Jump to content

Sf2016 -- Why Not A New Arena At Candlestick Point?


Recommended Posts

On a whim, I decided to check the satellite maps for Candlestick Point.

It certainly looks like there would be sufficient room for a new arena next to Candlestick Park... for Gymnastics.. and in the future, basketball, hockey, concerts, presidential conventions, etc.

There would still be enough space for parking... and it shouldn't be too difficult to route the T-Third metro line to Candlestick Point, as its current terminus at the CalTrain station at Visitacion Valley is < 2 miles away.

http://local.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37...mp;t=k&om=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Who and where will you get money to build it?

2. Nope. W/ 20-25 acres to be taken up by the housing (not the Hunters Point Village, but the first wave of housing that will offset the loss of the Mall; then the new stadium taking up ANOTHER 25 acres, what's left will be good enough only for parking lots AND a practice track if SF gets the 2016 nod.

Nope; a new indoor arena (which I've often envisioned to be called the Quakedome :rolleyes:) should be built between AT&T Park, the CalTrans terminus there, and the new UCSF campus in China Basin/Potrero Hill; and around the end of the 280 ramp. But that ain't gonna happen. It needs an anchor tenant(s). SF has to get its own basketball and hockey teams to justify a new arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a TON of unused land Candlestick point. A rectangle bounded by Arelious Walker Dr, Gilman, and The Bay is about 2600'x1200' or about 140 acres. There is probably another 30-40 acres of odd lot unused land. Just the building for an indoor arena is only 20 acres - leaving atleast 150 acres for extra parking.

Thats said, I don't think you could make a business case for building a new Arena anywhere in SF. What would it be used for? The Warriors aren't moving from Oakland, or the Sharks from San Jose. Both have first class facilities, and with modest updating should remain world class though 2016 and beyond. Metallica concerts and Ice Capedes don't cut it.

But as mentioned somewhere else in this forum, all that empty land at Candlestick could be used for a number of temporary venues, and a nice legacy park after the games for tailgating and recreation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a TON of unused land Candlestick point. A rectangle bounded by Arelious Walker Dr, Gilman, and The Bay is about 2600'x1200' or about 140 acres. There is probably another 30-40 acres of odd lot unused land. Just the building for an indoor arena is only 20 acres - leaving atleast 150 acres for extra parking.

Thats said, I don't think you could make a business case for building a new Arena anywhere in SF. What would it be used for? The Warriors aren't moving from Oakland, or the Sharks from San Jose. Both have first class facilities, and with modest updating should remain world class though 2016 and beyond. Metallica concerts and Ice Capedes don't cut it.

But as mentioned somewhere else in this forum, all that empty land at Candlestick could be used for a number of temporary venues, and a nice legacy park after the games for tailgating and recreation.

Well, I was going by the recently released maps showing the new Stadium site, and the area cited as being Candlestick Park was 77 acres. You can't develop all those 150 acres. There will be murder to pay in SF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats said, I don't think you could make a business case for building a new Arena anywhere in SF. What would it be used for? The Warriors aren't moving from Oakland, or the Sharks from San Jose. Both have first class facilities, and with modest updating should remain world class though 2016 and beyond. Metallica concerts and Ice Capedes don't cut it.

An arena is something SF is just lacking... and has been lacking.

An NHL or NBA expansion team could fill the arena. SF can host world championship events -- Volleyball, Gymnastics, etc.

There are concerts. I frankly am tired of going to Oakland or San Jose for large arnea concerts.

There are large conventions -- Presidential conventions, etc.

I seriously don't believe that the arena will not go unused. There's a lot to be gained by having a large arena in San Francisco. Now, if not next to Candlestick Park... then near AT&T Park. But I think it would really benefit the City if it were to have an Arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to burst your bubble, but I don't want a new arena built in San Francisco. I'm OK with Oakland Arena and HP Pavillion.

Are you even from the Bay Area? I thought that you would be glad to have a new arena in SF since that would be one more venue to add to your "lists"? And you're not only 'planning' the 2016 game plan, but vetoing would-be arenas as well. Wow! :rolleyes: What power you must yield!! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to burst your bubble, but I don't want a new arena built in San Francisco. I'm OK with Oakland Arena and HP Pavillion.

Well, I just bought tickets to a concert on 09/16 at the HP Pavillion.

Just think... if SF had an arena, I wouldn't have to drive 45 minutes down to see the concert.. and 45 minutes back up afterwards.

And it gives SF options. It would be a great addition to the City.... in many respects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about it more, there needs to be a second stadium/arena beside the big 49er one, if only temporary, as a support stadium for the Ceremonies at 49er. And one that doesn't require leaving a big legacy behind -- so something when it's dismantled, doesn't really leave a big gap.

I was thinking Beach Volleyball might be it; and with seats for 8,000 or so people (enough for Ceremonies purposes); but I'm wondering how chilly Candlestick will be at this time 10 years from now. Swimming might even be worse, because for that, you would need a heated pool over there. So yes, I would probably throw in the Beach Volleyball venue beside the 49er stadium, maybe behind it; and where it gets the best afternoon sun, when the fog has burned off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about it more, there needs to be a second stadium/arena beside the big 49er one, if only temporary, as a support stadium for the Ceremonies at 49er. And one that doesn't require leaving a big legacy behind -- so something when it's dismantled, doesn't really leave a big gap.

I was thinking Beach Volleyball might be it; and with seats for 8,000 or so people (enough for Ceremonies purposes); but I'm wondering how chilly Candlestick will be at this time 10 years from now. Swimming might even be worse, because for that, you would need a heated pool over there. So yes, I would probably throw in the Beach Volleyball venue beside the 49er stadium, maybe behind it; and where it gets the best afternoon sun, when the fog has burned off.

Beach Volleyball at Candlestick Point??? Are you kidding??

If you think Crissy Field was gonna be cold, Candlestick Point is worse... AND the wind it too unpredictable.

Swimming is best if it's an indoor pool/natatorium. The pool is faster if indoor and properly heated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beach Volleyball at Candlestick Point??? Are you kidding??

If you think Crissy Field was gonna be cold, Candlestick Point is worse... AND the wind it too unpredictable.

Swimming is best if it's an indoor pool/natatorium. The pool is faster if indoor and properly heated.

Well then, can you suggest another sport whose venue can be dismantled afterwards w/o leaving a legacy gap? I mean the main Stadium has to have a 'support' stadium for the Ceremonies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then, can you suggest another sport whose venue can be dismantled afterwards w/o leaving a legacy gap? I mean the main Stadium has to have a 'support' stadium for the Ceremonies.

Why would the main stadium need to have a "support stadium" for the Ceremonies? Which ceremonies? Opening? Closing? Medal?

Does the "support stadium" need to house a sport?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the main stadium need to have a "support stadium" for the Ceremonies? Which ceremonies? Opening? Closing? Medal?

Does the "support stadium" need to house a sport?

Because as in every Olympic Games, a secondary stadium beside the main one allows (1) the athletes to be assembled and wait there, and put in order -- before their big entrance onto the main stadium; (2) it's also a place for the performers, who similarly number in the thousands, to await their cues, to rest up, get their meals catered, and change if they are done. Other 'support' buildings, big tents will do, to house props and stage machinery, will also have to be put up -- for both Opening & Closing Ceremonies. So, if they have to have one that'll hold 10,000 people or so -- then it might as well be put to use as a working venue. That's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because as in every Olympic Games, a secondary stadium beside the main one allows (1) the athletes to be assembled and wait there, and put in order -- before their big entrance onto the main stadium; (2) it's also a place for the performers, who similarly number in the thousands, to await their cues, to rest up, get their meals catered, and change if they are done. Other 'support' buildings, big tents will do, to house props and stage machinery, will also have to be put up -- for both Opening & Closing Ceremonies. So, if they have to have one that'll hold 10,000 people or so -- then it might as well be put to use as a working venue. That's why.

OK.. then why not an arena?? :huh:

Oakland has a football stadium and arena on 120 acres. Candlestick is 170 acres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK.. then why not an arena?? :huh:

Oakland has a football stadium and arena on 120 acres. Candlestick is 170 acres.

An arena would be great. But is it realistic? Who would build it? There is no anchor tenant on the horizon. So you're going to put an expensive arena out there when there is no anchor tenant? At least a temporary stadium of stands does not make that big a commitment of money. That is the more realistic option to me.

Also, how do you get 170 acres when the 49ers maps show 77 acres only for the developed area, including the new stadium?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An arena would be great. But is it realistic? Who would build it? There is no anchor tenant on the horizon. So you're going to put an expensive arena out there when there is no anchor tenant? At least a temporary stadium of stands does not make that big a commitment of money. That is the more realistic option to me.

