"Doing nothing is another option." Yup, welcome to SJ politics. "Other than FMC, "there are no other particular sites out there at this point, but who knows what will happen over the next few weeks," White said. The city bought 75 acres of the former FMC plant in two transactions in 2005 and 2006, at a total cost of $81.5 million. "
Meaning, of course, that there really are other particular San Jose sites out there as well at this point which the public will likely find out about as the weeks go by. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
I know its been discussed, but is this 49er stadium-share talk have any traction? This new article says that Wolf is interested in talking when SJ potentials are exhausted.
At this point, not really. Partly because Wolff is rightfully aggressively looking at San Jose sites right now, and partly because the proposed 49ers stadium will still be going through many hoops for the foreseeable future. Actually, the article says that Wolff is open to the possibility of accepting the Niners' suggestion to share their stadium with him if none of the potential SJ sites pan out. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
A roof. But you do bring up a good point: the nearby airport noise and the potential leftover toxicity are the two main things that concern me about that particular site as well. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
I was thinking about this site also. I think it came up as a possibility during the 11th hour negotations with SVS&E and the city. One advantage to this idea is that it makes it more apparent (relative to the SJSU plan) that it would be a trade - some industrial development (sports / entertainment industry) here for a rezoning to residential there. Hopefully the city council would take that into consideration when debating Edenvale.
Anybody else see the non sequitur here? Essentially, Reed is saying that the Quakes would have to pay "market value" for land that is essentially worthless right now to the city, because of a lack of interest. Typical politician - However, there is an out - if a long-term lease is an option, I believe this could be negotiated in a way that could work for the Quakes while saving face for the city as well. While I'm not exactly holding my breath, I think there is merit to this as a site for a stadium (including the fact that it's very convenient to casa bsman)...
Does this mean the City of San Jose would not permanently sell the land? Would a new SSS only be around for 30 years before the Quakes would have to find another home?
While the location, to me anyway, would be less than ideal, the mere fact that the city appears to be actively looking at and discussing options for a soccer stadium is encouraging.
If soccer grows in the next twenty years like it has in the past twenty years, EVERY soccer specific stadium built by MLS will need to be replaced by stadiums in the 35 to 45K range.
Full props to JMichaels for being the first to come up with this site!! https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=525405 (Post #5 is where we begin the debate) In fact, this gives me a chance to recycle my joke from that thread, which was unjustly unappreciated (in my humble opinion): That site is so close to the airport . . . Crowd: How close is it? It's so close that you have to get there 90 minutes before game time, and 2 hours before international matches! Thank you! I'm here all week! Please tip your waitress!
I'm not sure about the noise at that location as the stadium would be built right next to the landing strip. At that point instead of planes flying overhead as they would at Spartan or even if it were built for example at Guadlaupe Gardens, I would tend to think the noise should a lot less. Just my opinion here as I have no scientific knowledge on the air plane noise... My uncle worked at FMC and he saw a lot of planes but never herd too many as the take off was way down in Santa Clara and the landing was over HWY 880..... Anyway, I didn't want to start a new thread on the subject so I'll list it here: Wouldn't San Jose have beaten Chivas, NY & especially KC in attendance so far this season? ATTENDANCE Team: average home attendance Los Angeles: 25,298 Toronto FC: 20,148 D.C. United: 16,511 Real Salt Lake: 15,949 Houston: 15,438 FC Dallas: 14,584 New England: 13,846 Colorado: 13,638 Columbus: 13,548 Chicago: 13,535 Chivas USA: 12,802 New York: 10,673 Kansas City: 7,432 Leaguewide: 32 games
That's a necessity. If the city gives the land away or leases it at cheapo rates, then that counts as a subsidy that would have to be approved by a public vote.
I'm sure that land can not be used for residential ......I doubt the city can do anything with it....
That would be great! I have recently splurged on the fancy digital cable and have been catching Premiership and La Liga matches and have been impressed with the larger stadiums and crowds.
I worked at FMC for 2 year and the noise was deafening and constant. Traffic on Coleman ave came to a hault at "rush" hour and the vibration from the planes taking off shook the building on a daily basis. All cement, no grass for tailgating unless they plant an entire field of it. Traffic sucks worse now that the Costco is right there and it doesn't get any better on Saturdays, God help us if it's a Thursday night game. This is not a prime location.
Could definitely happen, but are you basing your rate of growth by the fact that we went from 0 to say 14k in 20 years? I think the "0" is a special case because there was no real "major league" 20 years ago. I think growth will be a bit slower than what would occur to require 35 - 45k in 20 years.
OK, in all seriousness, this site does have some advantages. First, it's right by the Santa Clara Caltrain/ACE station. Presumably, it can be accessed by a pedestrian bridge over the train tracks. It's also right nearby several freeways. This is a good thing. Second, it is apparently no longer a soupcon of toxic waste. Again, good, and the city won't be thinking of making it housing. Third, the article states that the airport is leasing two-thirds of the 75-acre site. Anybody know which two-thirds? Perhaps this lease agreement is public record and we could find out how much they're paying per acre? Fourth . . . OK, this isn't so much an advantage. But the site is right by the airport. I think falvo is right in that planes landing towards the southeast point of the runway are a lot quieter than planes taking off of the northwest point. The most northerly point of the FMC property is closest to the midpoint of the runway, but most of it is towards the southeast. So airplane noise shouldn't be an issue. But here's a question regarding the airport: what about the stadium lights? Aren't they a flight hazard for planes? I'm not necessarily talking about light towers; even if the lights were mounted on a roof right above the stands, would the FAA sign off on that?
How bad is the airport noise on Saturday nights? I have to think that there aren't a lot of planes taking off at that time. I hate to say it, but we may be at the point where beggars can't be choosers.
I'm basing it on a general consciousness of soccer in this country and the demographics. In twenty years fathers who grew up with MLS will be taking their kids to games. As the profitability of MLS improves, player salaries will increase and we will be better able to attract and keep top players. I think crowd of 40K in major markets and crowds of 25k in smaller markets are the target for 20 years from now.