Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Berkeley and San Jose are a bit more of a trek, but again, not ridiculously so compared to sone of the other outer satellite venues used in both Sydney or London (rowing or canoeing anyone?) either. Honestly, I do think a bit too much is being made of a Bay Area bid being "too spread out".

I don't think it's a matter of not using San Jose in a San Fran bid (bcuz of course, something would take place there), but making it the "main" core, like has been suggested by some, is where the real problem is. San Fran to San Jose is six to seven the distance to what downtown London to Stratford is or Sydney to homebush. Might as well call it the "San Jose" Olympics if that were the case, since that's what it would essentially be.

*six to seven 'times' the distance

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 220
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

See Tony, this is an example of what pisses everybody off about you. It's just so rich and hypocritical from Young Master "I don't care what you think, it's my opinion and I'm allowed to say it again

Don't stress guys. At least we only have to deal with a daily 20 minute Tony troll fest. It's much better than the way it used to be when we had to listen to this little arsehole all day.

"T" is for Tony and Troll.

I don't think it's a matter of not using San Jose in a San Fran bid (bcuz of course, something would take place there), but making it the "main" core, like has been suggested by some, is where the real problem is. San Fran to San Jose is six to seven the distance to what downtown London to Stratford is or Sydney to homebush. Might as well call it the "San Jose" Olympics if that were the case, since that's what it would essentially be.

*six to seven 'times' the distance

That would be a different matter. But is there really talk of San Jose being the anchor of if? First I'd heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This looks very much on getting back on topic if you ask me:

Anyways, I think SF has some solid public transit. I've only been on the tourist trap that is the cable car, but some Googling brings up the SF Muni, which is very, very long statistically. BART is also very notable. From what I read, both are very reliable and extensive (Based on the map, I think BART reaches to San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley , etc) . I remember my English textbook even used the BART system as an example (I don't remember what for, though)

Okay, then if thats the case San Francisco will be fine okay if they can make a proportional venue plan, get government backing, and actually make a committee.

The real problem with BART is no express trains like I never understood why they left that out. It is a far easier system to navigate than the NYC Subway or the Tube which require you leaving the platform and walking somewhere else where is you need to Transfer with BART it's a simple walk across the platform with 2 trains there at the same time people transferring to the one to San Francisco and Lower East Bay. I think a quicker ride can be made in 10 years definitely and the system is improving greatly. It's not as amazing as the NYC Subway but it's reliable and much easier

BART by my experience is efficient, frequent and reliable. It's only drawback is its network and lines aren't as extensive as New York, London or even Sydney's rail transit networks. But then again, it's also complemented (at least I know on the SF side of the Bay), by a very extensive and comprehensive MUNI network. In truth, I think SF's one of the more transit friendly cities I've travelled through in the US. I'd count it as a strength for SF's hopes.

I've used BART from Oakland (or rather Hayward) to downtown SF, and it really is analogous, or even a bit easier than, central London to Stratford or downtown Sydney to Olympic Park. Berkeley and San Jose are a bit more of a trek, but again, not ridiculously so compared to sone of the other outer satellite venues used in both Sydney or London (rowing or canoeing anyone?) either. Honestly, I do think a bit too much is being made of a Bay Area bid being "too spread out".

I think it's good for what it needs to be on a day-to-day basis. Not sure how well it would serve an Olympics though. Like woohoo, I'm not that familiar with the system, but I think it depends where the venues are. The Oakland Coliseum is right on a BART stop. AT&T Park is accessible via MUNI. I know there's CalTrain that goes out to San Jose and the Silicon Valley area. So if the Bay Area wants an Olympics, they either need to improve the system or situate venues close to public transportation. Not sure how well those 2 would mesh.

Again, this is where compact vs. not as compact needs to take a back seat to accessibility. Put venues out wherever they need to be so long as people can easily get to them. Yes, if some are too far flung that's an issue, but I think they can find the right balance of suitable locations vs. compactness to make it acceptable.

Okay, thank you all for that. The good thing is that they will not have to spend more money creating or doing a major overhaul of the current system. It seems like a few minor adjustments here and there could benefit BART greatly and help make the trips easier and faster during the games (and beyond).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new 49er's stadium is located right near San Jose in Santa Clara. A few people here before (& a few articles) have pointed out why not use that as the main stadium. The 2012 "San Fran bid" centered itself around Palo Alto, which really is much closer to San Jose than it is to San Fran.

^

That would be a different matter. But is there really talk of San Jose being the anchor of if? First I'd heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using Levi's Stadium as the main stadium wouldn't make sense, it's far from SF and it's a football-only stadium with a rectangular field. The whole stadium would have to be modified to fit a 400-meter track.

A good venue plan would be to split the venues in 3 clusters (San Francisco, Oakland Coliseum City, Berkeley) with the Olympic Village in the middle (at Howard Terminal in Oakland). The Olympic Stadium would replace the Coliseum and serve as the new home field for the Raiders after the games.

