New 49ers field?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Since Candlestick Park (thank God it's dropping the Monster name!) is showing its age, how close are the 49ers to getting a new field? One which isn't an oddly shaped cookie cutter?

I checked the link from Wikipedia, and it seems rather slanted against it (it contains links from many sites which appear to consist of disgruntled natives of Santa Clara bitching about the new stadium). Are they getting any closer to building one?

 

[tomalak301]

Since Candlestick Park (thank God it's dropping the Monster name!) is showing its age, how close are the 49ers to getting a new field? One which isn't an oddly shaped cookie cutter?

I checked the link from Wikipedia, and it seems rather slanted against it (it contains links from many sites which appear to consist of disgruntled natives of Santa Clara bitching about the new stadium). Are they getting any closer to building one?

The whole thing is in limbo right now. There are plans to move to Santa Clara, but there are still talks about improving candlestick point or finding another place in SF to put the team. Given this is San Francisco Politics, expect a move not coming in the near future. The people of the city voted for a new stadium in the late 90s and it never happened because they're trying to get a damn mall near it. It's quite stupid.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Do people in Santa Clara just not want the stadium there at all, or do they not want to have it subsidized? After browsing those sites like 'Not With Our Money', I didn't know what the hell to think.

And, God help me, Candlestick Park looks kind of strange. It looks like it needs to be replaced. I would hate to think that it's simple NIMBY-ism that's holding that back.

 

[Timby]

Do people in Santa Clara just not want the stadium there at all, or do they not want to have it subsidized? After browsing those sites like 'Not With Our Money', I didn't know what the hell to think.

The Bay Area traditionally frowns upon subsidized playing fields for sports teams. The only reason Pac Bell Park got built in the first place was because managing partner Peter Magowan was able to borrow enough money on his own and through private investors in order to finance it.

 

[mrcoaster]

Crazy as it sounds, Baba, some people actually DON'T want a stadium and the traffic and chaos that comes with it in their back yard.

 

[SmoothieX]

Since Candlestick Park (thank God it's dropping the Monster name!) is showing its age, how close are the 49ers to getting a new field? One which isn't an oddly shaped cookie cutter?

Football in a cookie cutter is no big deal. Somehow its different when its baseball.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Since Candlestick Park (thank God it's dropping the Monster name!) is showing its age, how close are the 49ers to getting a new field? One which isn't an oddly shaped cookie cutter?

Football in a cookie cutter is no big deal. Somehow its different when its baseball.

I agree it's *less* of a big deal with football, but Candlestick just looks...odd.

Not quite as thoroughly butt-ugly as, say, RFK, but getting there.

 

[SmoothieX]

^ 3 Rivers, The Vet, and Riverfront Stadium were ass awful too.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ 3 Rivers, The Vet, and Riverfront Stadium were ass awful too.

And look what happened to them.

Cookie cutter stadiums are the original FAIL, I think.

 

[Mallory]

I'm not so sure. Most cities got 30 or 40 years use out of them. I'd hardly call that a FAIL.

 

[1001001]

Candlestick/3com/Monster/Whatever the Hell They're Calling it These Days is a terrible place to see football games. The 49ers could certainly use a new stadium.

It's a lot easier to get one of those when you're winning, however....

 

[tomalak301]

Candlestick/3com/Monster/Whatever the Hell They're Calling it These Days is a terrible place to see football games. The 49ers could certainly use a new stadium.

It's a lot easier to get one of those when you're winning, however....

They went back to calling it Candlestick Park. They also named the field after Bill Walsh last year which was an awesome gesture.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm not so sure. Most cities got 30 or 40 years use out of them. I'd hardly call that a FAIL.

But they never should have been built in the first place. That's obvious now, with all of them being replaced with *real* ballparks. They should have built those and not these concrete donuts.

 

[Captain Ice]

I'm not so sure. Most cities got 30 or 40 years use out of them. I'd hardly call that a FAIL.

But they never should have been built in the first place. That's obvious now, with all of them being replaced with *real* ballparks. They should have built those and not these concrete donuts.

Maybe, maybe not. You have to remember that when they were built, every one of them was replacing parks coming up on 60 years old for both the baseball and football teams. In these cities, these were in a lot of cases, the first parks designed to be easily accessible for a lot of people and with ample parking. No city at the time had the money to build more than one new park. And, the general thought was that a multipurpose park would work.

And, you have to be honest here, for as many deficiencies as they had, every one of these parks except RFK has played host to two major sports for 40 years. Almost 50 in a couple of cases. The planners learned that the sports are better off in their own stadiums, but I'd hardly say that these should never have been built.

 

[Timby]

I'm not so sure. Most cities got 30 or 40 years use out of them. I'd hardly call that a FAIL.

But they never should have been built in the first place. That's obvious now, with all of them being replaced with *real* ballparks. They should have built those and not these concrete donuts.

You also have to understand that those parks were built according to the architectural trends of the time. It wasn't until Camden Yards opened in 1992 that the design aesthetic for new baseball stadiums began moving back towards a "retro," "classic" model.

 

[1001001]

They also named the field after Bill Walsh last year which was an awesome gesture.

Yes, I can agree with that.

But you have to admit, it's a shitty stadium. Weird angels, and hardly any seats actually face the field of play.

Add to it the terrible winds on the bay and nothing else in the area to do.

AT&T Park...now there's a stadium. Baseball, I know, but the contrast between SF football and SF baseball is incredible.

 

[Malcom]

Do people in Santa Clara just not want the stadium there at all, or do they not want to have it subsidized? After browsing those sites like 'Not With Our Money', I didn't know what the hell to think.

The Bay Area traditionally frowns upon subsidized playing fields for sports teams. The only reason Pac Bell Park got built in the first place was because managing partner Peter Magowan was able to borrow enough money on his own and through private investors in order to finance it.

Baseball stadiums aren't the total wastes that football stadiums are as they have, at minimum 81 home games a year, so they generate their own economy. There is just no way a football stadium can pay its way as a baseball stadium can. That's why football teams have traditionally played in baseball stadiums rather than the other way around. Seeing the two spanking new stadiums next door to each other in Pittsburgh is just silly.