city and the neighborhoods to be supportive of the project; without the support of the Board of Supervisors, it's not going to go forward," Lang said.

Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, whose District 10 encompasses Candlestick Point, said she agreed with Lang that any development would require board review.

Unlike Lang, however, Maxwell said she believed the new project would involve zoning alterations.

"You have to remember that this was zoned to be a mall," Maxwell said. "It's going to change from being a mall to having a lot of new housing, and that will require transportation and other infrastructure. There will be a lot of things that will need to come before the board."

Board President Aaron Peskin said the 49ers would have to come up with a detailed proposal before he could form an opinion on what role the city should play.

"We have a rendering of a stadium, but we're waiting for more details," Peskin said. "The problem is that it's not a stadium alone -- it's a stadium tied at the hip to an adjacent development."

Other elected officials have been taking steps in recent weeks in expectation that the 49ers would be coming up with a new stadium plan.

Legislation sponsored by state Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, would allow the city to seek a judicial ruling on whether the 49ers and the city can proceed with a stadium different from the one that voters approved.

The bill, which Migden proposed at the request of Mayor Gavin Newsom, has passed the state Assembly and awaits a final vote in the state Senate before going to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Critics of the legislation have said Newsom and the 49ers are trying to avoid the expense and uncertainty of returning to the ballot to seek voter approval of the new plan.

Maxwell said she would not object to judicial review as long as the community has a say in whatever the team builds.

The 49ers and their designers at HNTB Architecture Inc. said Monday that they were looking to win the community's support.

"We want the public to embrace the stadium and to have the stadium intertwined with the community as a public place," said HNTB design director Fernando Vazquez.

Vazquez said the project was in the "very beginnings of the design process."

Architect Timothy Cahill said the stadium could be used for soccer, concerts and other entertainment, and could be an Olympic venue should the Bay Area ever land the Summer Games.

The team showed drawings of a possible design and said it hoped to put two-thirds of the seats in the stadium's lowest section and to include a north plaza, with a large open area for viewing downtown San Francisco.

Lang outlined a proposed timeline in which the project would start with community input in September, then move through the Board of Supervisors approval and an environmental review process. She said the team hoped to play its first game in the stadium in 2012.

She said the 49ers believed their best backup plan for a stadium site would be Santa Clara if the San Francisco proposal falls through. She said the team had engaged in very preliminary discussions with officials in Santa Clara, where the team has its headquarters and a practice facility, about placing a stadium there.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/18/BAGTVK0N891.DTL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------Proposed new 49er stadium -- Computer-rendered view from inside proposed stadium looking north to San Francisco -- Monster Park would be demolished Proposed location of new stadium -- 68,000 seats are planned, but could be expanded to 72,000. Two-thirds of the seats (46,000) are in the large, lower “bowl,” intended to give most fans a view closer to the field. -- In addition to NFL football, the field could be used for soccer, Olympic Opening and Closing ceremonies, concerts and other entertainment. -- Cost is estimated at between $600 million and $800 million. -- Current plan is to begin construction in January 2010 and finish for the 2012 football season. Sources: San Francisco 49ers; aerial view from Pictometry.com The Chronicle

[Chicago2020]

Old News, BUT the stadium looks alright.

[VivaLFuego]

Would this be SF's potential Olympic Stadium? So it's ok with 68,000 seats, but Chicago's Soldier Field is too small with 62,000? what am I missing?

[foxmtbr]

I'll save people the trouble of going to the site:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/07/18/ba_proposedgrf.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/07/18/ba_stadium_ph.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/07/18/ba_stadium.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/07/18/ba_49ersstadium081el.jpg

[hoosier]

I say build it! The stadium will be built on a parking lot and will be privately financed, so how could there be opposition to it?

[H-man]

there might be opposition, it is san fransisco

[Dalreg]

Not the most stunning design. Actually looks fairly bland. But if its private money being spent they can have what they want.

[jamesinclair]

Needs more roof

[hoosier]

there might be opposition, it is san fransisco

True, but looking at an aerial of the site posted earlier, there isn't anything around Monster Park to the east, just a massive parking lot and undeveloped land. It would be one thing if this stadium was proposed for downtown San Fransisco, but the site in question is PERFECT for a new stadium. Plus, the city deserves a state-of-the-art football facility.

[H-man]

while i like the fact that the 49ers are gettin a new stadium because they really do deserve it, its too basic theres nothin too it

[Slugbelch]

Is that going to be a huge wall behind the suites?

[Derek]

i like it...but as slugbelch said...is that huge wall gunna stay there???

