May 21, 2013
Bay Area Scores Super Bowl 50: Levi's Stadium Will Host In 2016
With the San Francisco 49ers’ new stadium in Santa Clara set to open next year, the NFL has selected Levi's Stadium to host Super Bowl 50 in 2016, the first Bay Area Super Bowl since Stanford Stadium hosted the championship game which the 49ers won in 1985.
San Francisco will host pre-game activities, including the NFL Experience, an interactive pro football theme park which will be held at Moscone Center the week before the Bowl.
First Published: May 21, 2013 12:15 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
I don't really keep up with this sort of thing. Are the 49ers getting a name change ie Bay Area 49ers? Or still the SF 49ers?
Posted by: wc1 at May 21, 2013 12:30 PM
Daniel Lurie was on the committee for getting the Super Bowl...
he is part of the Haas family of Levi Strauss & Co. And who is sponsoring the new stadium? Levi's!
Posted by: levi gal at May 21, 2013 12:41 PM
The panoramic shots of fantastic landmarks such as the Drop Zone tower and the 84 freeway are going to be breathtaking!
Posted by: sf at May 21, 2013 12:53 PM
"The 84 freeway" ?? Are we talking about the same Santa Clara?
I sure hope they don't change their name to "The Bay Area 49ers" because there's more than one "bay area" in this country. Including one about 49 miles south of this stadium.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 21, 2013 1:13 PM
^ LOL...good one.
Posted by: Lance at May 21, 2013 1:13 PM
They are not changing their name. Still the SF 49ers.
Posted by: Dan at May 21, 2013 2:01 PM
@levi gal: How is this a "hmmmmmm"?
Lurie was heading the local committee to try and get a Super Bowl and is also part of the Levi family? How is that controversial?
Posted by: R at May 21, 2013 2:10 PM
*sorry I meant the 85. don't get down there much.
Posted by: sf at May 21, 2013 2:31 PM
wc1, changing the team's name to "The San Francisco 49ers of Santa Clara"
Posted by: anon at May 21, 2013 2:31 PM
Too bad there's no direct transit route between San Francisco and the new stadium.
Posted by: James at May 21, 2013 2:43 PM
Wherever that is -- accelerate the BART plans and get the ferries going. Gotta love the fact they have bicycle parking tho.
Posted by: Invented at May 21, 2013 3:06 PM
Not only is there no direct transit route from SF to the stadium but the transfer alternatives are pretty poor as well. It will be easier and quicker to travel to the stadium from Stockton than from SF. I'm guessing that fleets of charter buses will fill the gap.
sf - Hwy.85 doesn't go through Santa Clara either. How about Hwy.237 :-)
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 21, 2013 3:06 PM
Sure there's a direct transit route. A $100 towncar ride via Uber is direct.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at May 21, 2013 4:22 PM
Let's just hope the sh!t show of football fans will stay in SC and SJ.
Posted by: gentrified is a dirty word for clean at May 21, 2013 4:34 PM
In terms of what Football does for urban space (think of how fabulous Candlestick Park was for SF's Bayview district) it's just fine that this is out in the suburbs. Think tailgate parties and relatively few days per year of usage.
However, there is a rail line that currently hosts Capitol Corridor service that stops in the shadow of the new stadium, at Great America station. The 49ers could have game-day special trains doing the Capitol Corridor route up through the inner East Bay (Fremont Hayward Oakland Berkeley...) And with a little creativity they could tie into the Caltrain line with game day specials that run down through Santa Clara's main station then northbound along the main Caltrain line. The rails are in place, it just needs some cooperation between agencies to make it happen.
Posted by: 7by7 at May 21, 2013 4:40 PM
I kinda like "SV 49ers".
Posted by: EBGuy at May 21, 2013 4:47 PM
The route 7x7 proposes is an improvement over the best routing available today. Instead of going all the way from SF->SJ and then reversing to go SJ->49ers the transfer would happen at the Santa Clara station. If well timed the whole journey could be a bearable 1:20 or so and only backtrack three miles.
