San Jose Earthquakes proposed soccer-specific stadium undergoes neighborhood scrutiny, new design elements begin to take shape
While the City of San Jose and the San Jose Earthquakes have in effect reached an agreement on the team’s proposed new soccer-specific stadium, local residents that live in close proximity to the site were given a final opportunity to express their concerns about the project to the city’s Department of Planning at a community meeting Monday night. With Earthquakes managing partner Keith Wolff and Earthquakes President David Kaval representing the team, and city council member Sam Liccardo in support, Department of City Planning Project Manager Lesley Xavier led the over 90 minute discussion on the team’s proposed planned development permit.
In a process that started nearly two years ago with the unveiling of principal owner Lew Wolff’s vision for the San Jose Earthquakes new home, the team has finally arrived at the penultimate stage in securing the land-use permit that will allow for construction plans for the stadium to commence. An extensive Environmental Impact Review (EIR) and subsequent project analysis by the city’s Planning Department now awaits reconciliation with the comments and complaints offered by residents living in the neighborhoods across the railroad tracks from the proposed stadium site on Coleman Avenue. When the review process and community comments have been completed, the Planning Department Director will hold a hearing on the permit and will approve the use permit.
The evening meeting began with Wolff and Kaval outlining the basics of the stadium design, including the unveiling of new renderings of the project, and also detailing the land-use permit they were seeking. While the stadium design presented to the public at the Soccer Silicon Valley Community Foundation dinner in 2009 has remained relatively unchanged, some minor changes were brought to light by the Earthquakes leaders. First, the height of the stadium has been decreased from an average of 90 feet to 75 feet in the newest iteration, with some slight modification to the design of the roof. Second, the scoreboard side of the stadium, which is open and absent permanent seating, and the sideline sides of the stadium, feature some new design elements that are different from those envisioned in 2009. Lastly, the overall budget for the 15000-18000 seat stadium would require “up to a $60 million investment” by team ownership and was not dependent on securing outside corporate funding.
Specific to the issues of the use permit, the San Jose Earthquakes have withdrawn their request to use the completed stadium to hold outdoors concerts. Often a significant source of income for other owners of MLS soccer-specific stadiums, the Earthquakes agreed to drop that item in their permit application in an effort to mollify residents’ concerns of excess noise pollution.
“Our main focus is soccer and I think we made a big concession here,” shared Keith Wolff with the audience. “This is to try to get a soccer stadium done because we are getting such great fan support in Santa Clara, but there is only so much we can do there. So we really want to get this stadium done. We are willing to forego the concert revenue to make this happen.”
Perhaps hoping to stress how much the concession made by the Earthquakes would lessen the noise pollution concerns of local residents, Councilman Liccardo provided a succinct analysis of the whole sound mitigation negotiation that has been ongoing since the first stadium site EIR was generated.
“The neighbors can declare victory given that there will not be concerts hosted at the new stadium,” said Councilman Liccardo, who has been involved in planning and permitting procedures in conjunction with the Earthquakes since the beginning of the process.
However, when the meeting was opened up to public comment, the conversation quickly returned to the concerns over noise pollution envisioned from the new development. One resident remarked that they were worried about excessive drumming and horn blowing during soccer games at the facility disturbing the peace. Another, while in one breath calling the sound from the nearby Mineta San Jose Airport and the CalTrain railroad tracks merely “white noise,” thought the team was not doing enough to address potential loud soccer crowds. A third wanted to know that if the sound levels measured at soccer matches after completion of the new stadium surpassed the threshold set by the City in the planning process, would they enforce measures — such as decreasing crowd capacity — to bring the facility into noise compliance. Even with the negotiating victory pronounced by Liccardo, these residents still did not sound satisfied, and the younger Wolff warned that they could still walk away from the project.
“We need to be confident that we can host an MLS game for 18,000 people and not need to worry about exceeding noise limits,” shared Wolff after hearing from the group of concerned neighbors.
Given the effort and money that both the City of San Jose and the Earthquakes have put into the process so far, pulling out of the project at this point seems a remote possibility. Instead, officials stressed that they were focused on completing the reconciliation of the public commentary with EIR information in order to move forward. Clearly with momentum at their back, and the last hurdles of public criticism surmountable, the San Jose Earthquakes can now count in weeks rather than months the time remaining until the stadium’s groundbreaking can begin.
(Photos: Robert Jonas, centerlinesoccer.com)
Noise pollution? Wouldn’t San Jose need a proper support group for there to be noise pollution?
Nice try. Like to reiterate that in 109?
Thanks for the update.
I don’t know if it was discussed at this meeting, but current traffic and noise issues from game day tailgating and parking will presumably be improved when the stadium is moved across the rail road tracks. Are the neighbors along Campbell Avenue currently impacted by Quakes games at Buck Shaw?
