[OutsiderFan]

As a San Franciscan, still upset that the 49er ownership vacated SF, I have chosen to be a martyr with no intention of ever setting foot within Levis Santa Clara Stadium. 
And shame on Levi Strauss company, founded and based in SF, for selling out the city by supporting the 49ers move.
Several years ago I took all my 49ers gear (and Levis jeans) to SF's Ocean Beach and used it as a fuel for a bonfire.

Football stadiums are a rather inefficient use of real estate.  That same footprint can be used to become the home of a tech HQ, or a hospital, or any number of other ventures that brings in thousands of job opportunities, new housing and property tax revenue.

That's why the Boston, New York, Washington DC, and soon LA teams play outside of their own town.   If your town's football team opts to play outside of the actual town then your town is probably doing OK.   Think of it as a compliment.

Could you imagine if Levi's could afford to make garments in SF?   Would probably mean SF was not doing well.
Same is more or less true for football stadiums.   If you can plop a massive new football stadium in the center of the city, then that city may have a few issues.  Either the real estate is super cheap, or the city will give tax incentives and/or property to the billionaire owner.

Stanford graduate Peter Magowan made a new SF stadium happen for the Giants. For nearly 20 years now that ballpark has been a great asset for SF.
Candlestick Park was a good sense location for a football stadium. Jed York could have remodeled Candlestick or had a new stadium built at that site.  But York wanted a shorter game day commute from his Los Altos home, so he chose Santa Clara . Now for the coming decades millions of people will be uncomfortable from sun exposure ,  inconvenienced by lack of parking , challenging egress issues etc...

AT&T Park is a far, far different animal than a football stadium.  It is used by its primary resident 80+ times per year, from April to October. That stadium is one of a handful of examples of a large stadium actually impacting a local economy.  I studied stadium financing in grad school and the greatest takeaway for me was that in the vast majority of cases a new stadium doesn't create new spending as much as displace it form what place to another. AT&T Park served as an anchor that revitalized an economically dead area.  Soon after its building, there was a construction boom around its area, including Mission Bay, that also led to the Chase Center opening next year.

There is no such economic engine created by Levi's Stadium, but that's usually the case with football stadiums in particular.

[OutsiderFan]

As a San Franciscan, still upset that the 49er ownership vacated SF, I have chosen to be a martyr with no intention of ever setting foot within Levis Santa Clara Stadium. 
And shame on Levi Strauss company, founded and based in SF, for selling out the city by supporting the 49ers move.
Several years ago I took all my 49ers gear (and Levis jeans) to SF's Ocean Beach and used it as a fuel for a bonfire.

Football stadiums are a rather inefficient use of real estate.  That same footprint can be used to become the home of a tech HQ, or a hospital, or any number of other ventures that brings in thousands of job opportunities, new housing and property tax revenue.

That's why the Boston, New York, Washington DC, and soon LA teams play outside of their own town.   If your town's football team opts to play outside of the actual town then your town is probably doing OK.   Think of it as a compliment.

Could you imagine if Levi's could afford to make garments in SF?   Would probably mean SF was not doing well.
Same is more or less true for football stadiums.   If you can plop a massive new football stadium in the center of the city, then that city may have a few issues.  Either the real estate is super cheap, or the city will give tax incentives and/or property to the billionaire owner.

Stanford graduate Peter Magowan made a new SF stadium happen for the Giants. For nearly 20 years now that ballpark has been a great asset for SF.
Candlestick Park was a good sense location for a football stadium. Jed York could have remodeled Candlestick or had a new stadium built at that site.  But York wanted a shorter game day commute from his Los Altos home, so he chose Santa Clara . Now for the coming decades millions of people will be uncomfortable from sun exposure ,  inconvenienced by lack of parking , challenging egress issues etc...

AT&T Park is a far, far different animal than a football stadium.  It is used by its primary resident 80+ times per year, from April to October. That stadium is one of a handful of examples of a large stadium actually impacting a local economy.  I studied stadium financing in grad school and the greatest takeaway for me was that in the vast majority of cases a new stadium doesn't create new spending as much as displace it form what place to another. AT&T Park served as an anchor that revitalized an economically dead area.  Soon after its building, there was a construction boom around its area, including Mission Bay, that also led to the Chase Center opening next year.

There is no such economic engine created by Levi's Stadium, but that's usually the case with football stadiums in particular.