For the first time in thirteen years, the Super Bowl will be played in the West Coast, and the San Francisco area will be host to it's first Super Bowl in 31 years.
The stadium presently under construction for the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara, California, has been rewarded the big game, which will mark the 50th anniversary of the Super Bowl. There was a chance that it would return to the original city (Los Angeles) that hosted the first ever Super Bowl, and even the same stadium was entertained, for a while. But this at least is in the same state.
Also, it is the first Super Bowl since Super Bowl XXXVII (Tampa Bay defeated Oakland, 48-21) where we have a good chance at seeing the West Coast sunshine.
Now, I am not one of those people who fantasize about the warmth and sun of California, or enjoy the image of it's glory, with celebrities and the wealthy (particularly in southern California's Orange County). In fact, it seems so superficial as to be a major turnoff. I have known people for whom this was appealing, and even known some people who packed up everything and moved to the West Coast. Some of them were really, really fascinated by that whole image. In a couple of cases, a couple of friends dreamed that they might themselves "make it big" and join that elite, glamorous lifestyle. But for me, it was always a turn off.
That said, I always found West Coast Super Bowls appealing. There is just something about seeing that warm West Coast sunshine in the middle of an East Coast winter. Somehow, that did feel glorious (for sports), but in the right way. It seemed like a big deal. I remember when my New York Giants finally made it to their first ever Super Bowl. It was in Pasadena, and the sunshine was absolutely brilliant. Indeed, it felt like they were being rewarded for such an unbelievable season, well before even the kickoff officially started the game.
When the Giants took the field, I was excited, and that sunshine really seemed to enhance the experience. It was something just to think that they were going to be playing on the same field that the dynasty Steelers had won their last Super Bowl in not very much longer before that day, or the same field that the Oakland Raiders and Washington Redskins won their first in. It just felt right, somehow.
Now, I have nothing against Florida, but man, they have had a hell of a lot of Super Bowls played there. One of the problems (to me) is that, while those games usually are on natural grass, which is still easily the best because it is the most natural, aesthetically appealing, and honors tradition, it also tends to be night games. There is just something nice about seeing a bit of daylight.
I am not saying that every single Super Bowl should be played out West. Not by a long shot. But not every Super Bowl should be played either in southern Florida, or in some dome. I do not have anything against Florida, but I admit to having a problem with games played in a dome. They sound different, and they look different. Let me be more specific: they look boring. The weather never changes, everything is always under control. And, frankly, I just think that football was a game meant to be played outdoors. It is shocking to me that this upcoming Super Bowl will be the first one played in a cold weather region, given that the entire sport originated as a cold weather sport, with championship games time and again in places like Green Bay, Chicago, New York, and Cleveland. Hardly glamorous places, right? But those are the roots.
There should be more variety in locations. I am very glad that the New York/New Jersey area will host the Super Bowl, but I wonder why not some other places? Why not Boston, for example? Why not Chicago? Why not Seattle, or Denver, or Green Bay (yes, I'm serious about this)? And no, I am not advocating building a dome in any of those places. I'm advocating playing those games right out in the elements, and honoring how the game has been played throughout it's history. If it rains, it rains. if it pours, so be it. If it snows, then that's just part of the package, mack. If one team is from a cold weather area, and the other is from some warm place, or plays in a dome, does that make it an unfair advantage? Well, that's part of the game, too. When the season wraps up, it's wintertime. More often than not, the championship games for both conferences seem to wind up being played in places like New England, Denver, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Philadelphia, New York, Green Bay, Washington, and other cold weather areas. Most of the Super Bowls have been played by cold weather teams, as well. So, why not Super Bowls outright played in cold weather areas? Makes sense to me.
Now, it's cold, of course. But there are other major events played in cold weather, and nobody tries to change the location because of this, but rather understand it's part of the game, part of the event. When the NHL holds an outdoor "Winter Classic" game. Or the Winter Olympics. These events draw a hell of a lot of people, in both attendance and television viewership. Are you going to tell me that people will not go to the Super Bowl, or will not watch it, if it is in a cold weather area?
