“‘There is only going to be one stadium in the Bay Area, and it’s not going to be in Santa Clara,’ said Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, a member of the Coliseum board who voted with his colleagues last week to spend $125,000 on a study of a new [two-team Oakland football] stadium.”

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Gil

    It may not get built in this economy but Oakland is more central to the rest of the Bay Area with excelelnt transportation links.
    This is an ideal solution. If SC voters reject the stadium then Oakland could be the answer. Both teams polaying there. Scheduling woul be a bear but where there is a will there is a way.
    High speed rail should have terminated in Oakland. I still think lawsuits from Peninsula cities will so tie it up that, if it ever gets built, it will terminate in Oakland.
    Oakland too IMO is the Bay Area city center that should see the highest devleopment. 80 story condos work for Oakland, not SF.
    Go Oakland!

  2. Posted by sacdomc

    Dream on, Oakland. Niners won’t go across the Bay – they’d end up in LA before going there. At least in LA you’re less likely to get shot (hard to believe, but true).

  3. Posted by J

    “Dream on, Oakland. Niners won’t go across the Bay – they’d end up in LA before going there. At least in LA you’re less likely to get shot (hard to believe, but true).”
    Have you actually been to Hunter’s Point? Or any bay area football game for that matter?

  4. Posted by Zig

    Funny J
    First time I ever saw a murdered dead body was as a little kid leaving a 49er game
    I think the powers that be want these two teams to share a stadium and will never let the 49ers leave the Bay Area

  5. Posted by redseca2

    I propose a floating stadium that can dock at parking facilities in Oakland, Santa Clara and San Francisco.

  6. Posted by condoshopper

    cool! no more traffic jams on 101 / bay bridge on game days/nights.

  7. Posted by curmudgeon

    Gil is in favor of development! 80 story towers! Oh, just not in SF…. What a surprise.

  8. Posted by Gil

    “I think the powers that be want these two teams to share a stadium and will never let the 49ers leave the Bay Area”
    Possibly. The one-stadium solution is perfect IMO.
    Hopefully the Oakland site is large enough that a new conceret/arena can eventually be put there too. This could become one of the nation’s major sports/entertainment centers. Just imagine if HSR had a stop at this planned mega-complex.

  9. Posted by dalowdown

    Ridiculous, Jed York already said that the 9ers will never play in Oakland and I for one believe him.

  10. Posted by Ellison pls get involved

    With the America’s Cup conquered, Larry Ellison should concentrate with partnering with SF and buy the 49ers and keep it on the Peninsula. A stadium would surely look attractive on the waterfront on seawall 337, or hunter’s point naval base. A billion dollars is chump change for Ellison and this can be done with minimal public involvement if the city and Ellison work jointly and cooperates.

  11. Posted by anon

    Hopefully the Oakland site is large enough that a new conceret/arena can eventually be put there too. This could become one of the nation’s major sports/entertainment centers. Just imagine if HSR had a stop at this planned mega-complex.
    Why would that make sense? So HSR can add a few passengers a few days a year? Even an arena is only going to be used 60-70 days a year for big events. How about we locate HSR where there is a demand for thousands of people EVERY DAY, like you know, a CBD.

  12. Posted by exactly

    Let’s steer a $80 Billion dollar project towards an arena so that a few people from the East Bay/San Jose can get there 20 minutes faster.
    It doesn’t work that way, Millions of voters have selected transbay terminal as the Bay Area terminus. It would take a statewide revote to change this. Oh yeah. The time delay due to this “revote” would cost the project an additional $40 Billion dollars. Totally worth it if you asked me.

  13. Posted by Willow

    Well if they can lure the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn anything is possible. I never did figure out the Raiders – 49ers rivalry. They play each other rarely since they are in different conferences and both franchises have had much success in the past but very little of late. A joint stadium makes sense if you ask me, as long as it is in a transit friendly location. (i.e.Oakland or San Francisco). I was at Candlestick recently for a 49ers game and it was in a sad state of disrepair. Mind you, the Oakland Colliseum is no better.
    It’s amazing that these internationally known football teams barely rate a mention with the population within the two cities they reside. Any other place in the country and they would be considered crown jewels. Hopefully more will be done by the cities and counties in question to build something that keep both teams in the Bay Area in the long term. Because once they leave it’s difficult to get them back. (Think Los Angeles.)