[rocketman_95046]

49ers make stadium part of Olympic bid
Football team and S.F.'s 2016 committee partner to propose a dual-purpose arena

John Crumpacker, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, September 23, 2006

The 49ers and the group attempting to bring the 2016 Summer Olympic Games to San Francisco have formed a partnership that would make it possible to turn the football team's proposed new stadium at Candlestick Point into an Olympic stadium.

A temporary platform 12 feet above the football field and 20,000 additional seats would enable the stadium to hold Opening and Closing Ceremonies, track and field competition, and soccer finals should San Francisco win an international competition to host the Games a decade from now, the group San Francisco 2016 announced Friday.

In a long Olympic bidding process, that's a big if. A number of significant hurdles would have to be cleared before San Francisco could even enter international bidding in 2009. And the city has yet to agree to the 49ers' proposal to built the stadium.

"John York (the 49ers' owner) and the team's architects have come up with a workable and smart solution that clearly strengthens our bid,'' Mayor Gavin Newsom said in a statement. "We are appreciative of both the 49ers' teamwork and the valuable feedback provided by Peter Ueberroth (head of the U.S. Olympic Committee) and his team on our plan.''

Friday's announcement would seem to enhance the city's chances in its competition against Los Angeles and Chicago to be the USOC's candidate if the committee decides to enter a bid for 2016. The committee will decide by the end of this year whether to put forth a bid.

"Our ultimate goal is to help each of these cities build the best possible Olympic plan so we can select from among them the city with the best change of winning internationally,'' said Bob Ctvrtlik, vice president of the USOC.

Each of the three cities completed and handed in the USOC's 60-page Candidate City Questionnaire covering 10 major categories germane to hosting an Olympic Games by Friday's deadline. For San Francisco bid officials, the stadium alterations provide more specific details than they were able to offer the last time the USOC visited the city.

"It's a huge step forward for us,'' said Scott Givens, managing director of San Francisco 2016. "The key thing is to show our commitment and the certainty of our bid. We believe strongly San Francisco will compete well at an international level. This process ... enables us to become an incredibly competitive city.''

Said Lisa Lang, the 49ers' vice president of communications: "We all think it would be very exciting for the 2016 bid committee to win. We were happy to do our part.''

The 49ers plan to unveil their new stadium at Candlestick Point in time for the 2012 NFL season.

However, Newsom spokeswoman Jennifer Petrucione said a partnership by the 49ers and San Francisco 2016 does not mean the Candlestick Point stadium project will definitely move forward.

"We're very pleased that the 49ers and their architects were able to come up with a solution for the stadium for the Olympics,'' she said. "It means the city doesn't need to spend millions of dollars on a temporary stadium. But this does not mean that we have reached consensus on the Candlestick development. It does mean that our 2016 bid is significantly strengthened.''

News that the city had included the proposed stadium in its Olympic bid troubled Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, who has called for voter approval of both initiatives.

"I've said all along that this was just a backdoor way to get the stadium built without voter approval,'' Sandoval said. "The mayor said he would seek voter consent on the Olympics, and I took him at his word. At this point, that might have been a foolish thing to do. It's further cause for concern. Nobody disagrees with the desire to hold the Olympics here or build a new stadium for the 49ers. The concern is who's going to pay for it.''

Making the facility ready for the Olympics would entail adding about 20,000 temporary seats behind the north end zone -- increasing capacity to 80,500 -- and installing, in sections, a raised platform wide enough for track and field competition as well as Opening and Closing Ceremonies.

The platform and temporary seats would be removed in time for the 49ers' 2016 regular-season games.

"It was a challenging request for the architects,'' Lang said. "The layout of NFL stadiums and track and field are normally incompatible. We didn't want to do anything that would impact the sight lines for our fans by pushing the seats back.''

In the completed questionnaire sent to the USOC on Friday, San Francisco bid officials said their plan includes one centralized Olympic Village at an as-yet-undetermined location in the city and competition venues ranging from Golden Gate Park to the west, Briones Reservoir to the east, the Marin Headlands to the north and San Jose's Spartan Stadium to the south.

Every sport would be held in that geographical range, said San Francisco 2016 spokesman Mark Dolley. No athlete would have to travel more than 54 minutes by bus from the Athletes Village in San Francisco to the farthest competition venue, he said.

"It's a statement of resources and an overall idea,'' Dolley said. "In the next phase, we would be expected to flesh out all the details.''

Page A - 1

[Chicago2020]

I'm all for a new stadium in San Fran, but for that area with spectacular views, they should have designed something more appealing then that slab of concrete.

