Jump to content

San Francisco Shows It Hand


Recommended Posts

Today, official announcements are out as to what and where an Olympic Stadium and an adjoining Atheletes' Village for a 2016 San Francisco bid will be. Finally, we're moving ahead.

Early word on SF's Olympic/49er stadium and Village

As the article says, much work remains to be done to turn this into a reality and viable for an Olympic bid. But for me, the other weak point in the SF bid, as I know it so far, is leaving gymnastics all the way down in San Jose at the HP Pavilion. If they find a way to move Gymnastics to SF; leave basketball in Oakland; and swimming/diving in Santa Clara, then SF may have a 'beautiful' bid that Chicago's 'temp' stadium will find hard to defeat!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Utilizing Hunters Point/Bayview and building a new Candlestick would definitely be a huge advantage over the other four cities. Plus it would create much needed affordable housing, which the city desperately needs.

As for the HP Pavilion being utilized for gymnastics I don't see that as a huge deterrent to the plan. Actually the only deterrent I see to any SF plan are the idiot city supervisors! <_< Chris Daly managed to get a law passed where all new apartments/condo towers being built can only have one parking space for like every 2-3 units built. So who knows what silly social issue, etc. they would try to tack on to building for an Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesnt seems to be very convincent ..that is the weakest point i think..also the IOC likes new brand olympic plans with new modern stadiums and arenas..for some reason i dont see San Francisco happening

Alex -- it depends on the situation. If you have VERY OLD venues, then yes, it would be good to put in brand-new venues, like London. But if you have buildings that CAN BE upgraded and be made state-of-the-art, the IOC isn't going to turn that down. Uhmm...look at Salt Lake City. I think half of Torino's venues were upgraded ones.

U should read more before you post. SF is planning a BRAND-NEW stadium and a BRAND-NEW Olympic Village. What LA84 was bringing up was some of the leftist, uncooperative supervisors who will try to make everything PC. The parking thing is a non-issue. WHat? You think the athletes are going to need spaces to park their cars? Uhmm...I don't think you really know what the realities of the situation are... :rolleyes:

You forget that SF was the runner-up to the 2012 choice of New York -- and the changes being announced make it only a more solid bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hunters Point/49ers Stadium combo seems as a winner, although the article states that the new stadium might not be used to track and field. Yet, something tells me that the impossibility to find a reliable facility for athletics in San Francisco will force Newsom to push for the idea of a temporary track in the new stadium.

For an example, Stanford Stadium has been demolished and will be replaced by a smaller football stadium, while I highly doubt they would expand old Kezar Stadium after they reduced its capacity following the last earthquake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hunters Point/49ers Stadium combo seems as a winner, although the article states that the new stadium might not be used to track and field. Yet, something tells me that the impossibility to find a reliable facility for athletics in San Francisco will force Newsom to push for the idea of a temporary track in the new stadium.

For an example, Stanford Stadium has been demolished and will be replaced by a smaller football stadium, while I highly doubt they would expand old Kezar Stadium after they reduced its capacity following the last earthquake.

No, the planned new 49er Stadium will have to house T&F. I mean what's the point of building a new stadium and NOT using it? Huh? How did u even think it?

The geographic proximity of the new stadium at Candlestick; then the Village at Hunter's Point -- less than half-a-mile from each other would spearhead a very solid plan. In the 2012 plan, T&F was, as you said, to be in Stanford (1 hour away from downtown SF); and the Village was at Moffett Field, another 20 minues away from Stanford. So the new tandem is, frankly, quite formidable.

Kezar is a less-than-regulation sized soccer field, that I think can only seat 2000, if at all. There's NO way that can be considered a serious venue at all. Now there is the old fieldhouse beside it, where I used to play volleyball. That could possibly be used as an indoor-volleyball-practice venue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the planned new 49er Stadium will have to house T&F. I mean what's the point of building a new stadium and NOT using it? Huh? How did u even think it?

The geographic proximity of the new stadium at Candlestick; then the Village at Hunter's Point -- less than half-a-mile from each other would spearhead a very solid plan. In the 2012 plan, T&F was, as you said, to be in Stanford (1 hour away from downtown SF); and the Village was at Moffett Field, another 20 minues away from Stanford. So the new tandem is, frankly, quite formidable.

Kezar is a less-than-regulation sized soccer field, that I think can only seat 2000, if at all. There's NO way that can be considered a serious venue at all. Now there is the old fieldhouse beside it, where I used to play volleyball. That could possibly be used as an indoor-volleyball-practice venue.