Despite all of the fans wishes (every fan I’ve talked to at least), it’s disappointing to see that this ‘new’ stadium design is still open at one end. Wouldn’t an enclosed stadium, with a higher roof, reduce the fan noise more than this design?
It’s great that the club is working with their future neighbors as they move forward with the stadium – will there be an opportunity for input from the fans too?
David Kaval mentioned in his blog on SJEarthquakes.com that he wants fans to chime in on such stadium issues as “what type of material should be used to wrap the stadium?”
At the Planning Department public meeting, both Kaval and Keith Wolff mentioned tarp-like material and perforated aluminum as options. I’m sure Quakes fans can be more creative than that.
These old farts neighbors have nothing better to do but complain.
The stadium will complete finally, noise pollution those guys are just complaining.
Is the latest rendering showing roof-supporting beams going into the stands ( http://www.centerlinesoccer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/NewQuakesStadium20110926px9.jpg ) really the current design of the stadium? If anything, it looks almost exactly like the discarded design ( http://www.sjearthquakes.com/sites/default/files/Discarded%20Design%20Submitted%20to%20San%20Jose%20for%20Code%20Verification.jpg ) that was revealed in the first-ever “Kaval’s Kickoff” blog entry at the team’s official site.
So which is actually the current design: the new rendering shown at the meeting or the 2009 interior-shot rendering shown at the end of this article?
Noise issues? You live by a f***ing railroad track dumbasses. There’s always buzz killers in this world, go f***ing die
That’s true, but train noise isn’t on going like noise from a soccer game or other events would be. Trains are about 7 seconds maybe 5 times a day.
I’m confused. The picture of the new stadium on the CenterLineSoccer home page includes poles holding up the roof. But the picture on this page does not include poles. Are there going to be poles or not?
that is a big question. can you guys ask Mr. Kaval about this ASAP?
Not a question – the renderings without the poles are accurate.
OK. But why would one of the renderings show supporting columns holding up the roof? Was the person who made that rendering just guessing?
I’ll look into the issue of whether the working model has supporting columns or not, and if they do, what the predicted obstruction issues they would pose.
While Nerdy is correct that the stadium not being enclosed is a disapointment, this seems to be a real step in the right direction. It is amazing to me that people that live next to CalTrain and an airport are concerned about noise from a soccer stadium. An important element of this process is that the stadiums capacity is moved to at least 18,000. Less than that gives a very minor league apppearance that is not in the best interest of the club now or in the future. Finally, a meeting allowing for input from fans could be a great way to make sure the fans feel they have a had hand in the design.
Awesome… when do I get to pick my seats? :-)
I lived by the Caltrain tracks for 3 years and it definitely is not “white noise.” These NIMBYs are on crack. They live next to Caltrain, 880, and the airport and they moan about the noise from this stadium. What a joke.
Not only are they on crack, they’re hella racist. They have no problem with “white” noise, but they don’t like noise from a soccer match, i.e. noise made by people with diverse ethnic backgrounds including people of color.
LOL j/k.
Pardon me if I’m wrong, but another point in the noise issue is that match day noise is, well, just on match day, and the matches are over by 10PM at the latest. Trains, freeways, and airports are kinda 24/7. How can the stadium be anywhere near as intrusive as those things?
I don’t think the design is ideal, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is something that is our own, so God bless it. If we succeed, who’s to say that someday in the future we wouldn’t get a fourth grandstand to enclose the whole thing? There are some detail issues I hope they deal with, such as the exterior facade. The lattice work and fabric covering thing just doesn’t work for me. What are they going to call it? HIndenburg Stadium? :-) I’d much prefer that if they go with the open look, they go with some heavier girders and beams, even if they are not structurally necessary, to give the place a more industrial and strong look. A sort of east span of the Bay Bridge look. Otherwise, they should go with a masonry facade to at least partially enclose the undersides of the grandstands. the upper portions could be left open to allow the passage of air through the building.
Spit take on the ‘Hindenberg Stadium’ – awesome!
Fantastic news! I am pumped!!
I’d love to see some more fan input on the stadium. Also, we’ve seen renderings that show a supporters section in the enclosed end. These aren’t final drawings. I’d like to see the last of that concourse after the first three rows. Smacks of elitism, and it puts the fans farther from the action. Not a good choice.
But this!
“the San Jose Earthquakes can now count in weeks rather than months the time remaining until the stadium’s groundbreaking can begin.”
Oh dudes, the dreaded phrase! Could we say sooner rather than later? This is an important hurdle in the process and the way is now clear to final City Council approval? “Weeks not months” is what mealy mouthed MLS officials say when trying to mollify fans, but they still have no clue as to an actual time line. Oh geez.
GOOOOO QUAAAAAAKES!!!!!!
