Did SF lose anything with departing 49ers? (San Jose, San Francisco: home, neighborhoods)

[edsg25]

Did San Francisco lose anything with the departing 49ers? For a long time, I thought the answer was probably "yes". Now, I'm beginning to realize that probably is not the case.

Why?

1. The 49ers, in many ways, left San Francisco years ago when they moved from Kezar to Candlestick. Lonely Candlestick point at the very outskirts of SF was always SFINO: San Francisco in name only.

2. Cities get far more bang for the buck with baseball parks than they do with football stadiums. Baseball is a long, long season with endless home games. People who go to baseball games often go to restaurants, stores, etc., around the park. especially in this era of downtown parks. The NFL has only 8 regular season home games. They're played on Sunday, and tend to be more in and out, as people drive to the games. besides if they do anything at the game outside the stadium, it is tail gating. Besides, baseball parks now relate to their surroundings; baseball outfields are frequently surrounded by the shortest of stands, bringing the vistas in. NFL stadiums, in contrast, tend to be surrounded by seats all around; you can't tell where you are.

3. The 49ers always were the Bay Area's team, every bit as much as being San Francisco's. Most of the fan base is out of the city anyway.

4. The Cowboys are pure Dallas; nobody cares that they play in Arlington. The Giants and Jets are pure New York and they don't even play their games in state. Who gives thought that teams like Washington and Miami don't play within city limits. While they play in Foxboro and call themselves New England, everybody knows the Patriots are Boston's team.

5. In reality, there was no good location to build a new stadium for the 49ers in SF. The Candlestick Point/Hunters Point area was pushed by the city; the team was never enthusiastic about it. And why should it have been: there were serious environmental concerns. eliminate these sections of SF, where else could a stadium gone (and remember: this is NFL, not MLB, and NFL stadiums need a sea of parking lots)

6. And ultimately: the 49ers are still the San Francisco 49ers. Nobody is going to be thinking of Santa Clara when they watch the 49ers. They are San Francisco. And if the new stadium hosts a super bowl, it will be San Francisco that is the host city. Just like if there is a parade when the 49ers win their next SB, it will be in San Francisco.

So, what do you think? You don't have to be a 49er fan or even a football fan to assess the effect of the new stadium on the city. Did SF lose anything or not?

[ccm123]

I am a 49'er fan, and I think that the 49'ers are ultimately a "Bay Area" team. With that being said, folks would enjoy seeing them play at the new stadium just as much as at Candlestick Park. By moving to the new stadium, they are still here in the Bay Area.

For me, it would be easier to commute to the new stadium (using VTA) than it would be to Candlestick.

[Ankhharu]

I agree, there was no good location to put it in SF. Just not enough room. I don't get all the fuss about them "moving away". You listed several teams and there are several others that don't actually play in the city limits or even state of the place they represent. So it's not that big of a deal. Sure it's longer commute, but Candlestick was a nightmare to get out of after a game. They still represent the city of San Francisco.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by edsg25

4. The Cowboys are pure Dallas; nobody cares that they play in Arlington. The Giants and Jets are pure New York and they don't even play their games in state. Who gives thought that teams like Washington and Miami don't play within city limits. While they play in Foxboro and call themselves New England, everybody knows the Patriots are Boston's team.

6. And ultimately: the 49ers are still the San Francisco 49ers. Nobody is going to be thinking of Santa Clara when they watch the 49ers. They are San Francisco. And if the new stadium hosts a super bowl, it will be San Francisco that is the host city. Just like if there is a parade when the 49ers win their next SB, it will be in San Francisco.

[edsg25]

unlike the Cowboys (apparently), I think the 49ers themselves said that SF would their host city. Not taking away anything from Dallas which is a major and successful city, but its dynamics are not the same as San Francisco. San Francisco is far more iconic, draws on far more visuals, has far more essence.

Selling San Francisco as the host works. I'd suspect a Meadowlands SB would be hosted by NYC.

[dragontales]

Hope the city of Santa Clara ain't bitter about building the 49ers a new palace but yet ain't the host city. I'm sure they knew this all along going into this big project.

[Senno]

Originally Posted by dragontales

Hope the city of Santa Clara ain't bitter about building the 49ers a new palace but yet ain't the host city. I'm sure they knew this all along going into this big project.