Obviously there would be some satellite venues spread across the bay area (as far as Santa Clara for Football and San Jose with the SAP Center)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to say that. The Levi's Stadium isn't a Circle Shape, so if San Francisco said they would use the Levi's Stadium for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies, they would have to Build a New Stadium anyway, for the Athletics, unless they do what Hampden Park done for the 2014 Commonwealth Games and built a platform for the Running Track, but that would make the Capacity smaller and Hampden Park had a more of a Circle Shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new 49er's stadium is located right near San Jose in Santa Clara. A few people here before (& a few articles) have pointed out why not use that as the main stadium. The 2012 "San Fran bid" centered itself around Palo Alto, which really is much closer to San Jose than it is to San Fran.

Using Levi's Stadium as the main stadium wouldn't make sense, it's far from SF and it's a football-only stadium with a rectangular field. The whole stadium would have to be modified to fit a 400-meter track.

A good venue plan would be to split the venues in 3 clusters (San Francisco, Oakland Coliseum City, Berkeley) with the Olympic Village in the middle (at Howard Terminal in Oakland). The Olympic Stadium would replace the Coliseum and serve as the new home field for the Raiders after the games.

Obviously there would be some satellite venues spread across the bay area (as far as Santa Clara for Football and San Jose with the SAP Center)

Levi's can't be configured for track & field, so even if it's used for the Ceremonies, they still need something else. Ideally, the main stadium is somewhere near the village, so the better bet is in Oakland. May or may not involve the Raiders, if they're still in town by then (although I don't buy for a second that they'd move to San Antonio and who knows if LA would take them back).

The problem is getting the Coliseum folks and the Raiders to work together. Whose stadium is it? Can they come to some sort of agreement over the makeup of the stadium to make it both usable for an Olympics and well-designed for football? Easier said than done on that count, especially when we're talking about the Davis family still owning the Raiders. There's an opportunity here to build a new stadium for a team that desperately needs one (2 teams really, don't forget the A's) and not have to rely on an existing stadium and/or temporary solution to make this work. But all these elements need to come together and get on the same page if that's going to work. And that's a tall order as these things go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easier said than done. The majority of those folks at the parade were locals. Little more difficult to manage when more of the crowd is full of out-of-towners. That said, the system should be able to handle the crunch, but it will help matters greatly if venues are near public transportation. They could make this work, they just need to find locations for everything that make sense for the crowds they'll get for an Olympics.

Oh yeah. In the 2016 plan, they really tried to situate venues as close as possible to BART stations; or like the rowing venue which was in an Moraga hills gully, they were going to set up bus feeder lines directly to that venue from the Orinda BART station. I don't imagine that over-riding consideration will change much for a 2024 plan. But new major venue in SF, the new Warriors Arena will only e served by the surface 3rd Street line.

The real problem with BART is no express trains like I never understood why they left that out. It is a far easier system to navigate than the NYC Subway or the Tube which require you leaving the platform and walking somewhere else where is you need to Transfer with BART it's a simple walk across the platform with 2 trains there at the same time people transferring to the one to San Francisco and Lower East Bay. I think a quicker ride can be made in 10 years definitely and the system is improving greatly. It's not as amazing as the NYC Subway but it's reliable and much easier

Well, it serves an area whose population is about 1/10th of the NYC metro area; so everything is relative. It works fine for the SF Bay Area altho the area's growth I think has overshot the growth projections of the system. But connecting the whole system to San Jose is in the works.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep reading that they want to use Candle Stick and the bay-lands(?) in Brisbane. Apparently Candle Stick and the bay-lands are adjacent to each other. The stadium is planned to be temporary. I'm looking through my history to find the article that mentioned this, it is a little old and was written exactly one month ago.

Maybe the USOC is pushing the temporary stadium idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah. In the 2016 plan, they really tried to situate venues as close as possible to BART stations; or like the rowing venue which was in an Moraga hills gully, they were going to set up bus feeder lines directly to that venue from the Orinda BART station. I don't imagine that over-riding consideration will change much for a 2024 plan. But new major venue in SF, the new Warriors Arena will only e served by the surface 3rd Street line.

I don't think the ridership levels are the issue. The key is to create a set-up whereby visitors (i.e. people who don't ride BART regularly) know how to get around, whether it's between venues or to/from their accommodations. Not to mention the athletes who may be relying on public transportation, just like the NYC 2012 plan called for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you saying? :blink: "Candlestick Park" notice PARK, is only mentioned there to give the reader a geographic idea of the planned location for a 'pop-up' T&F stadium, if that were to come to pass -- since there is NOTHING at all on that side of the freeway for anybody to imagine where it is!! It has NOTHING to do whatsoever with using "Candlestick" stadium!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you saying? :blink: "Candlestick Park" notice PARK, is only mentioned there to give the reader a geographic idea of the planned location for a 'pop-up' T&F stadium, if that were to come to pass -- since there is NOTHING at all on that side of the freeway for anybody to imagine where it is!! It has NOTHING to do whatsoever with using "Candlestick" stadium!!!