How about something like the Seahawk stadium

[snappingturtle]

yeah, its definitely not "olympic class". compare to the "birds nest" olympic stadium u/c in beijing:
http://www.worldstadia.com/data/images/p/z/pzfe050906201907.jpg

if sf is serious about an olympic bid, it need some serious architecture, not some design that looks like it came out of a "stadium basics' textbook.

[ray2]

looks like shU^% ... i've seen better designs in video games lol

[PDXPaul]

China also went balls to the wall to pay for the Olympics.

[Dalreg]

Don't take this personal anyone but the last time a pile of shit was used for the main stadium has to be Atlanta 1996. Must be an American thing? Seriously Sydney was great. Athens was great. Beijing will be awesome. London ?

http://66.29.135.200/images/panoramics5.jpg


Lets just hope San Francisco can do better than this!

[H-man]

atlanta didnt looks as good beacsue it was designed to be a baseball stadium after the olympics where the other were to be soccer or football stadiums

[Dalreg]

Yes SF will be used as a football stadium after the Olympics, but it will have to be renovated to provide room for the track surface for the Olympics. How will this be accomplished? By mentioning Atlanta I am trying to make the point that it will look less than ideal for the Olympics. More than likely the solution will be a band-aid fix which takes away from the stadium.

Look at LA. the stadium was renovated. The track was removed and yet it still is not 100% suitable for football. I assume SF will go the same way as Atlanta. The end use will dictate the design and the Olympics will play second fiddle in this case to football.

[Chicago2020]

The new 49er stadium looks a lot like Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe AZ

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/sundevil101.gif

[H-man]

49ers Shift Focus of New Stadium Effort to City of Santa Clara



Team says fan experience comes first in evaluation of site, decides not to move forward with approval process at Candlestick Point

The San Francisco 49ers announced Wednesday that the team is shifting the focus of its efforts to build a new stadium from the City of San Francisco to the City of Santa Clara, where the team currently has its headquarters and training facility.

The announcement comes after a year of study by the team, its development partner, Lennar Corporation, and San Francisco officials to determine if Candlestick Point could support a new state-of-the-art NFL stadium and an adjacent major mixed-use development that would have played a key role in helping to privately finance the project. After careful deliberation, the team came to the conclusion that the 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 decision stemmed from the incompatible land requirements of the stadium and mixed-use development at the site. The project would have created massive new infrastructure and public transit needs, and the size of the development would take up much of the space fans currently use for parking and tailgating, requiring the construction of one of the largest parking garages in the world. Additionally, the complexity of the approval process placed the team’s goal of opening the new stadium in time for the 2012 NFL season in jeopardy.

“We hired the best experts and advisors in the business and worked tirelessly with the City and Lennar to move forward with this project at Candlestick Point,” said team owner John York. “I want to commend Mayor Newsom and his staff and Lennar for their support and determination over the past year in this enormous undertaking. This decision is not a reflection of their efforts, but rather the geographic challenges of this site.”

As a result of today’s decision, the team will now concentrate its efforts on evaluating a new stadium in Santa Clara, near the Great America amusement park and the Santa Clara Convention Center. The location is served by several six-to-eight-lane thoroughfares built to accommodate high traffic volumes, which would offer easy access to fans from multiple freeways that connect throughout the Bay Area. In addition, there are many forms of public transportation nearby, including some that would reach fans as far away as Sacramento. “We’re excited to work with Santa Clara officials to discuss this project,” said York. “Based on our initial analysis, Santa Clara has strong potential to deliver the game day experience our fans deserve.”

York assured fans that despite the shift in focus to Santa Clara, the team would not consider changing its name under any circumstances. “Nothing will persuade us to change the name of the San Francisco 49ers, one of the most storied brands in the world of sports.”

Next, the team will meet with officials in Santa Clara to develop a set of shared goals for exploring the project, and begin discussions. “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. The 49ers have been clear that their goal is to put together a project that has no impact on the City’s general fund and no increase in taxes, and we are ready to give this project our full attention,” she added.

Today’s announcement is the culmination of the second attempt by the 49ers to develop a stadium project at Candlestick Point, the location of its current 46-year-old venue, Monster Park. The team first partnered with retail developer Mills Corporation in 1997 to explore the potential of a stadium project linked to an adjacent shopping mall, but Mills was unable to create a feasible plan. The team then partnered with Lennar in 2005 to take a fresh look at the project, resulting in a mixed-use development concept.