Hehhehe... The Santa Clara 49ers wouldn't quite have the same cachet.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Did San Francisco lose anything with the departing 49ers? For a long time, I thought the answer was probably "yes". Now, I'm beginning to realize that probably is not the case.

Why?

1. The 49ers, in many ways, left San Francisco years ago when they moved from Kezar to Candlestick. Lonely Candlestick point at the very outskirts of SF was always SFINO: San Francisco in name only.

2. Cities get far more bang for the buck with baseball parks than they do with football stadiums. Baseball is a long, long season with endless home games. People who go to baseball games often go to restaurants, stores, etc., around the park. especially in this era of downtown parks. The NFL has only 8 regular season home games. They're played on Sunday, and tend to be more in and out, as people drive to the games. besides if they do anything at the game outside the stadium, it is tail gating. Besides, baseball parks now relate to their surroundings; baseball outfields are frequently surrounded by the shortest of stands, bringing the vistas in. NFL stadiums, in contrast, tend to be surrounded by seats all around; you can't tell where you are.

3. The 49ers always were the Bay Area's team, every bit as much as being San Francisco's. Most of the fan base is out of the city anyway.

4. The Cowboys are pure Dallas; nobody cares that they play in Arlington. The Giants and Jets are pure New York and they don't even play their games in state. Who gives thought that teams like Washington and Miami don't play within city limits. While they play in Foxboro and call themselves New England, everybody knows the Patriots are Boston's team.

5. In reality, there was no good location to build a new stadium for the 49ers in SF. The Candlestick Point/Hunters Point area was pushed by the city; the team was never enthusiastic about it. And why should it have been: there were serious environmental concerns. eliminate these sections of SF, where else could a stadium gone (and remember: this is NFL, not MLB, and NFL stadiums need a sea of parking lots)

6. And ultimately: the 49ers are still the San Francisco 49ers. Nobody is going to be thinking of Santa Clara when they watch the 49ers. They are San Francisco. And if the new stadium hosts a super bowl, it will be San Francisco that is the host city. Just like if there is a parade when the 49ers win their next SB, it will be in San Francisco.

So, what do you think? You don't have to be a 49er fan or even a football fan to assess the effect of the new stadium on the city. Did SF lose anything or not?

I agree with much of what you say, but SF to Santa Clara will be much further than any other stadium from its host city: NYC to the meadowlands/Seacaucus is just about 10 miles (you can still easily see the NYC skyline), Dallas to Arlington is less than 20 miles, Foxborough to Boston is around 30 miles, and SF to Santa Clara is around 45-50 miles. Not that it matters that much, but it is really far from the host city (in a completely different "MSA" even...although, anyone who thinks SF and SJ aren't connected seamlessly is a fool who doesn't know anything about the Bay Area).

I personally think the new trend of building stadiums near/in downtown areas (as many of the new NFL stadiums have been built) is really cool, and I do wonder what a new state of the art stadium would have looked like in SF (obviously, this is just in my head as this was never proposed). I also like seeing stadiums in the host city to preserve the history of the team in that city...it's just my personal preference. I'm not a really a 49ers fan (I'll cheer for them in big games), but I do really admire and like storied franchises, and I like seeing them preserve some of that history. That being said, Candlestick is a dump and they need (have needed for a long time) a new stadium badly...and there realistically aren't many other great options in SF for a stadium (other than Mission Bay or Hunters point), so I can totally understand the logic/rational for moving away.

I do wonder what will come of Candlestick and the HP area after they move away. Has anyone seen plans for that?

[silverkris]

The 49ers haven't really been in the city of SF for a few decades now (other than playing at the 'Stick). The only reason they've been in SF for this long was because one-time team president Lou Spadia in the 1960s promised the widows of the Morabito brothers (who founded the team some 60 years ago) that he would keep the team in the city of San Francisco (they moved to Candlestick Park in 1971 from Kezar Stadium).

I don't think staging football games at Candlestick has really benefited the city of SF all that much, and certainly the neighborhoods nearby haven't really gotten much benefits either. Football fans tend to tailgate in the lot and rarely go downtown for eats afterwards, unlike baseball fans.

Having the stadium in Santa Clara does make sense since the team's offices are over there. The fan base is also no longer centered in the city so geographically it doesn't matter all that much.

[matt345]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

although, anyone who thinks SF and SJ aren't connected seamlessly is a fool who doesn't know anything about the Bay Area

Uh oh...don't tell the San Jose people that...