  14. Posted by Fishchum

    “Internationally known” is a bit of a stretch. If you’re wondering why they’d be crown jewels elsewhere and not here is that there’s a lot more to do in the Bay Area in the way of recreational activities than a handful of football games every season.

  15. Posted by Willow

    “Internationally known” is a bit of a stretch.
    Having grown up outside the United States I knew very little about the NFL at the time but I did know who the Cowboys, 49ers, Redskins, Steelers and Raiders were. They were the top tier teams. Perhaps not so much now. The two bay area teams have probably been replaced by the Patriots & Colts, but still I think they are pretty widely known outside the country. (Similarly you may not know anything about soccer but you’ve heard of Manchester United, right?)
    I also don’t buy the “there’s lots of things to do in the Bay Area” argument either. There’s lots to do in New York but the Yankees are considered part of the city as are the Red Sox to Boston.

  16. Posted by Mole Man

    According to what Jane Jacobs has said this is just going to make the area surrounding the stadium even more of a scary dead zone. Yikes!

  17. Posted by Fishchum

    Willow – It’d be tough to compare the Raiders/49ers to the Yankees/Red Sox as the two sports are very different in attendance and settings. Baseball is played almost daily, and usually in some type of urban park setting, whereas football has what, 8 home games per season? Football stadiums also tend to be much bigger and are usually located in the suburbs.
    For all the urban attractions Manhattan has, I don’t think it holds a candle to the Bay Area once you leave NYC. I wouldn’t rate the Hamptons or the Catskills to the wine country, central coast and the mountains that are all a short trip from SF.

  18. Posted by Willow

    Fishchum: True, there are a lot fewer football games than baseball. (That’s why I think having both teams share a single stadium would be a better use of resources.) Baseball probably has a lot more casual fans who are there just to socialize, enjoy a few beers and a hotdog, rather than closely follow the outcome of the game. Either way, it would be a shame if either of the two existing football teams are lost to the Bay Area. If it has to be Santa Clara than so be it. Definitely a better alternative to losing them (in terms of entertainment, jobs, tax revenue etc.) to Los Angeles or Sacramento, or some other state for that matter.

  19. Posted by Delancey

    With the exception of those done to promote a specific project, every study of the economic effects of publicly-financed sports stadiums has said they are a disaster. Figures such as $700,000 in public funds spent per low-level job created.
    But, the public do bamboozle easily, so one can always find a new city to build a free public stadium. If Ellison gets involved, he’ll be looking for the same handout every other NFL owner gets. He didn’t get rich by being stupid (or generous).

  20. Posted by Gil

    Financially one new stadium instead of 2 makes sense for a single area.
    Also, space is lacking in SF, SJ and Oakland to accomodate the large conventions. I recall someone’s vision of having a regional convention center in Oakland that could accomodate the monster gatherings with overflow and smaller gathering being taken care of by Moscone and the SJ center.
    Placing such a mega-cneter in the nexus of the arean makes almost too much sense.
    Expanding Moscone seems increasingly problematic and larger conventions are not coming because it is so small.
    In a sane world if you are going to do something like this it needs to be done on a regional basis and located centrall to the region.
    This could be an historic opportunity to build not just the stadium but an arena/entertainment center and large convention complex so that the Bay Area can compete on an even footing with with LV and NY.

  21. Posted by Alexei

    Isn’t Oakland still paying off the old stadium?

  22. Posted by anon

    This could be an historic opportunity to build not just the stadium but an arena/entertainment center and large convention complex so that the Bay Area can compete on an even footing with with LV and NY.
    How in the world is NY in the same league as LV when it comes to conventions? The big convention cities are LV, Orlando, and Chicago. The dropoff after that is enormous. NY is but a foot note, mostly because it’s too expensive. And guess what? The Bay Area is also too expensive to host large conventions.
    We don’t have to throw a bunch of money at a shrinking pool – let Vegas, Orlando, and Chicago duke it out for that money, and we’ll concentrate on building new companies here, thank you very much.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *