July 30, 2009
Can You Say San Francisco Earthquakes?
Site prep for the construction of 1,400 homes on Hunters Point Parcel A is expected to be completed by the end of the year with first occupancy around 2012.
At the same time contingency plans for how to proceed with the overall Hunters and Candlestick Point redevelopment should the San Francisco 49ers make the move to Santa Clara are being drawn.
Ideas for alternative uses for the 25-acre Parcel G currently set aside for a new football stadium range from enabling the development of larger and more luxurious housing to a "greentech industry hub" (which might be easier to envison than execute).
We’ll go on record with the suggestion for the development of a "football" stadium and a few practice pitches of another kind. Can you say San Francisco Earthquakes?
∙ City plans Hunters Point redevelopment without the 49ers [Examiner]
∙ JustQuotes: The Redevelopment Of Hunters/Candlestick Point [SocketSite]
∙ First And Goal For The
San Francisco Santa Clara 49ers Stadium [SocketSite]
First Published: July 30, 2009 8:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Renaming the 49ers the Earthquakes might be just a bit confusing, considering the MLS (soccer) team from San Jose is already the Earthquakes...
Posted by: rr at July 30, 2009 9:00 AM
I think the editor is proposing a soccer-only stadium to bring the Earthquakes up the peninsula.
Posted by: 4H clubber at July 30, 2009 9:12 AM
Excellent idea. Not sure how well 'luxury' housing will go here. Nothing is close.
Posted by: CameronRex at July 30, 2009 9:20 AM
What we really need at Candlestick is a vast government housing project. This would help perpetuate an underclass - children raised in government housing learn helplessness: that their families can only survive on the generosity of the state - and it provides cheap labor.
Please don't misunderstand - I'm not all about money. A permanent underclass makes me feel superior. I can't be upper class without an underclass.
Posted by: unwarrantedinlaw at July 30, 2009 9:31 AM
I don't understand how city planners think that they can influence a particular type of industry simply by designating an area as a "greentech industry hub". Industry and commerce develop organically and sure, government can nudge it a little here and there but cannot really control the final outcome. This "greentech industry hub" smacks of marketing hogwash.
How about all of those live-work lofts that were built in the 90s ? Has the city measured the amount of owner-proprietor revenue streaming in from that experiment yet ?
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at July 30, 2009 9:44 AM
I agree with in-law - where will the slums of tomorrow be if we don't build them today?
Posted by: OneEyedMan at July 30, 2009 9:50 AM
'Soccer' (or real football!) in SF?
Yes, yes and yes.
Where do I sign?
Posted by: REpornaddict at July 30, 2009 9:54 AM
"where will the slums of tomorrow be if we don't build them today?"
Right on OneEyedMan, best SS quote of the month.
Dear planners, please remember that Justin Herman didn't set out to build slums either.
Posted by: Sb at July 30, 2009 10:26 AM
>where will the slums of tomorrow be if we don't build them today?
Posted by: Rillion at July 30, 2009 11:09 AM
Gov housing project sounds nice. Takes more than some new buildings to attract businesses into that part of town.
Posted by: bornnraised at July 30, 2009 11:20 AM
"luxurious housing"...in Hunters Point ? This cracks me up.
I guess the definition of "luxurious housing" has changed to include neighborhoods and communities infested with drug dealers, tricks and gang bangers
Posted by: Chad at July 30, 2009 11:41 AM
is it possible to fill a stadium with soccer fans ?
Posted by: spencer at July 30, 2009 11:48 AM
Sure, use tax money to build a stadium for all 9 soccer fans in the city. Nice. Way to think things through.
Posted by: lolcat_94123 at July 30, 2009 12:04 PM
> where will the slums of tomorrow be if we don't build them today?
Is there even one person out there who thinks that putting a couple hundred poor people without jobs in to one complex is a good idea that will result in a nice clean crime free community?
Below is what San Francisco gets for the ~$250 Million a year that the SFHA spends to “maintain” the slums of today.
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at July 30, 2009 12:13 PM
reg. number of soccer fans:
I have recently been at a friendly Inter Milan-Club America game at Stanford stadium, and there has been 37,000 fans according to the announcer.
I think if you have decent teams playing fans will come. Decent teams of course want decent stadiums.
Anyhow I am all for a decent soccer stadium in the area. I think 45-50k seating will be a nice balance.
All the ones I have seen were either oddly shaped(Candlestick), smaller then standard pitch(Spartans) or had seating going all the way to the field blocking the view(Stanford).
[Editor's Note: We'd actually shoot for a soccer-specific stadium with a capacity of around 25,000.]
Posted by: bantik at July 30, 2009 12:18 PM
Any business proprieter would have to be out of their mind to set up shop in Hunter's point when it would be so much cheaper (San Francisco taxes, health care, etc.), and also safer, to open shop a few miles away in South SF.
Posted by: anon at July 30, 2009 1:07 PM
Sounds good to me. I would actually go to games if they moved up the penninsula. San Jose is just too far.
Posted by: soapbox derby at July 30, 2009 1:50 PM
Why can't SF be more like Atlanta and phase out our housing projects?
Posted by: Atlanta at July 30, 2009 2:07 PM
@Atlanta who asks "Why can't SF be more like Atlanta and phase out our housing projects?"
Well, for starters, we have lovely supervisors like Chris Daly who make sure that does not happen, while buying properties cash down in their baby mama's home town...
Posted by: Chad at July 30, 2009 2:20 PM
the 1,400 homes mentioned above are all housing projects? if so, that's a few thousand more people living off the government?
Posted by: condoshopper at July 30, 2009 2:36 PM
Has anyone heard if Chris Daly is going to set the poor family he evicted from one of his recent home purchases in free SF housing?
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at July 30, 2009 2:51 PM
s there even one person out there who thinks that putting a couple hundred poor people without jobs in to one complex is a good idea that will result in a nice clean crime free community?
It can if you achieve critical mass, particularly in a harsh environment, which is why I will continue to advocate for my Montana Nature Preserve Solution.
Posted by: Robert at July 30, 2009 7:04 PM
REpornaddict: I was going to tell you that there IS already real football in SF, but I see that the SF Seals have gone dormant again...
Posted by: Po Hill Jeff at August 1, 2009 8:27 AM
I'm skeptical about whether the 49ers will really move to Santa Clara. I read the Mercury News from time to time (work is down there) and there's a lot of skepticism down there about how much return can be expected from the public investment. Frankly, the whole idea strikes me as a scam - why are public funds being spent to support what is fundamentally a private entertainment business?
When on vacation in Australia and the UK I've made a point of asking people about their local football stadiums and whether there were government subsidies for their construction. They just look at me like I've lost my mind... and point out that they are owned and operated by private businesses.
Posted by: Po Hill Jeff at August 1, 2009 8:38 AM
Saw a good take on soccer in the US a couple days ago:
Posted by: anon at August 1, 2009 11:29 AM