Now, as far as this new stadium is concerned, it presents an opportunity to discuss something that has been bothering me for some time no, because one thing that I find alarming is the seeming race for the new "Number One" stadium. The Super Dome in New Orleans used to be considered the "eight wonder in the world". Eventually, Houston built something that outdid it. Then, I remember Arizona's new stadium being the technological wonder of it's age, just a few years later. Not to be outdone, Dallas built their beloved Cowboys a new stadium, a state of the at facility meant to be the envy of the league. Then, the New York area got a new, glittering Stadium that became the centerpiece of the league.
Other new stadiums offered some glitz, and had their turn in the spotlight with showcase stadiums, some of which even hosted the Super Bowl themselves. There was the new stadium in Tampa, complete with a pirate ship. Indianapolis got a new stadium, and hosted a recent Super Bowl there. Gillette Stadium in New England, and Lincoln Field in Philadelphia. Washington got a new stadium, and both Soldier Field and Lambeau Field were modernized, in a noble effort to at least keep the original stadiums (and traditions) alive. In fact, the vast majority of teams have new stadiums, complete with the all-important luxury boxes and suites that seem to be the flavor of the moment now, catering to the wealthiest clientele. Very few teams do not have either a new stadium, or some kind of deal in the works for a new stadium. The 49ers and Vikings are getting their new stadiums. That leaves a handful of teams with supposedly old, outdated and antiquated stadiums that will be viewed as unserviceable (meaning, stadiums that were around before the 1990's). The Buffalo Bills. The Kansas City Chiefs. The San Diego Chargers. The New Orleans Saints. Four teams out of 32 in the NFL, and that's just the NFL. Quite a few other teams have gotten shiny new stadium or arena deals in the other sports, too.
Hell, the Falcons are apparently getting a new stadium, and their dome is only a little over twenty years old. That seems recent to me. There was one basketball arena for the Charlotte Hornets that lasted all of fourteen years!
Now, San Francisco is having it's turn.
Who's next? Maybe Atlanta, where the glittering new dome they built for the Falcons in the early nineties is already apparently a completely outdated piece of crap, and a new stadium is desperately needed. At least, that is, if you believe that kind of thing.
There used to be a race for skyscrapers to dominate the landscape, and every city wanted the new, tallest structure in the world. The Chrysler Building overtook the Eiffel Tower, and was itself overtaken by the Empire State Building. Not only was it not the tallest structure in the world anymore, it was not even the tallest within the same city.Then, it was the Sears Tower, the Twin Towers, the CN Tower, and now, the Dubai Tower, although other towers are still being built in other cities (mostly, in the Far East, or the Middle East, although New York just welcomed the new Freedom Tower).
Yes, it used to be skyscrapers. Before that, it used to be palaces, castles, and cathedrals.
No more. Now, it is housing our sports franchises, no matter the cost. There are millions of homeless and impoverished throughout the land, but we are more willing to sacrifice for that glittering new stadium to be home for our favorite teams. Now, in a modified version of "keeping up with the Joneses", we have communities competing for the best, most sophisticated and high tech, most luxurious new glitzy stadium to be the envy of the sports world - at least until some other stadium takes it's place a few years later.
In any case, this stadium is already being built, and I will say that I am actually glad to see the Super Bowl back on the West Coast, in the open air (not in the domed ceiling in Arizona, in a stadium where, even when the roof is open, there is limited sunshine, something that seems a bit counterintuitive to me, considering that it is sunny and spacious southern Arizona). It should be nice to see the game back in the beautiful San Francisco area, although I sure hope that the local football team there won't be one of the participants (or if they have to be there, hopefully they will lose).
