[needle]

Well, this fall it will have been 10 years since the "new" Stanford Stadium hosted its first football game.

As someone who has made it to precious few games, I'm curious what people think generally about how well the place is holding up/aging?

The $100 million price tag really was a bargain.

http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=208446909

[needle]

Well, this fall it will have been 10 years since the "new" Stanford Stadium hosted its first football game.

As someone who has made it to precious few games, I'm curious what people think generally about how well the place is holding up/aging?

The $100 million price tag really was a bargain.

http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=208446909

[stupac2]

It compares pretty well to Jed's house of horrors in Santa Clara, so in that respect it's a good deal.

[stupac2]

It compares pretty well to Jed's house of horrors in Santa Clara, so in that respect it's a good deal.

[BrevinsBest]

It compares pretty well to Jed's house of horrors in Santa Clara, so in that respect it's a good deal.

I was actually going to make the same comparison. For a college football stadium it works. The sight lines are good. It gets cramped and lines get long when the stadium is full, but that's par for the course. It's cheaply designed and built, but functional.

Levi's stadium is pretty much a larger replication of Stanford Stadium. Cheaply designed. But for the NFL, it's horrible. There's no character, no soul. It's not loud (might be the fans, but also the design of the stadium) and in twenty years, the niners are going to want a new stadium.

[BrevinsBest]

It compares pretty well to Jed's house of horrors in Santa Clara, so in that respect it's a good deal.

I was actually going to make the same comparison. For a college football stadium it works. The sight lines are good. It gets cramped and lines get long when the stadium is full, but that's par for the course. It's cheaply designed and built, but functional.

Levi's stadium is pretty much a larger replication of Stanford Stadium. Cheaply designed. But for the NFL, it's horrible. There's no character, no soul. It's not loud (might be the fans, but also the design of the stadium) and in twenty years, the niners are going to want a new stadium.

[Langdude]

It's cheaply designed and built, but functional.

Could you expand on this? I am not denying your claim, but am genuinely curious concerning the "cheapness" of the stadium given my ignorance in the fields of design, architecture, engineering, etc.

-m.

[Langdude]

It's cheaply designed and built, but functional.

Could you expand on this? I am not denying your claim, but am genuinely curious concerning the "cheapness" of the stadium given my ignorance in the fields of design, architecture, engineering, etc.

-m.

[Oasis]

My last year as a season ticket holder was 2007.  My son and I went up to see us get massacred by UCLA.  That was really bad.  But the most horrible part of the game was the unbearable heat in our seats.  It wasn't just a matter of being uncomfortable.  You couldn't sit there.  So we had to find some shade, which we managed to do by sitting in some empty seats -- much to the anger of those sitting nearby, who apparently wanted wide open spaces as well as shade.

[Oasis]

My last year as a season ticket holder was 2007.  My son and I went up to see us get massacred by UCLA.  That was really bad.  But the most horrible part of the game was the unbearable heat in our seats.  It wasn't just a matter of being uncomfortable.  You couldn't sit there.  So we had to find some shade, which we managed to do by sitting in some empty seats -- much to the anger of those sitting nearby, who apparently wanted wide open spaces as well as shade.

[ChicagoCard]

At least that's one upside to all the night games.

[ChicagoCard]

At least that's one upside to all the night games.

[BostonCard]

Speaking of, here's an interesting article about how the old Stanford Stadium's hosting of the Superbowl the last time it was in the Bay Area helped evolve Superbowl hosting.

BC

[BostonCard]

Speaking of, here's an interesting article about how the old Stanford Stadium's hosting of the Superbowl the last time it was in the Bay Area helped evolve Superbowl hosting.

BC

[ColoradoTree]

My jaw dropped when I saw this thread subject.  It's really been 10 years?  It'll be falling apart by the time I actually see a game there!  (Living in Colorado makes going to home games tough.  I get the quadrennial game vs. CU in Boulder and I've been to both Rose Bowl wins the last few years, but I haven't caught a game in the now-not-so-new stadium.)