Also, how do you get 170 acres when the 49ers maps show 77 acres only for the developed area, including the new stadium?

Well we do have 10 years to find an anchor tenant for the arena, right? I don't see that as a primary obstacle... .maybe secondary. :lol:

I pulled 170 from some government site I googled. I'm sure there's probably some environemntal impact study out there that doesn't allow the development... but you never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we do have 10 years to find an anchor tenant for the arena, right? I don't see that as a primary obstacle... .maybe secondary. :lol:

I pulled 170 from some government site I googled. I'm sure there's probably some environemntal impact study out there that doesn't allow the development... but you never know.

They've tried to get that arena going even in the heyday of the dot.com era, when there was a lot of money floating around -- and they could at least sell the naming rights for a gazillion bucks. But, as you know, the dot.com boom probably lasted as long as the Gold Rush.

The problem is, after a 49ers, a Giants team, the so-called SF Dragons (a lacrosse team), the CIty of SF isn't all that sporty. Do the Sharks sell out? If the Anschultz Corp. (the big money behind the Staples Center) came in great. But I'm sure they've done studies and found that SF isn't that big or gung-ho a market to support another basketball or hockey team. I mean, SF is really an artsy-fartsy town; more into opera, street fairs & political stuff. The City can get behind one-time, int'l events, like say, an Olympics. But the market probably isn't there for other long-term professional teams. So that's why our 'dream-scheme' (I've dreamt of one for so long, too; even conjuring up a name for it -- the Quakedome) of a new arena hasn't or will happen.

But try writing the Anschultz Corp. They would probably be the most likely backers behind such a project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've tried to get that arena going even in the heyday of the dot.com era, when there was a lot of money floating around -- and they could at least sell the naming rights for a gazillion bucks. But, as you know, the dot.com boom probably lasted as long as the Gold Rush.

The problem is, after a 49ers, a Giants team, the so-called SF Dragons (a lacrosse team), the CIty of SF isn't all that sporty. Do the Sharks sell out? If the Anschultz Corp. (the big money behind the Staples Center) came in great. But I'm sure they've done studies and found that SF isn't that big or gung-ho a market to support another basketball or hockey team. I mean, SF is really an artsy-fartsy town; more into opera, street fairs & political stuff. The City can get behind one-time, int'l events, like say, an Olympics. But the market probably isn't there for other long-term professional teams. So that's why our 'dream-scheme' (I've dreamt of one for so long, too; even conjuring up a name for it -- the Quakedome) of a new arena hasn't or will happen.

But try writing the Anschultz Corp. They would probably be the most likely backers behind such a project.

YEah, I know they couldn't get teh arena going even during the Dot.com heyday.

I do believe that SF and the Bay Area as a whole is very "sport." The Sporting NEws always ranks the SF Bay Area as one of the TOp 3 "sporting towns" in the country.

THe Sharks dont' always sell out, but they do well. Problem with the Sharks is that they are a team of bandwagon fans. No one could really give a damn in the South Bay. I believe it is different in San Francisco. There's a lot of civic pride up here. I think the Arena should be a top priority for San Francisco.... whether it's the Anscultz corp or not.

And I believe the new Candlestick Park would do well attracting MLS back to the Bay Area. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YEah, I know they couldn't get teh arena going even during the Dot.com heyday.

I do believe that SF and the Bay Area as a whole is very "sport." The Sporting NEws always ranks the SF Bay Area as one of the TOp 3 "sporting towns" in the country.

:D

Oh really? Well, that's certainly great news insofar as our Olympic chances go.

Yeah, it would be great for SF to have its own MLS team -- and I think the fan base would be there. However, Al Davis has options to return the Earthquakes & I believe he has a site in mind in Fremont for that. Why anyone isn't stepping forward for a SF- MLS team, I don't know? (Jim, our erstwhile "venue-planner," has mentioned that Philly's MLS team is moving forward with a venue in New Jersey, despite being bypassed by the USOC.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh really? Well, that's certainly great news insofar as our Olympic chances go.

Yeah, it would be great for SF to have its own MLS team -- and I think the fan base would be there. However, Al Davis has options to return the Earthquakes & I believe he has a site in mind in Fremont for that. Why anyone isn't stepping forward for a SF- MLS team, I don't know? (Jim, our erstwhile "venue-planner," has mentioned that Philly's MLS team is moving forward with a venue in New Jersey, despite being bypassed by the USOC.)