Also, I will give credit where it is due: the stadium was designed to be the most environmentally friendly stadium in the land. you can read about it in Martha Mendoza's article (see below, or the link below that). Given that this is the free spirited San Francisco area, I think that it is in keeping with the region's traditional progressive politics. It seems fitting, and very positive, although I am still not a big fan of this popular trend to scrap old, historic stadiums for newer ones. I am a Giants fan, and liked the old Giants Stadium. Nothing wrong with it, and it seemed perfectly serviceable to me for another few decades at least. I only saw Candlestick from the outside, but like that it was in downtown San Francisco, and although I'm not a fan of the 49ers, it was nonetheless the place that saw some truly magic moments, such as "The Catch". I felt that was with some other sports arenas, such as the Maple Leaf Gardens, the Forum, the Boston Garden, the old Yankee Stadium (although I am not a fan of the Yankees, either), Shea Stadium (the Beatles played the first outdoor rock concert there, for God's sake!), the old Brendan Byrne Arena (presently the Izod Center, although it has had numerous corporate name changes), Veteran's Stadium, RFK Stadium, Texas Stadium, the Orange Bowl, Three Rivers Stadium, Mile High Stadium, Riverfront Stadium, Sun Devil Stadium, and perhaps some others that are not immediately coming to mind.
I am not opposed to new stadiums, per se. But it seems that the taxpayer is always stuck with a large portion of the bill, and that, more often than not, these are a product of greed, more than anything else. It is not unheard of that sports franchises will effectively threaten to leave their host city for greener pastures, unless they get their way with a new stadium deal. That is how the Minnesota Vikings recently got a deal for their soon to be built, glimmering new stadium. Perhaps soon, it will host a Super Bowl for the league to showcase the benefits of new stadium construction. Would it be all that surprising?
Plus, the whole corporate bidding for naming rights is reaching preposterous levels. It all just seems reflective of what sports have become - instead of modest, functional stadiums (with some picturesque exceptions, such as Chicago's Soldier Field), we have these elaborate and very expensive stadiums that serve as status symbols, and cater to the wealthy, and have names to promote corporate culture. Given that sports itself has lost touch with it's roots and that the focus all around is money, money, money and raking in profits, it seems fitting.
Maybe it's just a passing trend, but we shall see.
In any case, hopefully, this stadium in San Francisco is going to be the environmentally friendly gem that it is being billed to be. I just feel bad for 49ers fans that now will have to travel that long distance (something that is most certainly not environmentally friendly) and surely will have to pay exorbitant prices just to see their favorite team. Maybe I'm the only one (and keep in mind, in fairness, that i have never actually been in the stadium), but I will miss old Candlestick Park, much like I miss the old Giants Stadium.
I also miss when sports used to just be fun.
Super Bowl 50 will be in smartest stadium in NFL
By MARTHA MENDOZA (AP National Writer) | The Associated Press – Tue, May 28, 2013 8:15 PM EDT
SANTA CLARA, Calif. (AP) -- Goodbye cold, grungy Candlestick Park. Hello high tech, shiny new Levi's Stadium.
Fifty-four years after $32 million Candlestick Park opened, the 49ers are building a new, $1.2 billion showcase of a stadium which is almost twice as big, wired to the hilt, and opening its doors just in time to host Super Bowl 50 in the heart of the Silicon Valley.
Arriving just five years after Cowboys Stadium, Jerry Jones' $1 billion showcase for his club, the 49ers are aiming to redefine state of the art, as team officials made clear on a recent tour.
''If you're a fan and you go to Candlestick, then you will really appreciate this new stadium,'' said project executive Jack Hill, standing on the building's 200-foot-high roof, gazing out at the south tip of the San Francisco Bay. ''It's going to be the crowning glory of the NFL.''
The airy, open stadium had an intimate feel; with the largest lower bowl in the league, the 68,500 fans are close to the action. And that closeness is mutual. When players burst through the blowing smoke and blasting music on game day, they'll be able to make eye contact with every seat, even the corner nosebleeds who are dwarfed beneath some of the largest high definition jumbotrons in the league.