While Candlestick Point is visually appealing, its geographic boundaries made it challenging for this proposed project. Candlestick Point is surrounded by the San Francisco Bay on three sides, with a large hill near the area’s only highway that seals much of the land off from the rest of the City. The area also has limited and deteriorating road access that would have been overwhelmed by the stadium and the planned mixed-use development, which featured 6,500 new housing units. Engineers determined that hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure improvements were required to accommodate the project, possibly exceeding the cost of the proposed $600 to $800 million stadium.

Transportation difficulties in the area were heightened by the lack of access to many forms of public transit that are available in other parts of the City. Since the mixed-use development would have consumed the lots currently used as surface parking by fans on game days, the project required the construction of a massive multi-level garage. “We know that’s counter-intuitive for a public-transit-first City like San Francisco,” added York. Not only would this have snarled traffic as fans tried to enter and exit en masse, it would have also severely limited the fans’ ability to tailgate, which is a popular local tradition. Even with a garage of this size, many fans would still have had to park in satellite lots and be shuttled to the stadium. The conditions for fans at Candlestick Point would have been further exacerbated by the demolition of Monster Park and the gradual piecing together of the mixed-use development, placing fans in a construction zone for a decade.

The sum of these challenges was compounded by a lengthy approval process required before construction could begin, due to the site’s bay-front location and the need to breach the abutting Candlestick Point State Recreation Area to make room for the project. Of particular concern was the need to approve a complex land and trust exchange to permit the development of condominiums on property currently owned by California State Parks. In total, these hurdles made success at this site unrealistic in the team’s timeframe.

York said that while the team has done some preliminary evaluation in Santa Clara, there is a lot of work to be done to determine if the site will work for a new stadium. He added that the team will continue to use the design of the interior of the stadium that it shared with the public earlier this summer, and that it is committed to its goal of constructing a new state-of-the-art stadium for its fans by the start of the 2012 NFL season.

If the 49ers are unable to move forward with the project in Santa Clara, the team plans to continue its search for a location for a new stadium exclusively within the Bay Area. “The 49ers have called the Bay Area home for our entire 60 year history. We are a part of the fabric of this region, and we intend to stay right here where we belong,” concluded York.

[Wheelingman04]

^ That would be terrible if they moved out to the suburbs.

[Riise]

:no:

That is bloody unbelievable! How can such a bland stadium be constructed these days, especially for the Olympics and in a city I hear so many good things about? I know the United States isn't know for creating architectural masterpiece after masterpiece but a tad of frickin' aesthetic appeal is expected! I'm not saying that it should be like Estadio da Luz (Stadium of Light), or New Wembley but on par with Emirates, or Qwest Field. This stadium is an insult to the people of SF and the fans of 49ers.

[Owlhorn]

:no:

That is bloody unbelievable! How can such a bland stadium be constructed these days, especially for the Olympics and in a city I hear so many good things about? I know the United States isn't know for creating architectural masterpiece after masterpiece but a tad of frickin' aesthetic appeal is expected! I'm not saying that it should be like Estadio da Luz (Stadium of Light), or New Wembley but on par with Emirates, or Qwest Field. This stadium is an insult to the people of SF and the fans of 49ers.

LOL, if you know much anything about stadium design, the you know Qwest and Emirates on on par with Wembley and Da Luz. There's like some idea that looks > substance, for some reason. Aesthetic appeal is often a term for wasted money. Look at Wembley with pretty much zero aesthetic appeal, save the arch. Substance is what counts. But most importantly:

I believe those renderings are conceptuals for how they wanted it done.

[San Frangelino]

Niners, SF Still Talking

Friday, November 10, 2006 11 39 AM

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/10/SPGS6MADL04.DTL

[Riise]

LOL, if you know much anything about stadium design, the you know Qwest and Emirates on on par with Wembley and Da Luz.

First off, different people are going to have different opinions and although you may think that Emirates is on par with Wembley and Estadio da Luz after being able to seem them in person, I believe Emirates is not as nice as the other two. I hate Portuguese football but when I was in Lisbon I was always trying to catch a glimpse at Estadio da Luz, it had the ability to make me want to stare at it, I couldn't say the same for Emirates... And it's also what's on the inside that counts, I find the interior of Estadio da Luz much nicer, maybe it's the red. Even though Wembley is not done it's friggin' Wembley! Being from Dallas you may not understand, it's a football, or commonwealth thing...

[SLC Projects]

I like the 49ers. I hope it gets built.