I had read an article somewhere that before the SJ QUakes moved, they were talking to Gavin Newsom about possibly building a stadium in SF to accomodate MLS. And Newsom was all for it. But as you know the Quakes left.

If Candlestick Park is built by the Niners, it certainly wouldn't be bad if MLS also moved in. That would allow SF to be a venue for MLS and other Soccer tournaments, including the WOrld Cup.

I think there are a lot of possibilities happening in SF. It's just a matter of time and getting the starts to align. :D

And yes... THe Sporting News comes up with those rankings every year, and every year, the SF Bay Area is at or near the top. THe region has every sport possible, except for MLS currently. Football, Arena Football, hockey, LAX, basketball, baseball, etc. THen there's Cal and Stanford college sports. As well as Santa Clara and USF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had read an article somewhere that before the SJ QUakes moved, they were talking to Gavin Newsom about possibly building a stadium in SF to accomodate MLS. And Newsom was all for it. But as you know the Quakes left.

If Candlestick Park is built by the Niners, it certainly wouldn't be bad if MLS also moved in. That would allow SF to be a venue for MLS and other Soccer tournaments, including the WOrld Cup.

I think there are a lot of possibilities happening in SF. It's just a matter of time and getting the starts to align. :D

And yes... THe Sporting News comes up with those rankings every year, and every year, the SF Bay Area is at or near the top. THe region has every sport possible, except for MLS currently. Football, Arena Football, hockey, LAX, basketball, baseball, etc. THen there's Cal and Stanford college sports. As well as Santa Clara and USF.

The new Stade de 49ers (I like that name) -- with Stanford gone -- is indeed planned to accommodate a track, a future MLS team, a World Cup, a SuperBowl, and an Olympics. And why not? The only problem with an MLS franchise though, is will MLS Games always fill the new 68,000 stade? Probably the lower half.

But this still doesn't solve the question of what 'temporary,' adjunct stadium should be placed beside the Stade if 2016 happens? Maybe a giant bocce stadium? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new Stade de 49ers (I like that name) -- with Stanford gone -- is indeed planned to accommodate a track, a future MLS team, a World Cup, a SuperBowl, and an Olympics. And why not? The only problem with an MLS franchise though, is will MLS Games always fill the new 68,000 stade? Probably the lower half.

But this still doesn't solve the question of what 'temporary,' adjunct stadium should be placed beside the Stade if 2016 happens? Maybe a giant bocce stadium? :lol:

I think the quakes generally attracter 20-25,000 attendance for home games. That's not so bad at all. And if they're a good team, you can open it up. Heck.. the A's do well with 10K attendance most of the time. :rolleyes:

:D What about a giant driving range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D What about a giant driving range.

How is that going to help a SF Olympic plan? The way I see it, only a Beach Volleyball stadium would be a good fit. They can hold the events once the fog has burned off; and it can be placed behind the Stade de 49er, so it blocks off the cold breezes from the Bay. THen once the Games over, it also folds up. No harm; no foul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that going to help a SF Olympic plan? The way I see it, only a Beach Volleyball stadium would be a good fit. They can hold the events once the fog has burned off; and it can be placed behind the Stade de 49er, so it blocks off the cold breezes from the Bay. THen once the Games over, it also folds up. No harm; no foul.

The winds over at Candlestick point are relentless. I just don't see it.

Arena... or Velodrome... or even a Natatorium. But Beach Volleyball is most likely best at Crissy Field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The winds over at Candlestick point are relentless. I just don't see it.

Arena... or Velodrome... or even a Natatorium. But Beach Volleyball is most likely best at Crissy Field.

Isn't Siss...err, Crissy Field a protected nature habitat? I mean they spend millions fixing it, making it look natural or whatever-the-hell it was supposed to look -- for those few butterflies and horse flies -- so they're going to let 10,000 pairs of feet trample all that? Uh-uh. I don't think it'll happen there.

A Velodrome does not seat 10,000 people. Besides, for all the expense in setting that up; it would be nice to keep it there. I know; I know - Atlanta's was a plywood one. But see, you get legacy points if you keep the venue.

A Natatorium? Well, possibly. But then, it would only have to be for swimming -- because it's easy enough to disassemble the pool (& the practice one). But that would send Diving, Water Polo and Synchronized to Avery or to Santa Clara.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...