I doubt though that a "one train" option would be made available for SF and peninsula fans. It makes more sense to provide extra "Niner's Special" trains on game days along both the Caltrain and east bay corridors, meeting in Santa Clara. SJ and east bay fans would need only the east train. SF and the peninsula would need to transfer at Santa Clara.
There really aren't any better solutions than charter buses direct from SF to the stadium.
The current situation for SJ fans going to Candlestick isn't that great either. The nearest Caltrain station is over a mile away (vs. a few minutes walk from ACE/Amtrak to this new stadium).
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 21, 2013 5:23 PM
What's with people claiming the team is now the "Santa Clara" 49ers? As if no sports team has ever had the team playing in a suburb rather than the central city?
I guess you people who think like that also consider the Dallas Cowboys to actually be the "Arlington Cowboys", the Washington Redskins to be the "Landover Redskins", the Miami Dolphins to be the "Miami Gardens Dolphins", and the NY Jets/Giants to be the "East Rutherford Jets/Giants"?
Posted by: cbf at May 21, 2013 5:29 PM
are you saying that the 85 isn't visible from aerial view over Santa Clara? Last time I drove it it went through Mt. View which abuts SC. But that is besides the point.. that area is bland central and it's too bad that SF lost their stadium. Candlestick was historic, despite what some effete fragile newcomers to the city think about football.
Posted by: sf at May 21, 2013 9:00 PM
^You will definitely not be able to see 85 from the top of this stadium, unless it's 500' high or so. 85 is not close at all (and Santa Clara does not abut Mountain View - Sunnyvale is in between the two).
Posted by: anon at May 21, 2013 11:01 PM
Dallas -> Arlington = 20.6 mi
Washington DC -> Landover, MD = 12.0 mi
Miami -> Miami Gardens = 16.2 mi
New York -> East Rutherford, NJ = 13.1 mi
San Francisco -> Santa Clara = 45.0 mi
I'd hardly consider Santa Clara an SF burb. That's way the hell out to still be using the SF name. Can't wait to see the reactions of those who will travel here for a SB in SF when they discover how removed it actually is.
Posted by: Lurkavore at May 22, 2013 12:33 AM
^Semantics. If you wanna do that, the new stadium is actually more like 35-40 miles south of Candlestick/SF, not 45 miles...which really isn't that far. The Bay Area as a whole stretches more than 120 miles from north to south, and at it's widest point is nearly 80 miles from east-west.
Santa Clara is a suburban city in the San Francisco Bay Area, the team is still named the San Francisco 49ers, the superbowl pregame activities will be held in SF, the 49ers training facility/headquarters has already been in Santa Clara for over two decades, etc...the new stadium is even named after Levi's, a San Francisco company. So no, it's not "too far out" at all for them to be using the San Francisco name. It's in the inner part of the Bay Area! How the hell is that too far out? Santa Clara and the South Bay is well connected to SF (and vice versa), anyone who says otherwise is quite ignorant of how the Bay Area works.
If they wanted to be the "Santa Clara" 49ers, they would have changed their name.
Posted by: cbf at May 22, 2013 8:36 AM
Football is a suburban sport, (unlike baseball and basketball which need to be anchored in urban centers because of the total home game count per season) and thus belong in the suburbs. As far as naming goes, I think they should be called the San Francisco Bay 49ers. While we're at it, move the Raiders to Santa Clara too and rename them the SF Bay Raiders as well.
Posted by: PatBurns at May 22, 2013 8:42 AM
Can't we corral the Burning Man people into a pyrotechnic spectacular of naked homeless + circus maximus + food truck rally kinda thing and tweet it live from Candle Stick and charge $1,000,000 for sponsorships that include wrapping the Cable Cars to look like giant happy meals (mcD's!) and renaming Sutro "ATT Cellular Energy Tower"
Time the whole thing to coincide with the Super Bowl and call it the San Francisco *Stupor Dolt*
Now we talkin'
Posted by: egg_cream_of_OCD at May 22, 2013 8:48 AM
San Francisco-Oakland is a different Metropolitan Statistical Area than San Jose-Santa Clara. Are there any other teams that play in a different MSA than their namesake? The "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" are one, but any in football?