- Mark
Not sure why these renderings are making anyone happy. The addition of obstructed views that did not exist in the earlier renderings is a big downgrade. Frankly it’s kinda sad actually. No one builds professional stadiums with that many obstructed views anymore.
if there where changes made what were they then? it says altercations to the roof and sidelines ect. so then what? how does it look now or how will it be different. very vague. i agree these people are old people who are just plain dumb. the closes home is how close? 700 feet. its not like were having raider games or something. games are pretty much over by what 9:30ish? by that time on a Saturday or friday college kids are out partying and making Lauder noise then soccer games. just plain old ridicules and these people just need to let it go. its not going to be a big issue at all they’ll see. lets just start building and get this thing done. if the concerts are no taken away does this mean other sporting events will not take place there also? i dont mind the open en because it does leave room for say 5 to 10 yrs from now if there neex be room to add more stands we have the space to add another 5k. and move on from there. or just do 1k more and add on to that kind like Toronto.
I’m just not seeing where the obstructed views are, I’m afraid. I guess my vision is, well, obstructed. Do you mean the beams supporting the roof? That seems to be something that’s in some renderings and not in others. I think that those are elements than be done well or can be done poorly, We’ll see.
I also like the concourse higher up rather than in front of the first row seats. Don’t want people walking in front of the seats or having any extra distance between the seats and the field.
Has there been any explanation for the decision not to have an enclosed stadium?
Good question! I’ve never heard why they are so bent on having the horseshoe. I mean, I’ll take what I can get, but it certainly is odd.
The open end is to allow a building and a stage area where trucks can drive right in. Every new MLS stadium in the last five years has been a horseshoe for this reason.
I read somewhere that having that 4th wall open was to enable more sunlight into the stadium for the grass to grow properly. Which is a shit explanation. Grass grows fine for every other enclosed stadium in the world that is not in extreme climates, as long as the grounds keeping crew knows what they’re doing grass will grow and grow well.
I think it’s open so that they can have that giant billboard for a jumbotron on it. Because Wolff and Co. are money pinchers, and would rather have a cheaper stadium with a big screen TV on that one end rather than enclose the stadium and add 2 or 4 smaller screens to the rafters around the inside of the stadium.
That would be a shit explanation since the open end faces northeast where the sun never comes from. The real reason is the noise issue. Open end directs it out to the airport.
Yep – it’s about the noise getting thrown out towards the airport. And a little money savings. And a big fat open bar under the scoreboard, and room for adhd kids to run around.
This can only be good news. We should celebrate and relax about the neighbors – those who think they might be negatively impacted by a proposed development always show up at these hearing to complain. The process is designed to let them blow off steam and have their voices heard, which is a good thing. However, this project is much too far along and has much too much city support to be derailed by a smattering of neighborhood complaints. Regarding the obstructed views – we shouldn’t read too much into a few architectural renderings. Dave is right that one drawing shows supporting columns for the roof, while another doesn’t . Let’s have a little faith that the architects will want to design a contemporary stadium that doesn’t include obstructed views. About it not being enclosed, the horseshoe design was settled on a few years ago, and hoping for an enclosed stadium at this late stage is pointless. Let’s face it, though we all wish it were otherwise, Earthquakes are probably not going to average north of 15,000 once the stadium is built, and I would much rather watch a game in an 15-18,000 seater with several thousand empty seats than in a 25,000 seater with 10,000 empty ones (Pizza Hut Park anybody?). If, over time, attendance grows and the stadium begins to consistently sell out, the team will eventually build the additional grandstand to enclose the stadium. Finally, it’s instructive that the owners are speaking of committing $60 million of their own money without depending on outside corporate sponsorship. Sixty million is quite low compared to other recently built MLS stadiums (Livestrong Park anyone?), so don’t expect much by way of extra amenities. On the plus side, the fact that ownership had gone on record to say they are willing to commit that much would suggest that finances will not be an impediment to actually breaking ground soon – something I’ve long been concerned about with this tight-fisted ownership group.
Agreed on all counts. I guess, in re the horseshoe, the best way for us to change that is when the place is built, fill it so much they need to expand. LoL.
re: the horseshoe design
It’s standard practice in most soccer leagues to integrate potential expansion plans into a new stadium design and has been for several decades – starting when Madrid, Milan and Manchester’s temples to soccer were rebuilt during the 1980′s and 90′s.
There are a number of advantages to this approach, such as avoiding the accusation that a club is less committed to the host community and will move away when a sweeter deal is offered, saying that the club actually represents the community because it wants to grow together and by reaffirming the ‘spiritual’ home of the team. And that’s even before the basic economic argument is made: creating the conditions for growth means allowing the space for growth.
For example Manchester Utd’s Asian listing is designed to finance the completion of Old Trafford by adding the final 20,000 seats to take capacity to 96,000 – 35 years after this was first planned.
