Lew, For God's sake after the 50,000 the other night at Stanford, why don't you jack up the capacity at the Epicenter to around 25,000? You are denying the future.
50,000 was nice, but don't let it get to your head. We got that much because they marketed the hell out of the game, had flyovers/fireworks/halftime shows put on by the guys who did the 2010 Olympics, and most importantly were playing our most hated rival and their line up of popular/reviled pretty boys. The average game we're still going to get crowds that will still leave open seats in the 18,000 seat stadium they're building. Nowhere near 25,000 would show up to see Dallas, Philly or Chivas. Plus logistically if they wanted to build a 25,000 seat stadium we'd have to go back to square one and start the approval process over again since 18,000 is the limit of the permit we've already been granted. So unless you want to give the Newhall group and others another shot at shutting us down I suggest we live with what we have for now and remember that our stadium is being built with an obvious avenue for future expansion should the need arise.
Relax. When the new stadium is sold out continually and demand gets to the point where it's obviously exceeding capacity, we will always have that open end to enclose and add thousands more seats if need be. It would be a permitting process, but at least the possibility is there.
So, you would be OK with adding another couple of years, at a minimum, to the time to get the stadium built? Not to mention (even though it was mentioned and you seemed to ignore it) that changing the capacity would require design changes that would allow the neighborhood opposition to resurrect their campaign. Considering the fact that there was a time when 12,000 was part of the discussion, I'm reasonably happy that a more rational 18,000 has become the final number.
Thinking small? See sj_oldtimer's response. It's not as though we can build whatever we want in that location. We can only build what has been approved and what the various studies(including light and noise) were based on. Changing the capacity would require us to redo EVERYTHING, a process that would take years and cost millions, and with no certainty that it would be approved. It's not about thinking small. It's about doing what we are ready to do rather than scrap everything and start at ground zero again. No way. If and when the demand is great enough, the 18k stadium can be expanded. Until then, they need to build the damn thing already.
I would love for the new stadium to be in the 22K to 25K range in size. But it's not going to be. Live with it. We need to get the darned thing built first. Trying to bump the size now will ruin all of our progress. And Falvo, they will build it. Count on it. Not as fast as you or I want, of course, but they will build it. GO QUAKES!!! - Mark
I completely agree with you on this, but the EIR that was completed allows for only 18,000 seats, likely as much to appease the nearby neighborhoods as the decision not to hold concerts there (at least initially) was. However, if it's any consolation, The Epicenter is set to have a 20,000-22,000 total capacity right from the get-go (18,000 seats + berm + other terraced areas), though hopefully at some point down the road the open end will eventually be enclosed with more permanent seats. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
I'd really like to see stadium open with an official center-field ribbon-cutting ceremony......... ..................Wonder when?
Well it may not but the 27k Home Depot Center sell out regularly for both teams doesn't it?... Errr wait
The thing with the stadium capacity is that given current circumstances, we're stuck with 18K seats, and 3K standing room. That's OK, that's how it is. Were we not limited, it might be good to have more seats. If 18K is capacity, it limits average attendance. Even assuming that most crowds are about 17K and occasionally we hit 21K or 23K, that bumps up the average. But if 21K is absolute max, then there's no chance of a 22K or 23K crowd to boost our average. The Stanferd match is going to jack up our attendance average nicely this season, but we won't have that option in the Epicenter, unless we continue to play the odd game at Stanferd, or some other larger venue. So on the whole, I'd like the capacity to be higher, 22K or 23K seats, with room to expand. But that's not in the cards. And I think that we could average over 18K. Of course, the question is can we average over 21K, and that might not be possible. (At least, not without some extravagant match at Stanferd or elsewhere.) GO QUAKES!!! - Mark
We'll always have that option. And after 2014 we'll have an even bigger, more plush option available at the Niners new stadium. I think I even remember Lew mentioning something to that effect that they'd continue to explore the occasional big game even after the Epicenter opens. Which frankly I didn't like at first, but after Stanford this year I think is a must. We got so much positive press about the Stanford game from sources that normally ignore the Quakes that it would be stupid not to continue do at least one "event" game every year if just for the press and non-traditional fan coverage those big games get.
I think you may be right about this. Still, it's better to play all of your home dates at one stadium, don't you think? In any case ... BUILD IT NOW!! - Mark
Not necessarily. As long as the "big" stadium is one of the two big south bay stadiums with real grass, Stanford or Santa Clara Stadium, I don't see a problem. Now going up to San Francisco to play at a baseball park like we did in March, or going to those dumps at Candlestick and the Coliseum which are 50 miles from home for regular season games, that's a problem. Friendlies or exhibition games to spread the Quakes "footprint" that's one thing. But competitive games should be played at either the Epicenter or at the very least in the south bay.