The name of the stadium is Candlestick Park. The area nearby is Candlestick Point, but any references to "Candlestick Park" probably refer to the stadium itself. Although I see where the article could be a little misleading as to the exact location of this proposed "pop-up" stadium, especially since the existing stadium is set to be demolished in the coming months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you saying? :blink: "Candlestick Park" notice PARK, is only mentioned there to give the reader a geographic idea of the planned location for a 'pop-up' T&F stadium, if that were to come to pass -- since there is NOTHING at all on that side of the freeway for anybody to imagine where it is!! It has NOTHING to do whatsoever with using "Candlestick" stadium!!!

I am not too familiar with San Francisco, I thought that Candlestick Park was a physical park in San Francisco and that the 'pop up' stadium would be where the old 49'ers stadium was. I had no idea that the actual stadium was called Candlestick Park.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would San Francisco be allowed to use the Levi's Stadium if they Host the Summer Olympics and Paralympics, seeing as though the IOC want the Olympic Stadium in the Host City and I researched and it said Levi's Stadium is in Santa Clara, which isn't the main part of San Francisco?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would San Francisco be allowed to use the Levi's Stadium if they Host the Summer Olympics and Paralympics, seeing as though the IOC want the Olympic Stadium in the Host City and I researched and it said Levi's Stadium is in Santa Clara, which isn't the main part of San Francisco?

They would probably use it as football venue; but NOT as the main T&F/Olympic stadium. That's why the current plans are for building a temporary stadium a la London & Chicago just on the southern border of SF and Brisbane. Plan B, if they get their marbles together, would be Oakland's Coliseum City if the Raiders get their own stadium there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would San Francisco be allowed to use the Levi's Stadium if they Host the Summer Olympics and Paralympics, seeing as though the IOC want the Olympic Stadium in the Host City and I researched and it said Levi's Stadium is in Santa Clara, which isn't the main part of San Francisco?

Well, if you 'researched' it, you would've seen that Santa Clara is NOT a 'main part' of San Francisco. It's a FAR away suburb, which is actually much closer to the city of San Jose than it is to San Francisco. So therefore, Levi stadium cannot be the main Olympic stadium. Especially when it would need to be modified to be the Olympic stadium anyway. So it doesn't make sense all the way around. Like Baron noted, the stadium could host soccer, but not much else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would San Francisco be allowed to use the Levi's Stadium if they Host the Summer Olympics and Paralympics, seeing as though the IOC want the Olympic Stadium in the Host City and I researched and it said Levi's Stadium is in Santa Clara, which isn't the main part of San Francisco?

1. They wouldn't use the Stadium

2. That's some mighty fine research skills you have there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would San Francisco be allowed to use the Levi's Stadium if they Host the Summer Olympics and Paralympics, seeing as though the IOC want the Olympic Stadium in the Host City and I researched and it said Levi's Stadium is in Santa Clara, which isn't the main part of San Francisco?

For reasons mentioned, if the SF2024 folks tried to sell Levi's as the main stadium, they wouldn't stand a chance of winning. That it's not in the host city isn't the issue.. it's the distance from San Francisco that makes it problematic.

Also, as FYI alluded to, they couldn't put a track in there without an extensive renovation (which would cost them a lot of seats). Here's the interior of the stadium..

ninersfan19s-1-web.jpg

Typical of most American football stadiums, the seats are very close to the edge of the field, so there's not a lot of room to work. In contrast to what they did in Glasglow for the Commonwealth Games, that type of renovation wouldn't work here the way they were able to accommodate athletics there. If you've seen a picture of an empty LA Coliseum, you can see the rows of seats that were put in after the `84 Olympics that form an outline of where the track is, so it should give some context as to the size difference between a stadium built for American football and one that would have an athletics track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For reasons mentioned, if the SF2024 folks tried to sell Levi's as the main stadium, they wouldn't stand a chance of winning. That it's not in the host city isn't the issue.. it's the distance from San Francisco that makes it problematic.

Also, as FYI alluded to, they couldn't put a track in there without an extensive renovation (which would cost them a lot of seats). Here's the interior of the stadium..

ninersfan19s-1-web.jpg

Typical of most American football stadiums, the seats are very close to the edge of the field, so there's not a lot of room to work. In contrast to what they did in Glasglow for the Commonwealth Games, that type of renovation wouldn't work here the way they were able to accommodate athletics there. If you've seen a picture of an empty LA Coliseum, you can see the rows of seats that were put in after the `84 Olympics that form an outline of where the track is, so it should give some context as to the size difference between a stadium built for American football and one that would have an athletics track.

It wouldn't make a good stadium for an opening and closing ceremonies either, and not because of its distance to San Francisco city limits. It's very limiting on what you can do with it, and no way in hell would you be able to pull off an opening ceremony like Athens, London or Beijing. Not even Sydney.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Altho this stadium essentially uses the same blueprint for the one that was going to go up in Candlestick Park; and for which the San Francisco 2016 plan was to install a platform; and then add more seats in those open areas. So it is doable in this stadium but it is really too far away from the anchor city. Coliseum City in Oakland is more viable + there's a BART stop right there with the airport connector being unveiled in 2 weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...