3 ms·

No One Likes Levi’s Stadium

1 points by coloneltcb 10y ago

DrScump 10y ago
This article gets a lot wrong. (There is plenty genuinely wrong with the stadium without going fictional). To wit: 1) "the 49ers are averaging 70,178 fans per game" As with all major league sports, reported attendance represents tickets issued, not turnstile counts nor butts in seats. In 2014, the 49ers claimed that all available seat licenses were "sold out". 2) "the stadium is an hour away from San Francisco, when there’s no traffic, and there is always traffic." True, but largely irrelevant. Back when the stadium was being planned, I was in a focus group of 49ers season ticket holders, and among the statistics given was that over 50% actually lived south (including the East Bay south of Oakland) of SF County, so the location change was of minimal impact to the majority of attendees). And as for traffic, games are mostly Sunday, where commute traffic is not an issue. 3) "(Santa Clara) has threatened to seize the stadium from the 49ers." Um, no. The linked article says that stadium management may be taken over, not a repossession of the building. 4) "The freakin’ sun is a problem. They didn’t think about the freakin’ sun. The stadium has a north-south alignment so TV cameras can avoid glare," I doubt that the TV glare claim is valid -- after all, Candlestick had the same orientation. The real purpose was so that suiteholders and home-side Club seat holders would never have to look into the sun and would always have the sun behind them. A side effect of this is that the other side, where we mere plebs sit, are in the sun the entire game. That was already a known negative even from Candlestick, which got far less direct sun (due to cloud cover pouring through the San Bruno Gap) -- even there, fans prioritized avoiding the east side of the stadium. Seat rights in Lower East were always easier to obtain than on the west (home) side concourse. From the second I saw the new design, I was livid. It's a hideous mishmash of architectural designs above the lower bowl, with the suite building and the east structure looking like they were made from different brands of children's erector sets, but there are massive gaps between all structures, which means that there can be no concentration of fan noise. Hence, no Home Field Advantage. A majority of fans are exposed to full sun for your brutally hot August and September games and have no coverage at all from rain. 5) "Traffic and parking are bad at all stadiums, but the situation at Levi’s is impressively bad.... Levi’s is in a location that’s difficult to access and without ample room for the cars of all the people going to the game." No, that's not the problem. The location has more access than Candlestick and has far more paved parking (my Candlestick parking passes would routinely sell for 3 to 4 times what my Levi's passes do). The problem: pedestrians and vehicles (and VTA rail) all compete for the same surface streets, and pedestrian cycles cut vehicle thoughput by probably 60+%. Candlestick had pedestrian overpasses and one-way traffic routing to maximize flow, plus a single, massive paved lot inside the traffic perimeter -- people in the paved lot didn't cross any road at all to enter. I foresaw both issues and raised them with both the season ticket department and Legends (the sales agents for Levi's); neither could have cared less for any advice. 6) "The stadium is pretty close to the San Jose airport, so it falls under the flight path of many incoming planes." False, at approach or takeoff altitudes, anyway. SJC's runways run north-south; Levi's is to the west. Air traffic is the least of their problems. 7) "It’s expensive as hell." Well, Club seats and suites certainly are. The cheapest seat ($85) is much more expensive than Candlestick ($29!). The lower bowl isn't unreasonable by modern standards, but end zone seats are a hard sell now, and I think those SBL holders are doomed to lose money. 8) "Does (the 49ers record) have anything to do with the stadium? No, but it’s a fun coincidence." I disagree! I think the loss of any home-field feel had a lot to do with the 2014 collapse. No visiting team will be intimidated by this sterile, fan-suppressing stadium. The headline claim of "It’s one thing to build an expensive stadium with taxpayer money." is also inherently misleading. The stadium itself was all privately funded, although there were land and services concessions by the city.

1 points by coloneltcb 10y ago

This article gets a lot wrong. (There is plenty genuinely wrong with the stadium without going fictional). To wit: 1) "the 49ers are averaging 70,178 fans per game" As with all major league sports, reported attendance represents tickets issued, not turnstile counts nor butts in seats. In 2014, the 49ers claimed that all available seat licenses were "sold out". 2) "the stadium is an hour away from San Francisco, when there’s no traffic, and there is always traffic." True, but largely irrelevant. Back when the stadium was being planned, I was in a focus group of 49ers season ticket holders, and among the statistics given was that over 50% actually lived south (including the East Bay south of Oakland) of SF County, so the location change was of minimal impact to the majority of attendees). And as for traffic, games are mostly Sunday, where commute traffic is not an issue. 3) "(Santa Clara) has threatened to seize the stadium from the 49ers." Um, no. The linked article says that stadium management may be taken over, not a repossession of the building. 4) "The freakin’ sun is a problem. They didn’t think about the freakin’ sun. The stadium has a north-south alignment so TV cameras can avoid glare," I doubt that the TV glare claim is valid -- after all, Candlestick had the same orientation. The real purpose was so that suiteholders and home-side Club seat holders would never have to look into the sun and would always have the sun behind them. A side effect of this is that the other side, where we mere plebs sit, are in the sun the entire game. That was already a known negative even from Candlestick, which got far less direct sun (due to cloud cover pouring through the San Bruno Gap) -- even there, fans prioritized avoiding the east side of the stadium. Seat rights in Lower East were always easier to obtain than on the west (home) side concourse. From the second I saw the new design, I was livid. It's a hideous mishmash of architectural designs above the lower bowl, with the suite building and the east structure looking like they were made from different brands of children's erector sets, but there are massive gaps between all structures, which means that there can be no concentration of fan noise. Hence, no Home Field Advantage. A majority of fans are exposed to full sun for your brutally hot August and September games and have no coverage at all from rain. 5) "Traffic and parking are bad at all stadiums, but the situation at Levi’s is impressively bad.... Levi’s is in a location that’s difficult to access and without ample room for the cars of all the people going to the game." No, that's not the problem. The location has more access than Candlestick and has far more paved parking (my Candlestick parking passes would routinely sell for 3 to 4 times what my Levi's passes do). The problem: pedestrians and vehicles (and VTA rail) all compete for the same surface streets, and pedestrian cycles cut vehicle thoughput by probably 60+%. Candlestick had pedestrian overpasses and one-way traffic routing to maximize flow, plus a single, massive paved lot inside the traffic perimeter -- people in the paved lot didn't cross any road at all to enter. I foresaw both issues and raised them with both the season ticket department and Legends (the sales agents for Levi's); neither could have cared less for any advice. 6) "The stadium is pretty close to the San Jose airport, so it falls under the flight path of many incoming planes." False, at approach or takeoff altitudes, anyway. SJC's runways run north-south; Levi's is to the west. Air traffic is the least of their problems. 7) "It’s expensive as hell." Well, Club seats and suites certainly are. The cheapest seat ($85) is much more expensive than Candlestick ($29!). The lower bowl isn't unreasonable by modern standards, but end zone seats are a hard sell now, and I think those SBL holders are doomed to lose money. 8) "Does (the 49ers record) have anything to do with the stadium? No, but it’s a fun coincidence." I disagree! I think the loss of any home-field feel had a lot to do with the 2014 collapse. No visiting team will be intimidated by this sterile, fan-suppressing stadium. The headline claim of "It’s one thing to build an expensive stadium with taxpayer money." is also inherently misleading. The stadium itself was all privately funded, although there were land and services concessions by the city.