
No One Likes Levi’s Stadium - coloneltcb
https://theringer.com/san-francisco-49ers-levis-stadium-santa-clara-c29a140a1726#.cjfcad11e
======
DrScump
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.