So it’s worth getting things right to start with if that’s the investment timescale. I just wonder how much growth residents and ownership have prepared themselves for.
@Dan – I’m not sure about the obstructed views. My guess is that the beams that appear in one drawing will not be included in the actual stadium. These are still just renderings and sometimes the artists get a bit carried away. Kaval has said that they want a world class facility, so that has to mean no obstructed views.
Also, the three sided stadium is supposed to direct sound away from the neighborhood and toward the airport. It might also be that the designers just thought it was cool. It does allow for a beer garden, which would be excellent, and later the chance to enclose that end and increase capacity.
In any event, none of this is cast in concrete yet. Whatever they build has to be better than Buck Shaw right?
Let’s hope.
Go Quakes!!
- Mark
I’m not so sure about the beams mark. They wouldn’t put them in the renderings unless they were in the design.
The neighbors concerns about noise is actually a bit redundant. Not that their opinion doesn’t count or anything, but think about it, they live surrounded by freeways, strip malls, industrial premises, major road arteries, office complexes, railway tracks and an International Airport!!!!!! Now if they say that these things are only white noise??? then I say they’re talkin’ garbage! I live in Alameda, which is right beside and right in the flight path of Oakland International Airport, planes taking off and landing morning, noon and night don’t sound like white noise, sure you get used to them and personally they don’t bother me as I lived on a streetcar line in SF for a number of years, but during wet weather the sound of take off’s and landings are amplified down through the rain and the noise level is LOOOOOUD! We also have railway tracks just over the bridge in Oakland and although you can’t hear the trains from where I live, you can easily hear the train horns! Train horns sound nothing like white noise.
One person expressed concerns about drums and horns. Well to start with we can scratch the horns, because they are not allowed at Earthquakes matches and I think they’re actually not permitted at any league match? <<<< or did I dream that one up? So they won't be a problem. The only horns they'll hear are coming from the railway tracks. As far as drums go, that's probably 3 drums maximum in the whole stadium. The supporters groups have agreed with the FO that each supporters group will use a max of 2 drums at matches. The Casbah uses 2 and the 1906 Ultras use 1. That's 3 drums total! The stadium has people in it for about 2 and a half hours max, 90 minutes of that is match time, during which the most noise would happen. Mostly chanting and singing. Most matches would be finished at 9:30, some may even be earlier, depending on the kick-off time. By 10 o'clock the place will be pretty empty. There would be approximately 20(ish) matches if you include League, Open Cup (which our team will be going all the way to the final because of their new found confidence and pride in their playing surroundings), CCL and friendlies.
Oh yeah, enclose the stadium on all four sides. Even if the 4th end just has some sort of terrace type thing and stick a roof over it. Having a roof over everyone will help to buffer the sound.
BUILD IT NOW!
One other positive note: It sucks for the team’s revenue that the neighborhood peeps blocked concerts, at least for now, but on the other hand, at least it means our pitch is not going to get torn up like KC’s did.
Our drums might be heard on Coleman Ave. and at no other point outside that stadium, no matter how hard we pound them. That there will be no concerts there – Shoreline Amphitheater just breathed a big sigh of relief, and so did the EQ grounds crew. The SF Giants’ field has taken weeks to get back to what it was before massive stages were built for a few shows on it in recent years..
I’ll believe it when they start building it and not before. I’m still not in love with the design, three rows of seats and then a concourse? Nothing screams “privilaged seating” like having the three first rows being seperated from the rest of the stadium.
There are football lines?!?!?
obviously the beams have to go. i’m okay with the idea of exerior fabric- less expensive option that won’t fall on your head in an earthquake, especially if it’s backlit on game days. but i also like the idea above about covering the lower framework to make it look more, well permanent. i’d like to see more renderings of the club level (concessions, plaza viewing, merchandice, etc) but also the player’s entrances.
as for the lower walkway, i understand the complaints about pushing most of the seats in the stadium further back from the field, but don’t you have to have this lower access for ADA/wheelchair capability? the angle of this stadium looks nice and steep for a good view with comfortable chairs, wide rows and good views from everywhere. after 4-5 years in buck shaw, i’ll accept almost anything, as long as our team improves!
That’s the thing about the lower concourse. There’s going to be one, either in front of the first row, or above the 3rd or 4th or whatever. I would rather have some seats right up close than none at all. What I like about them is that the upper seats look (at least from the renderings) to be raised up so that if you’re in that lower section, you can stand up all match without some jerk telling you to sit down (Honestly, sitting at a soccer match? Really?)
Not a fan of fabric covering the stadium. I would prefer a more old school look (which is why the beams don’t inherently bother me.) but as you say, at this point, a stadium that is our own and doesn’t totally suck will leave me a happy camper.
sit open on one end…. oh well they could always pull a toronto and add another stand in a couple years
The man is spending 60 mil! The Stadium is beautiful, shut up!