Posted by: James at May 22, 2013 9:18 AM
As long as they're called the 49ers they need to be the San Francisco 49ers. Not a whole lot going on in the Santa Clara Valley in 1849 so calling them the San Jose 49ers (or even better, the Silicon Valley 49ers) would make as much sense as the Tennessee Oilers.
Posted by: gentrified is a dirty word for clean at May 22, 2013 9:21 AM
In my mind, it will always be the Eddie Debartolo Jr Stadium.
We would have, by now, an already 13 year old replacement stadium to Candlestick here in San Francisco, if he hadn't been caught in unrelated scams in Louisiana.
Posted by: redseca2 at May 22, 2013 9:22 AM
Why not simply add "bay" to the name: The San Francisco Bay 49ers. Then everyone's happy and it is an accurate name as well.
If that fails to reach consensus then go for an extreme name change. How about The Santa Clara Stainless Steel Madonnas?
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 22, 2013 9:34 AM
"... would make as much sense as the Tennessee Oilers"
Kind of like the Utah Jazz?
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 22, 2013 9:41 AM
Add "Bay" and then everyone would be happy? You cannot be serious. First, who is unhappy? Secondly, many people would become unhappy at that unnecessary change. Third, there's zero chance the York family will change the brand name. Many football teams play in stadiums outside their cities. The New York Giants spring to mind.
Posted by: Truth at May 22, 2013 9:45 AM
"San Francisco-Oakland is a different Metropolitan Statistical Area than San Jose-Santa Clara."
And the only real reason for that is relatively arbitrary census methodology that doesn't play nice with the geographically constrained development and commuting patterns in the Bay Area, which have made it a polycentric region. It's silly...palo alto is in one metro, yet east palo alto and menlo park are in another metro? hilarious. The SF and SJ MSAs are dependent on each other economically, share public transit, share tv and radio stations, news media, sports allegiances, both identify as being within the Bay Area, are connected by unbroken urban development, etc. The bay area actually has a total of 6 MSAs in it...napa, santa rosa, valllejo, etc are also considered seperate metro areas by census methodology. The bay is one of the only regions in the US (LA being another) where using the larger CSA to define the metro area makes much more sense than using the MSA.
Posted by: cbf at May 22, 2013 9:54 AM
Or the L.A. Lakers, or L.A. Dodgers, or . . . .
Posted by: NJ at May 22, 2013 9:54 AM
1)VTA Light Rail connects to Caltrain at Mountain View. It is craptastic however. You could literally bike faster.
2)The feds may split up the SF/Oak metro from the SJ/SC/Sunnyvale metro, but we all know in reality, the dividing lines are blurred to the point of being useless.
3)Gillette stadium is ~30 miles from Boston, does that count?
Posted by: ZapBrannigan at May 22, 2013 10:03 AM
God, the traffic along the Embarcadero and all around SOMA during game days is going to be horrible. And this isn't close to a Muni stop!
Posted by: DanRH at May 22, 2013 10:11 AM
"3)Gillette stadium is ~30 miles from Boston, does that count?"
Not really since the team is called the New England Patriots and not the Boston Patriots. Having been in Maine during football season I can say the team is aptly named for the region. There were bus loads of fans from Maine making the trek down to the game. Regional/State names for teams work when the team does actually have a wider draw than just their home city as for the Patriots and the Diamondbacks, but it is just a joke for some teams such as it was for the California Angels and the Florida Marlins, and as it currently is for the Golden State Warriors. Those teams were/are not drawing fans from around the state/region.
Posted by: Rillion at May 22, 2013 10:43 AM
Rillion, you have to admit you aren’t using an apt comparison. New England is less than half the size of California by land area. Portland Maine to Boston is only about 100 miles compared to about 90 miles from Sacramento to San Francisco. The area of the fan base for Bay Area teams is probably similar to that of the “New England” Patriots. Would you prefer the “Northern Golden State Warriors”? In addition, the California Angels are based in a metropolitan area with a population greater than all of New England.
Posted by: emanon at May 22, 2013 1:04 PM
Clearly we need some legislation that stipulates maximum allowable distances between professional sports venues and the limits of the team's named home city. This madness cannot be allowed to continue.