I know, and I agree with you. I only raised the point because the article stated that: "Of course, that leaves open the question of just where in the Bay Area that might be. Newsom's nascent stadium plans don't include having track and field events there.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, and I agree with you. I only raised the point because the article stated that: "Of course, that leaves open the question of just where in the Bay Area that might be. Newsom's nascent stadium plans don't include having track and field events there.'

That's just Matier & Ross giving it a little 'doubtful' spin. I don't know what the exact dimensions are for an in't soccer field, an American football, and an int'l-approved track (which all I know must measure 400m). But I think for the City of SF to give its final blessing on the new 49er stadium, they (de Bartolo) will have to agree to make it work as a multi-use facility, capable of allowing those 3 major sports uses. I'm sure they'll find a way.

Why, it might even get SF to bid for the 2011 IAAF World Champs, which the USOC really wants to get. See, Chicago's temporary stadium would preclude trying to stage those 2011 Games; whereas, if the new 49er stadium gets built in 4 years, then it could conceivably win the 2011 Games. Remember, the only other previous IAAF Champs US bid that was serious, was one from Stanford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, it is very likely that the city government will impose its terms on the 49ers. I know there was one of those pesky propositions on a new 49ers stadium, and it wouldn't surprise me if the funds that were never used might be capitalized for this new "adventure."

Also, what local venue might replace HP Pavillion? A new facility might be nice, but I can imagine the "controversy" that it could cause in SF now that the mayor is pushing for other projects (Transbay Terminal, a new tallest skyscraper, universal healthcare).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The newer incarnation of Kezar Stadium is home to the MLL's San Francisco Dragons. From the looks of it, I think it'll be more of use for field hockey with expandable seating since lacrosse and field hockey use the same space area.

The Kezar Pavillion, which Baron mentioned, was most recently used for the ABA's San Francisco Pilots. It had a main water break I understand that spoiled the Pilots home games. As an indoor volleyball practice center, I can see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, what local venue might replace HP Pavillion? A new facility might be nice, but I can imagine the "controversy" that it could cause in SF now that the mayor is pushing for other projects (Transbay Terminal, a new tallest skyscraper, universal healthcare).

I was thinking; and this is just me showing preference of Gymnastics over Basketball -- I would move Gymnastics to the Oakland Arena; and then move Basketball down to the HP Pavilion. But that's just me; I don't know what stipulations the 2 venues would impose for their use when leased to a possible SFOOC. Don't u luv it? SSFOOOOOK!!! :lol:

The new Transbay Terminal would be paid by the high-rise developments going up on RIncon Hill, including that 80+ storey skyscraper; and universal healthcare was to be shouldered by the small-to-medium bizzes, and an increased hotel tax. There is a $100-million bond that will be floated for a new 49er project; and the de Bartolo-York owners would pay the rest. Then the Lennar Housing Corp. (a highly successful residential developer who looks like will be the primary partner in a future Olympic Village) has already gotten development rights to new housing on Treasure Island. So, it looks like SF is getting all its financial ducks in order. Now, I don't know what the partner communities of Berkeley, Oakland, San Mateo, San Jose and Santa Clara can throw in for the whole plan to hold together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cant wait for renderings.

Well, here's an early one showing a nighttime interior look.

newinterior.jpg

I dunno that's anything spectacular -- but it does show curved sides, so that's positive news for throwing in a regulation track. Also, Newsom can't be trumpeting the new stadium NOT KNOWING that it won't accommodate T&F. If he didn't know, then he's extremely stupid and doesn't deserve to stick around.

But he's a bright fellow -- remember my brush with him? Nothing is signed, sealed & delivered at this stage; but I think things are moving, especially because of USOC deadlines. I think the USOC would like to make up its mind no later than the end of 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't there plans floating around since the Mayor Willie era of building an arena next to SBC Park in Mission Bay? I also recall an article a few months back how SF needed a multi purpose venue to hold concerts and conventions and how the city couldn't even bid to host the RNC, DNC, or the VMA's when MTV was courting the idea of SF as a host because of lack of a major venue. It would be nice if the city can lure a major league team into town, maybe the GS Warriors or the Sacramento Kings with their own arena issues. Though it's probably too late for any of that to happen before the USOC requests for specific plans from the 5 cities. Better to go with what you have, the new plans are already a vast improvement from 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow SF can't get a new indoor arena going.

1. Yes, there was a plan to build one on where one of the SBC Park's parking lost now are. THe dotcom bust hit; so that plan fizzled.

2. Then there was even a plan to build a new arena ATOP whatever the new Transbay Terminal would've been. They couldn't find an anchor tenant. The city' economy and ego went into a tailspin; and plans for an indoor arena just never got anywhere. So we're left with that antequated Cow Palace which hosts the ice shows, seats I think a mere 8,000; and was designated for Boxing in the 2012 plan.