[Owlhorn]

First off, different people are going to have different opinions and although you may think that Emirates is on par with Wembley and Estadio da Luz after being able to seem them in person, I believe Emirates is not as nice as the other two. I hate Portuguese football but when I was in Lisbon I was always trying to catch a glimpse at Estadio da Luz, it had the ability to make me want to stare at it, I couldn't say the same for Emirates... And it's also what's on the inside that counts, I find the interior of Estadio da Luz much nicer, maybe it's the red. Even though Wembley is not done it's friggin' Wembley! Being from Dallas you may not understand, it's a football, or commonwealth thing...

Being from Dallas, I may not understand because our new stadium is going to top them all :notacrook:

[Renton]

Stadium aside, I wondered why they chose to build at Hunters Point again. I used to live in the Bay area and went to games out there. Weather always stunk in that part of Frisco. Thats why the Giants did a study and moved to the Chnia Basin area. I guess theres no other avail. land and they didn't want to do the move to the south bay which i was reading for awhile. As for the stadium. It does look bland. I think of San Francisco, i think of a modern rich city. They can't afford something high tech like the Seattle stadium.

[-GR2NY-]

49ers baby! joe montana to jerry rice, 100 yard bombs almost every time.

name that game..

[badbirdlb]

Tecmo Super Bowl :cheers:

[FerrariEnzo]

Not to jump on the band wagon but the design is simply embaressing. The caliber of asthetic engagment is rather weak, even if used simply for football. That stadium in Bejing looks fantastic to say the least. I have higher standards for San Fransisco.

[Scruffy]

^ I gotta admit, the stadium design actually made me yawn for real. that can't be good. I know the stadium isn't the reason people will be going there, but its a matter of pride. You have to try and show up other cities stadiums just as much as their sports team.

[Geebrr]

That stadium is a little underwhelming.

[dallasbrink]

Being from Dallas, I may not understand because our new stadium is going to top them all :notacrook:

truth to that statement, I am disappointed though. The 49ers are one of the legacy teams with hue history, and they should get an off the wall stadium, not some stadium that a division 2 college team would play in.

[Chevelle]

Whoo..

It has it's fair share of simplicity to it that is for sure, nothing flashy at all and the "wall" is hidious... It looks more like a (SEC) style college football stadium to me and does share a fair resemblence to Stanford's new stadium as far as edges/layout is concerned. Leaves plenty of room for further expansion however.

http://static.flickr.com/86/245132931_792a2ff03e_m.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/07/18/ba_stadium_ph.jpg



The old renderings/plans reveled a few years ago appeared to be more impressive to me:
Maybe it's the scoreboards/screens/lights etc that will tie it together?

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/SanFrancisco49ers/newaerial.jpg


My cousin has been a manager at Candlestick/Monster Park for over 18 years, I will have to see if she has any inside details behind this.

[Chevelle]

Being from Dallas, I may not understand because our new stadium is going to top them all :notacrook:

Excuse the double post..

I personally like complete visually "open aired" stadiums that sit within city limits (downtown) I am not a fan (no matter the seating compacity or Biblical size awwhhh factors) of these "theme park" like stadiums that sit off in la la suburbian land... might as well slap a roof over it with all the vendors/shops and label it a suburban shopping mall with a sports venue inside it... just an IMO.. Stadiums like Qwest Field in Seattle get my approval can't argue with the fact of a great urban feel and a nice skyline drop stairing right at you vs miles of parking lots and strip malls needing a pair of binaculars to see any sort of city urban center...

[jtk1519]

Here is a rendering that shows the other side of that giant wall thing...

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1628/49ers75122c9d2lc9.jpg
http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/49ersStadium.htm

The outside of the giant wall doesn't look that bad, but I don't know what purpose the wall serves. The rest of the stadium is a joke. It's a hodge-podge of several newer NFL stadiums.

The seating Bowl looks like Lincoln Financial Field in Philly...

http://philadelphia.about.com/library/gallery/lincoln12.JPG

The stacked press boxes/suites on one side of the stadium looks like Ford Field in Detroit...

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/fordmain2.jpg

The one open end with the endzone plaza and city views looks like Heinz Field in Pittsburgh...

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/afc/hienz106.jpg

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/

The design proposed for this stadium is one of the laziest and poorest I have ever seen and you wouldn't expect that from San Francisco.

[krudmonk]

Fake turf aside, something like Ford Field would look really cool in SOMA. That's not very likely to happen, though.

[matthew2109]

They do need a new stadium and by the renderings of the new stadium they look pretty bland. They do need to build it sooner rather than later because stadium cost is going up. Invesco Field at Mile High costed 364.2 million and nowadays stadium costs are well past three quarters of a billion. Dallas' is at one billion. Minnesota is talking about a 950 million dollar stadium next to the Metrodome.