News: In bid to preserve Earthquakes stadium plan, San Jose agrees to revise land deal

I don't think this is accurate and if we have any Houston fans in here to correct this have at it. My understanding is the city bought the land, and is contributing 10 million for infrastructure. The stadium itself is going to cost 80 million, of which the city is contributing another 10 million and Harris county is also contributing another 10 million. It's definitely not being constructed 100% on the Dynamo's dime though.

 

Actually I think that's a leaked image of the new iPhone.

It's running the SSS app.

 

The first, second and third ones listed are excellent examples and I'd be very happy with any one of them. The fourth one is a nightmare and the fifth one isn't much better than that. Small doesn't have to mean ugly. Given a choice I'd go with #3 followed by #2.

 

And I'd be very happy with a million bucks and a harem. Again, its not going to have a roof, and its only going to be three sided.

Just build the damn thing, $150 million stadiums for MLS are such overkill.

 

Well the Quakes FO agrees with you since the stadium structure (not including the price of land) will cost $60 million. But what's being pointed out above is that 60 mil doesn't preclude having a roof. And according to David Alioto the Quakes will have some form of roof.

 

Support from the local rag:

Editorial: Let's hope San Jose soccer deal means stadium construction soon - SJ Mercury News

Git 'er done.
Make it so.
So say we all.

 

After seeing the Quakes leave town and win 2 MLS Cups, I just want the damn stadium built, so that this team FINALLY has some permanent roots in the Bay Area.

I have seen the roof for RSL's new stadium. And Colorado's. And the Home Depot Center's. They're so far above the stands they all look like they do nothing well--they don't protect from the weather and they don't retain the sounds of the crowd.

If that's the kind of roof they have in store, I'd just as soon say, "No thanks."

But I will say this: the stadium will be right next to a busy airport. Shouldn't we have a roof to keep any jet engine sounds out?

 

I agree on getting it done. Roof or not we need it ASAP for stability sake. That said a roof would be nice near the airport, but it's by no means a necessity. I've been out to the site many times and the airplane sounds are minimal mainly due to the site being along side the airport rather than under the flight path.

 

Nowhere in my post did I say you did. I just used your post as a preface to make a general point.

I did read your post. Bathrooms and concessions, if added, should not be a huge chunk of an upgrade budget. I'm sure if Saputo was expanded, those amenities (incl. luxury boxes) would be included. But my point is to many (not saying you), they would still consider it a glorified high school stadium because of some people's unrealistic expectations.

BMO Field and Crew Stadium get criticized in much the same way even though they both have premium suites just because they may not be as aesthetically pleasing.

 

Who asked you?

 

Common sense ruling the day in San Jose.

I hope this goes through, and it looks positive.

Stadium situations:
I. Teams in their own stadium's (8: Columbus, LA, Chivas, Dallas, Chicago, Colorado, Toronto, Salt Lake).
----------------------------------------------
II. Under Construction: when done, we'll have 11 in their own parks.
A. NY: Red Bull Arena: under construction.
B. Philly: Chester Stadium: under construction.
C. KC: Hillcrest Road: demolition on site started
----------------------------------------------------
III. Closing in but not quite a done deal yet: this would bring the total to 13.
A. Houston: very, very close to a done deal.
B. San Jose: council can approve the deal next month.
----------------------------------------------------------
IV. Deal on the table but have issues.
A. Portland: seems to be a few million short
-------------------------------------------------------
V. Sharing with a Pointy-Ball team, but OK (co-owned or pushing for a new stadium).
A. New England. Making some noises, but not in bad situation.
B. Seattle. No noise about doing anything, but situation is better than NE (downtown).
C. Vancouver. Still say they are pursuing the waterfront option.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Up a creek?
A. DC.

 

I'd put Chivas down near the bottom. They're paying rent, and they don't get to keep all the ancillary revenues. There situation is better than DC United's - but once that situation gets sorted out, I'd think they'd be the next team in the crosshairs.