I hope they can get the Anschutz Corporation (developer of the Staples Center) to build a new indoor arena AND house another NBA or hockey team there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't gymnastics simply be relocated to the new Oakland Arena where the Golden State Warriors play? Seems like a much more viable option than the shark tank in San Jose.

Actually, I think I just figured out why. Since the Oakland Arena is the GS Warriors' home, then the basketball floor & foundation is already there. The Shark Tank doesn't house BB, so they can put up all the gymnastics platforms, etc., at much less cost. I think it's simply a cost issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the plan so far sounds rather good. Something tells me that the other cities in the Bay Area will not hamper the bid as long as they get their share of the spotlight and the benefits. The biggest problem will always be with SF's decentralized government.

Let's see if any other of the American candidates can offer anything as realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Francisco won't build a new indoor stadium - plain and simple, even though the Cow Palace needs to be replaced. But I really don't think there is any need to for one for the games, with the Oakland Coliseum within 20 minutes from the city (assuming the Bay Bridge ever gets finished) or a half hour ferry ride over to Alameda. As for San Jose - for political reasons they are going to have to be included in some way.

The other problem I see is the government cleaning up all the toxins at Hunters Point in time. With the city and CalTrans slow construction record, can the ground be cleaned up, new housing put up and new infrastructure in place by 2016?

Also, Mascone Center is not that big, so not that many events can be held there. We'll have to wait and see the plans but I would imagine that Berkley and Oakland will end up playing heavily into it.

Editorial from yesterdays Examiner. Fairly positive:

Clicky Clicky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume they would still plan on using the Avery Aquatic Center in Palo Alto for the swimming events? I kind of like the symmetry of putting at least one major high profile event in each of the other major population and business centers of the bay area, (south bay, east bay, peninsula).

Where would rowing go? Still in Sacramento? No place really to put it except maybe Redwood Shores, and that would kind of suck. I like the idea of having them over in San Andreas Lake, but I imagine environmental issues would sink that pretty quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume they would still plan on using the Avery Aquatic Center in Palo Alto for the swimming events? I kind of like the symmetry of putting at least one major high profile event in each of the other major population and business centers of the bay area, (south bay, east bay, peninsula).

Where would rowing go? Still in Sacramento? No place really to put it except maybe Redwood Shores, and that would kind of suck. I like the idea of having them over in San Andreas Lake, but I imagine environmental issues would sink that pretty quick.

What's the Avery AC? It wasn't included in the 2012 plan. Maybe they'll put water polo there -- and have swimming, diving, & synchro still at Santa Clara? THe thing about splitting disciplines like that is the Federation kinda gets split.

Rowing? They could move it to Redwood Shores; but they'd have to build a nice marina for it; and at least use it 6 mos-a year before 2016. Where's the San Andreas Lake? Remember, the Rowing Federation got a nice course in Athens; I'm sure they're getting a good one in London. Whereas for LA and Atlanta, they just got shoved to the farther reaches with the natural lakes; so they may not take too kindly to being shoved far away again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would there be enough room in Lake Merritt for rowing? That would make breathtaking venue! It would also help keep the events in clusters since Oakland Arena isn't too far away.

I really like how the new plan puts SF in the center even though a lot of high profile events will be held elsewhere, atleast they're disecting it evenly rather than centering it in a location FAR from the city like in 2012. Spreading out the venues but not too much really works for the Bay Area because having too many major events in a concentrated area in SF and Oakland would cause so much gridlock, afterall the Bay Bridge is the only practical way to get from SF to Berkeley and Oakland (besides BART and the ferry). Now that I think about it, I actually prefer SJ as the place for gymnastics rather than Oakland, and swimming should be in Palo Alto (hopefully diving and water polo too).

The new transbay center will definitely be the icing on the cake solidifying SF as the center of the bid as most of the venues will be easily reached by public transportation. This will be far from the most compact bid ever but this is what is going to work best for the region and I'm glad they're getting it right this time. After reading about Chicago's two stadium plan, I think SF's chances are really improving now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would there be enough room in Lake Merritt for rowing? That would make breathtaking venue!

No. Merritt's way too small. A rowing course would be at least 2300m long x 50m wide. Of course, they could always flood a runway at Oakland Int'l or SFO. :lol:

I thought they were looking at doing it somewhere in the Oakland Estuary, or somewhere near Alameda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article from the Chronicle:

Newsome Indulges Stadium Delusion

I hadn't heard anything about the 49ers possibly moving to Los Angeles. I knew the Raiders was supposedly looking around.

Nevertheless, it raises some interesting points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...