[ColoradoTree]

My jaw dropped when I saw this thread subject.  It's really been 10 years?  It'll be falling apart by the time I actually see a game there!  (Living in Colorado makes going to home games tough.  I get the quadrennial game vs. CU in Boulder and I've been to both Rose Bowl wins the last few years, but I haven't caught a game in the now-not-so-new stadium.)

[fullmetal]

i remember when the bowl was torn down...yup, the new one is 10 yrs old.  and i'm old too...!

[fullmetal]

i remember when the bowl was torn down...yup, the new one is 10 yrs old.  and i'm old too...!

[jacketree]

Pick any two.

A 50,000 seat stadium completed within a year for $100 million was quite a feat.  There are a number of reasons this was accomplished:

1. Some of the design was really clever.  I know the geotechnical engineer who came up with the mechanically stabilized earth solution that allowed the new footprint to fit in the old stadium while meeting all building codes, particularly seismic, without costing a fortune.

2. No fault trace directly through the middle of the stadium helps hold costs down.

3. John Arrillaga wields a lot of power in the South Bay development, real estate, engineering and heavy construction industries.  He called in a number of chits.

4. I recall the winter of '05-'06 as fairly mild.  Otherwise forget it.

5. Some of the design and construction is just really cheap.  The lead CM told a group of us that they initially thought the upper deck would actually be water tight based on what the sales people told them. Wrong. I recall the first lovely coke drips from above.  This is a really lightweight structure. It will be interesting to see how it ages.  Aluminum tends to due weird stuff as it oxides.

Stanford Stadium 2.0 is modeled after SMU's Gerald J. Ford Stadium.

[jacketree]

Pick any two.

A 50,000 seat stadium completed within a year for $100 million was quite a feat.  There are a number of reasons this was accomplished:

1. Some of the design was really clever.  I know the geotechnical engineer who came up with the mechanically stabilized earth solution that allowed the new footprint to fit in the old stadium while meeting all building codes, particularly seismic, without costing a fortune.

2. No fault trace directly through the middle of the stadium helps hold costs down.

3. John Arrillaga wields a lot of power in the South Bay development, real estate, engineering and heavy construction industries.  He called in a number of chits.

4. I recall the winter of '05-'06 as fairly mild.  Otherwise forget it.

5. Some of the design and construction is just really cheap.  The lead CM told a group of us that they initially thought the upper deck would actually be water tight based on what the sales people told them. Wrong. I recall the first lovely coke drips from above.  This is a really lightweight structure. It will be interesting to see how it ages.  Aluminum tends to due weird stuff as it oxides.

Stanford Stadium 2.0 is modeled after SMU's Gerald J. Ford Stadium.

[Mick]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14482.msg154374#msg154374 date=1453834145]
It compares pretty well to Jed's house of horrors in Santa Clara, so in that respect it's a good deal.

Levi's stadium is pretty much a larger replication of Stanford Stadium. Cheaply designed. But for the NFL, it's horrible. There's no character, no soul. It's not loud (might be the fans, but also the design of the stadium) and in twenty years, the niners are going to want a new stadium.
[/quote]


Well...I'm no fan of the Yorks, but "house of horrors" and "pretty much a larger replication of Stanford Stadium" are not really fair comments.  At least the "house of horrors" has beer sales, while the Wok on Stanford Campus doesn't allow alcohol.  And I remember that same UCLA game...you literally couldn't sit in the seats.

But apart from the booze, and the on-site art collection and sports museums, and the 68,500 seats and the 8,500 club seats and the 165 luxury suites and the fact that it is the first LEED-Gold certified stadium in the United States with displays featuring air, water, wind and other ecological meaures, and it was awarded 2015 Stadium of the Year by Sports Business Journal and 2015 Venue of the Year by Stadium Business Awards (Barcelona, Spain), and has a 27,000 square foot green tower atop and it has three solar bridge concourses connecting the parking areas with the stadium, uses 100% reclaimed wood, farm to table menus, reclaimed water for both potable and non-potable uses, a bourbon-steak pub, team stores, Michael Mina's tailgate, BNY Mellon Club, et. al., you're right, the two stadiums are pretty much identical.

