Pages

15 June 2008

49ers Santa Clara vote may slip to 2009

Ah, process.

Santa Clara's city council is considering pushing the stadium financing plan's deadline back seven months, which would make a November vote impossible. The next likely election is a special election in mid-to-late 2009, in which a much lower turnout would be expected than the upcoming general election. Usually this is good for stadium proponents as they can expect and gear up a greater percentage of turnout from their supporters than their opponents.

Even with that there's still the EIR that has to be completed. While far less complicated than the Cisco Field/baseball village EIR, there's still a year's worth of work there. Proponents still claim that a 2012 opening is still possible, but they're cutting it really close.

One potentially troubling item comes from councilmember and stadium skeptic Jamie Mcleod, who states:
...the 49ers have pledged only to cover cost overruns for one year after the team's 2012 completion target.
No big deal if they get it done on time and do some value engineering in the process. Because they might value engineer the first time around, they might use up a lot of that annual stadium improvement fund quickly, lest the 49ers stadium turn into Edward Jones Dome.

12 comments:

Mr. Plainview said...

Maybe its just the high hopes and standards that I have for the bay area, but am I alone here when I think the stadiums the bay area try to make pale in comparison to the stadiums the rest of the country makes...

If you compare the new stadiums that the Giants/Jets, Colts, and Cowboys are getting to the 49ers...it makes it look very mediocre...and its the same with the A's...compare the Marlins, Twins, Rays, Yankees, and Mets stadiums to Cisco field...32,000 seats, boring location, and a couple steps above very simple architecture...

Wolf is pushing the technology thing, because its Cisco, which is ok...however, this is a ballpark, most people just want to watch there team win and have beer and hotdogs...I dont think anyone would honestly care about looking at their seats from their cell phones, not to mention most people wont even have the technology on their phones to do that...

The way I see it is, if they're going to spend lots of money on a stadium, make it last, wow us...don't make a stadium just to get by that is going to end up forgettable in a few years...

Anonymous said...

A's stadium idea is dead, but city still wants land

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_9599955

Jeffrey said...

Interesting. Tony, what say ye to the San Jose stadium idea being dead?

Mr. Plainview... how is the Orange Bowl a less boring location? And how is it's design batter, when we don't even know what it looks like? Additionally, Tampa Bay is a pipe dream.

The difference between Cisco Field and those stadiums and stadium proposals is obvious to me. Public Financing.

I'll take the privately financed Cisco Field 8 days a week.

Tony D. said...

What do I say about the San Jose stadium idea being "dead"...RIP! and stay tuned ;.) As for the Cisco Field design, I've always felt that those renderings from late 06 were generic and not the final design we'll see. Something Lew Wolff and Co. threw together quickly back in 06 with some HOK Sports software. Anyhow, it's been mighty quiet around these parts concerning said ballpark...hope you're enjoying your trip R.M.

Anonymous said...

... only a matter of time till we read "fremont stadium plan dead" ...

:-(

Anonymous said...

I think those ballpark plans were generic so that they can fit any town ... Vegas, Portland or Sacramento included.

Anonymous said...

San Jose don't want A's Stadium. Oakland, San Jose, someday Fremont, don't want to build A's Stadium in Alameda County. Only a matter of time till we read "Plan C A's is moving to Las Vegas."

Anonymous said...

If you really cared about Oakland A's, then let A's move to Fremont. Fremont is not a bad city. Do you read that San Jose decided to build retail and office, instead of A's Stadium.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_9599955

Mr. Plainview said...

Jeffrey...I was comparing the proposed prototype of the Marlins stadium from a while back...if you haven't seen that just google "new marlins stadium"... just giving an example of what other cities offer to what we offer...

What I meant by boring location is a suburb in plumville nowhere...usually works differently for football sense they have much bigger stadiums...but baseball stadiums are usually in the city they play, mostly downtown...

I know public financing is the reason everyone else gets better stadiums...I honestly wouldn't mind paying a couple of extra dimes in taxes, I'm paying for a whole bunch crap I'm against right now, it would actually be nice to help pay for something I want...

bartleby said...

Neither the Marlins, Yankees, or Mets stadium locations are going to be any less "boring" than Fremont. In fact, they'll be more so, since they won't have the Santana Row shoppertainment surrounding them. For that matter, the Coliseum is in a far more "boring" location than Fremont (not to mention dirty, industrial, and higher crime).

32,000 seats isn't a negative, it's a positive. The A's are trying for the Red Sox model: intimacy and constant sell outs. Ask Red Sox fans how much energy there is at Fenway, then ask Rockies fans how much energy there is in a cavernous ballpark that's usually 1/3 full because they overbuilt.

(Actually, never mind the Rockies, just ask current A's fans).

Nobody can make any judgment regarding the architecture, because it doesn't exist yet. All anyone has seen aere some rough conceptual sketches, that's it.

Jeffrey said...

Daniel, er. Mr. Plainview... there have been several Marlins prototypes but the actual plan is not available yet. The best of these was a stadium (IMHO) in Centennial Park on the water front, which is not where the park is being built and thus the rendering is worthless from a comparison standpoint. The only renderings I have seen for the Orange Bowl location include the existing structure and a retractable roof that covers both. That is also useless as that will not be what is built.

As afr as location, there are good points on both sides of the argument about how exciting Fremont will be. The bottom line is that Fremont is where this can get done without public financing akin to what is being use din New York, Florida and proposed in St. Pete (although in St. Pete it is packaged as private). To me that is more important than building in a "downtown", or non suburban area.

I think it is interesting to note that in the A's division, the only team currently located downtown is the Mariners.

Mr. Plainview said...

Having the seating capacity of 32,000 isn't a matter of "intimacy"...Fenway Park has a capacity of well over 39,000...intimacy in a stadium comes from the design, having the fans as close as possible to the field, and creating a compact design. Not like that behemoth of a stadium that Coors field or the Rogers Centre has... its an obvious lack of confidence in the fans from the ownership...

And about the location...there aren't that many people that live in the Tri City area which means it makes it very inconvenient for people who live in Oakland or San Jose area to get to, especially sense bart isn't close...I can even count how many people I've spoken to from Oakland who say it will be very difficult for them to make it out there...thats what I meant about "boring location"...having a Applebess and Old Navy next to the ballpark is way more convenient for people who live close to it than the fans who go to the game...

And for the record...my last name really is Plainview...it just rings a few more bells now because of a new famous character...