Posted by: formidable doer of the nasty at May 22, 2013 2:11 PM
Emanon - Wait, I'm not using an apt comparison by pointing out the Patriots use a regional name and not a city name in response to comment that used the example of the Patriots playing in a stadium that is 30 miles outside their metro area? Okay.
I guess I should have just agreed with the commentator that it was spot on, and that Patriots are a good example of a team keeping a City in their name even when they are miles away from the city?!?
Nah, I'm going to stand by my comment that the New England Patriots are not a good example of a team that plays far away from the city they use in their name.
Now on to the second part of my comment:
Do you believe the Warriors or Angels represented all of California? That the Marlins were really all of Florida's team? Or do you dispute that the Patriots do not have a lot of support all over New England or that the Diamondbacks have a following outside of Phoenix?
Posted by: Rillion at May 22, 2013 3:47 PM
This move really helps everyone except the few people who live in SF and attend football games. That is less than 10% of the fan base by my estimate. Everyone else will benefit from better weather, easier access to the site from multiple directions, avoiding a very congested stretch of 101, and the new stadium facilities.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at May 22, 2013 4:00 PM
No the Angels only represent the Los Angelese of Anaheim people. :D
BTW, howabout Metlife stadium or Cowboys stadium...they're closer to their namesake cities, but counting traffic in those places, the distance is the same as Santa Clara to SF.
BTW #2, I have no point...just rambling...
Posted by: ZapBrannigan at May 22, 2013 4:06 PM
Yeah the Angels have moved from preferctly fine name (Los Angeles Angels) to stupid name (California Angels) to perfectly fine name (Anaheim Angels) to the stupidist name ever.
Honestly I wouldn't care were the Cowboys moved or played there should be a law that requires them to always be called "The Dallas Cowboys" regardless of where they are located. Just wouldn't be the same if they had any other name.
If the Raiders ever sucker some other city into paying them money to move again they should have to change their name to City Government Treasury Raiders.
As for the 49'ers, I think it is fine if they keep the SF name. Too bad this isn't like the old days where SF city/county can just get the state or feds to give us another chunk of land, so we could annex their new stadium and get revenue out of it (I'm looking at you Hetch Hetchy and SFO).
Posted by: Rillion at May 22, 2013 4:36 PM
gentrified said: Not a whole lot going on in the Santa Clara Valley in 1849
You're off by a century; perhaps the SV 49ers can feature a spiffy transistor on their helmet.
Posted by: EBGuy at May 22, 2013 5:09 PM
Architecturally uninspiring stadium. Structually ticky tacky with the exposed trusses that aren't well portioned or designed. If not maintained, it will age and rust like the industrial plants in Pittsburg PA from salt air and enviromental pollutants. The Giants built a wonderful stadium supported by private funds. The Niner could of aimed higher given that money is coming from public funds. Perhaps they were in a rush to get it designed and built.
Posted by: ncydr at May 22, 2013 6:21 PM
Apparently there's a contest in Santa Clara for bizarre and stupid stadium design. This one has open corners and a whole side that consists mainly of luxury boxes (except for one tier of bleachers at the bottom). That's one quarter of the stadium that's acoustically dead.
The new Earthquakes soccer stadium is even worse. It's missing a whole end.
What exactly is going on?
Posted by: gentrified is a dirty word for clean at May 22, 2013 6:39 PM
"This move really helps everyone except the few people who live in SF and attend football games. That is less than 10% of the fan base by my estimate." -Jimmy
There are tons of 49ers fans in SF (at least enough to fill Candlestick park/Levi's stadium, I would guess). Obviously there aren't as many fans in SF as elsewhere in the Bay Area though, because SF only has 10% of the Bay Area's total population. There's fewer of everyone in SF. And of course there are relatively few 49ers fans in SF compared to the entire fan base, which spans far outside of the Bay Area...but that's inevitable when the city only has 800,000 residents, yet the fan base is millions strong. And that applies to many other cities/teams' fan bases as well.
Posted by: cbf at May 22, 2013 6:49 PM