 

I know people have concerns about the reported capacity, but personally I think Wolff is doing exactly the right thing. From it's earliest days, MLS has been concerned about the "rattle factor" -- small, but typical crowds in big stadiums. Too many empty seats suck the life out of the crowd, the energy out of the game and don't look good on TV. Smaller soccer specific stadiums improve the presentation, but we've all seen small crowds in those stadiums that don't look too appealing either.

What I like about Wolff's concept is that the Quakes could, with effective marketing, keep a 15,000 seat stadium 90%+ full with actual live breathing I paid for my ticket fans. The trick now is to use that to present the game to its best advantage.

Now we move into aesthetics and personal preferences, but I would think about the design as four separate stands. On the sides, I would go with steep, double deck stands, each seating about 6,000 people, although I'd sandwich a few boxes between the decks on one of them, which would reduce the general admissions capacity. And yes, I'd put roofs on them.

Designed this way, even small stands can look massive. I've posted this before, but take a look again at Aalborg's small stadium (the first minute gives you a good sense, but beware there is a streaker near the end of the video, so it may not be work friendly):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL2Z7VaKBnY"]YouTube - AaB - Brøndby 3-2 (14-04-07)[/ame]


Every time I've posted this, people are surprised that the main stand with the banner -- the Nordjyske Tribune -- seats only 4,981 people, although it looks much larger because it is strongly vertical thanks to the steep stands. It puts fans right on top of the field, and it looks great on TV. If you watched AaB play Manchester City recently in the UEFA Cup, you got a chance to see it for yourself, and even the British announcers commented how good the effect was. Still, this entire stadium seats only about 10,500 (13,800 with standing sections) and is hardly fancy. It does its job cost effectively, and it looks very good doing it IMO. The single deck ends make the stadium easy to expand too -- just double deck them in the future if need be.

Although it's a little bigger (it seats 11 764, with 5,000 standing on the ends) the new Borås Arena, home to Sweden's IF Elfsborg which was noted in an earlier post, does much the same thing. I'm not sure the earlier photo did it justice. Again, the main stands seat between 5 - 6,000 people, but they look much, much larger IMO (from wikipedia):





Here are some more:

http://www.stadiumzone.net/s/sweden4.html


Again, look at how large the stand looks as the banner unfurls, and note how much bigger the stadium appears during a game (with apologies for the music, after the opening shot, you'll see some live action about 40 seconds in):


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm2tljM9AVc"]YouTube - IF Elfsborg[/ame]


Now, a word about roofs. Before 10 Shirt comes along, I have to say I think he's absolutely right. Roofs may keep the sun and rain off the fans, but they don't amplify sound. (They may cause it to reverberate, that is bounce around, but that's usually not a good thing for stadiums that also host concerts and architects try and combat it; a lot of effort went into doing just that at the new University of Phoenix Stadium). Having said that, my personal belief it that aside from the practical benefits of keeping out the elements, the sense of enclosure itself is what matters. Remember the rattle factor? I do think fans in enclosed spaces filled with other fans tend to behave differently, because the energy of those around them transfers more easily. For that reason alone, I think they are a luxury I would try and keep.

At any rate, I hope San Jose fans aren't too disappointed with the capacity. I look at it as an opportunity to do something different than the typical MLS design that may produce outstanding results.

Good luck.

 

Those are amazing examples triplet.

 

Does LAG get the rent? If so, its kind of like robbing Paul to pay Peter (or is it the other way around), and its kind of a wash, in terms of overall league revenues.

 

That's the way I've always seen it. Same thing with the Revs. They may pay rent at Gillette, but they pay it to another Kraft owned entity so the right hand is paying the left. Same with Qwest and Seattle.

 

AEG gets the rent. Not the same thing.

AEG's rent isn't part of overall league revenues and does nothing to help the Chivas I/O's succeed in their MLS business.

 

"At any rate, I hope San Jose fans aren't too disappointed with the capacity. I look at it as an opportunity to do something different than the typical MLS design that may produce outstanding results."

I'm just thrilled to have the team back. The stadium situation looks to be in good hands. Equally thrilled to see the old NASL names coming back...I wonder if Trevor Hockey can still lace 'em up!