[Mick]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14482.msg154374#msg154374 date=1453834145]
It compares pretty well to Jed's house of horrors in Santa Clara, so in that respect it's a good deal.

Levi's stadium is pretty much a larger replication of Stanford Stadium. Cheaply designed. But for the NFL, it's horrible. There's no character, no soul. It's not loud (might be the fans, but also the design of the stadium) and in twenty years, the niners are going to want a new stadium.
[/quote]


Well...I'm no fan of the Yorks, but "house of horrors" and "pretty much a larger replication of Stanford Stadium" are not really fair comments.  At least the "house of horrors" has beer sales, while the Wok on Stanford Campus doesn't allow alcohol.  And I remember that same UCLA game...you literally couldn't sit in the seats.

But apart from the booze, and the on-site art collection and sports museums, and the 68,500 seats and the 8,500 club seats and the 165 luxury suites and the fact that it is the first LEED-Gold certified stadium in the United States with displays featuring air, water, wind and other ecological meaures, and it was awarded 2015 Stadium of the Year by Sports Business Journal and 2015 Venue of the Year by Stadium Business Awards (Barcelona, Spain), and has a 27,000 square foot green tower atop and it has three solar bridge concourses connecting the parking areas with the stadium, uses 100% reclaimed wood, farm to table menus, reclaimed water for both potable and non-potable uses, a bourbon-steak pub, team stores, Michael Mina's tailgate, BNY Mellon Club, et. al., you're right, the two stadiums are pretty much identical.

[French Rage]

I like it.  Good sight lines everywhere, right on top of the action, especially if you have first row seats.  There doesn't seem to be any wear and tear, at least nothing too noticeable.

Interesting how well we've done on the last 8 or so years in it considering how poorly we did in the first two, especially the first one.

[French Rage]

I like it.  Good sight lines everywhere, right on top of the action, especially if you have first row seats.  There doesn't seem to be any wear and tear, at least nothing too noticeable.

Interesting how well we've done on the last 8 or so years in it considering how poorly we did in the first two, especially the first one.

[stupac2]

Mick, have you been to games at both? Levi's is just not as fun to attend.

(I believe the beer sales are an NCAA thing, also, not a Stanford decision.)

[stupac2]

Mick, have you been to games at both? Levi's is just not as fun to attend.

(I believe the beer sales are an NCAA thing, also, not a Stanford decision.)

[cctop]

I'm curious what people think generally about how well the place is holding up/aging?
http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=208446909

The other comments in this thread seem to be about how it was designed and built.

Speaking specifically about how it's aging, so far it feels great to me.  I've noticed a crack here and there in the concrete but physically that's about it.

And in several ways the facility is better now -- they seems to have figured out the grass issues that plagued us the first few seasons, they've improved the PA system and stadium WiFi, the scoreboards are much nicer, entrance & exit has been sped up .  Sure, the food and bathroom lines at halftime into the 3rd quarter are still long, but that's true of any major sporting event.

When asked about the stadium I tell people that it's sterile in a concrete-and-aluminum type of way but a great place to watch a game.

[cctop]

I'm curious what people think generally about how well the place is holding up/aging?
http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=208446909

The other comments in this thread seem to be about how it was designed and built.

Speaking specifically about how it's aging, so far it feels great to me.  I've noticed a crack here and there in the concrete but physically that's about it.

And in several ways the facility is better now -- they seems to have figured out the grass issues that plagued us the first few seasons, they've improved the PA system and stadium WiFi, the scoreboards are much nicer, entrance & exit has been sped up .  Sure, the food and bathroom lines at halftime into the 3rd quarter are still long, but that's true of any major sporting event.

When asked about the stadium I tell people that it's sterile in a concrete-and-aluminum type of way but a great place to watch a game.