''This stadium is tremendous for the team. It helps strengthen the brand, because the one negative thing about the 49ers has always been Candlestick Park,'' said University of Southern California professor Jeff Fellenzer, who teaches sports, business and media.
The steep construction bills are being paid by $800 million in seat and luxury box sales, along with a 20-year, $220 million naming rights agreement with Levi Strauss and Co. announced May 8, clinching a partnership with the company that added copper rivets to denim pants 150 years ago to create the first blue jeans for California's rugged gold miners, the so-called 49ers. A few weeks later, the NFL chose the stadium for the 2016 Super Bowl.
While they're in the black now, funding for the stadium has come with its share of rancor.
''Our city has long deferred more important projects,'' wrote resident Bill Bailey on the anti-stadium organization's Santa Clara Plays Fair website. Bailey heads the coalition of Santa Clara residents concerned that accommodating the 49ers draws funds away from critical needs like public libraries. ''We believe that Santa Clara should not tax its citizens, increase its debt, or allocate land or any other valuable assets to build a stadium.''
The 49ers and the city of Santa Clara initially partnered to build the stadium, with voters approving a $30 million public investment of redevelopment funds. Those funds were unexpectedly yanked by county officials last summer, after Gov. Jerry Brown eliminated all redevelopment agencies in the state.
The 49ers sued after county officials said the $30 million needed to go to public schools and other agencies, and a court-approved deal was struck: the public agencies received half of the money they wanted, and the 49ers agreed to collect the $30 million over a longer period.
Team officials still are happier with their new home than the old one.
Notoriously blustery, with fog and wind blowing off the adjacent bay, Candlestick Park, or ''The 'Stick,'' took another hit in 2011 when a pair of blackouts left fans in the dark for more than 20 minutes. It's value is nil: weeks after the last 49ers game next season, the owners plan to blow it up.
EJ Narcise, a principal at Team Services, LLC, a naming rights sports marketing sales and consulting firm in Rockville, Md., said the new stadium should bring new revenue to a team that is been in the bottom third of the NFL in that category.
''Look, they're a great team, but they have missed the revenues generated from the luxury seats, the premiums suites, the concession upgrades and the entertainment,'' he said.
The 49ers, meanwhile, are trying to make their building the most environmentally friendly stadium in the league. Solar panels will gather enough power so that even on Super Bowl Sunday they won't need to pull electricity from the grid. The grass field and toilets use recycled water, the turf is geothermic, a bicycle valet and racks will welcome cyclists who can pedal in bike paths from miles around, even from the airport.
Today, the 50-yard line is loaded with shipping containers, trucks and port-a-potties to support the 1,100 construction workers buzzing around the site. But the grass is already growing on a turf farm about 90 minutes away, and should be rolled out next March.
A few blocks from the stadium, at the 49ers showcase and sales office, fans on Friday took a virtual stadium walk through at a nine-foot digital touch wall, and sat in a mock-up suite before pulling out their credit cards one after another to buy the rights to eventually buy tickets. Before they did, they had a chance to see a 3-D version of what their view of the stadium would be.
''We're pretty excited. This stadium looks amazing, and it's so close to our home,'' said Jojo Daquigan, a postal worker in San Jose, who with his wife Cristina, a nurse, had just paid $5,000 in one-time fees for midlevel corner seats.
In keeping with its Silicon Valley base of support, the 49ers' assumption is that fans will be carrying smartphones, so the place will be entirely cash free and ticketless. Software engineers are already building apps for cellphones that will allow fans to order food, watch instant replays, listen to play by play and check bathroom lines from their seats.
And about those bathroom lines? Here, Levi's Stadium offers a definite upgrade: 1,135 toilets, up from Candlestick's 885.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/super-bowl-50-smartest-stadium-195520531--nfl.html
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/48896152/
No comments:
Post a Comment