[Treebound]

Don't forget the major upgrade to the locker rooms!  Stanford's lockers are amazing compared to what was put in place for the SuperBowl.  Even the visiting locker room is very nice by P12 standards.    The Axe committee has their own space and there's a nice covered patio on top for receptions, press, etc...

As others have mentioned, the big hibachi can get very hot on the sunny side for those warm Sept games.  We made the move over to the shady, which makes for nice access to CTG!

[Treebound]

Don't forget the major upgrade to the locker rooms!  Stanford's lockers are amazing compared to what was put in place for the SuperBowl.  Even the visiting locker room is very nice by P12 standards.    The Axe committee has their own space and there's a nice covered patio on top for receptions, press, etc...

As others have mentioned, the big hibachi can get very hot on the sunny side for those warm Sept games.  We made the move over to the shady, which makes for nice access to CTG!

[FrankO]

Levi stadium has gotten lots of sunnyside wok comments from those folks sitting on the Milpitas side...

s to Minna's 'tauilgate' ... it was a rip-off at the Pac12 Conf game... way overpacked and overpriced

food okay... but next time I'll take my $75 and the next day or after, have a truly great meal someplace else

during the chicken bowl we froze

Stadium ingress/egress just as bad as the old 'Stick... light rail fm Mtn View helps, but cars packed like sardines post game

[FrankO]

Levi stadium has gotten lots of sunnyside wok comments from those folks sitting on the Milpitas side...

s to Minna's 'tauilgate' ... it was a rip-off at the Pac12 Conf game... way overpacked and overpriced

food okay... but next time I'll take my $75 and the next day or after, have a truly great meal someplace else

during the chicken bowl we froze

Stadium ingress/egress just as bad as the old 'Stick... light rail fm Mtn View helps, but cars packed like sardines post game

[Mick]

It's easier for me to get to and from Levi Stadium and I prefer the amenities there.  I just prefer to watch Stanford games, I enjoy the experience much more.  If I'm being completely candid, I would probably enjoy 49ers games more than Stanford games if the Niners were playing in the NFC championship and Stanford was 3-9, but that seems very unlikely to happen.

[Mick]

It's easier for me to get to and from Levi Stadium and I prefer the amenities there.  I just prefer to watch Stanford games, I enjoy the experience much more.  If I'm being completely candid, I would probably enjoy 49ers games more than Stanford games if the Niners were playing in the NFC championship and Stanford was 3-9, but that seems very unlikely to happen.

[BostonCard]

Not fair to judge Levi's on the basis of the Chicken Bowl, when the weather was unseasonably cold.  My son loved it there.  The food is certainly better.  Ingress and egress is worse, both by public transport and by car.  I think at Stanford, the lots are more spread out, so it takes longer to walk to your car, but there is less traffic getting in and out.

Concessions at Stanford are getting better, but still don't hold a candle to Levis.

Levi's might not have won any plaudits, but it is a fun place to watch a game.  And I think people would have liked it a lot better if the Niners were in the midst of a Superbowl run.

BC

[BostonCard]

Not fair to judge Levi's on the basis of the Chicken Bowl, when the weather was unseasonably cold.  My son loved it there.  The food is certainly better.  Ingress and egress is worse, both by public transport and by car.  I think at Stanford, the lots are more spread out, so it takes longer to walk to your car, but there is less traffic getting in and out.

Concessions at Stanford are getting better, but still don't hold a candle to Levis.

Levi's might not have won any plaudits, but it is a fun place to watch a game.  And I think people would have liked it a lot better if the Niners were in the midst of a Superbowl run.

BC

[terry]

I think Levi's made a mistake by leaving gaps at both ends. The sound goes out and the wind comes in.

[terry]

I think Levi's made a mistake by leaving gaps at both ends. The sound goes out and the wind comes in.

[winflop]

It compares pretty well to Jed's house of horrors in Santa Clara, so in that respect it's a good deal.

Especially at less than 1/10 the price!!

[winflop]

It compares pretty well to Jed's house of horrors in Santa Clara, so in that respect it's a good deal.

Especially at less than 1/10 the price!!