Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Phil Mickelson Outshines Tiger Woods

Greener Grass, Episode 8: How it Could Work in Oaktown

Let's be honest. The old axiom "possession is 9/10ths of the law" might not really apply to the City of Oakland and the A's. Well, really because the A's aren't a possession of the City, they are owned by Fisher and Wolff (and Gus Saperstein). And MLB's constitution doesn't allow municipalities to own teams. But folks who trot this line of reasoning out are not referring to real ownership, but more the symbolic ownership a fan base has of a  team. Personally, I am pro Oakland keeping the A's as much as I am pro San Jose landing the team. Anywhere in the Bay Area is fine by me.

You have to be leery of Oakland's chances of keeping the A's when the Commissioner's frat brother is saying "San Jose is the way." Though, Lew seemed to be allowing for the possibility that Oakland will pan out on Chronicle Live. But you know what? If I was Oakland, I would be saying "so what?" I would be proud of who I was A's or no A's. This is not to say that the City shouldn't be putting forward a plan to keep the team. Here is what my plan would be, were I the guy who had to come up with a plan.

Star-divide

As per usual, a slight detour is in order. I'd like to invite all of y'alls to join me on an intimate tour of the City of Oakland. It is on March 28th and this is the route we shall be following.

4139646565_8de49d219b_medium

The Oakland Half Marathon Route (via www.oaklandmarathon.com)

While we won't be visiting the specific location I believe will be included in Oakland's plan for a future A's home, we will be running nearby. Speaking of that place we are running nearby, a refresher picture of what I consider to be Oakland's best shot:

4156006992_b581b2df07_medium

The Oakland Fire Department Training SIte (via obiwan2900)

In the picture above we have two distinct areas, one for stadium one for a park. I went through all of my opinions about how to build an excellent fan culture at this site with the frog in my pocket, who is absent today but sends some notes, a few weeks ago. What I didn't really talk about with this site, is how workable it is from a stadium building perspective.

So let's start with a tale of the tape. The area I have outlined above is a 22 acre conglomeration made of 17 lots. 13 of those lots are owned by private entities. The other 4 lots are comprised of two City owned parcels (this is about 6 acres and includes the OFD Training site), one owned by the Peralta Community College District and one owned by BART. All of this info I gathered at this website.

(frog's note: Before I let jeffro go all Pollyanaish on the site I feel like it is important to note that perhaps the largest hurdle is that three distinct Right's of Way run through this general area. I have been told by people who would know that the Utilities who own these ROW's are not exactly easy to work with. These could present major challenges.) 

Of the 22 acres, only 20 are encompassed in my pretty Christmas color shapes above. The reason is that one of the City owned parcels actually extends below the freeway. So, reality says we are looking at 20 acres for potential development. How much would it cost you ask? After speaking with some folks who know about land values, and factoring in the value of the buildings on the 13 private lots, the total parcel is worth about $40 Million dollars. Oakland could tell Uncle Lew and Mr. Fisher to pony up for that, but of course they would really be screwing themselves if they did, so this is going to have to be purchased by the Redevelopment Agency, or CEDA as it is known in Oaktown. The City would lease the property back to the A's, just as proposed in San Jose and as is in San Francisco.

(frog's note: This may get boring if jeffro goes too deep into this, but the OFD site as he envisions it falls into two different Redevelopment Zones. This can be a hindrance, or a blessing, depending on who you ask. For the record let's just say it makes things a bit more complicated and leave it at that)

I just need a chart. I can't help it. Here is the Tale of Tape for the OFD Training site:

4157541210_659a4180be_medium

Some CEQA/EIR concerns. Besides the 18 month delay that is. Automobiles. As in how do they impact the neighborhood?

For instance: parking anyone? I mean as in where the heck do you park when there are 20 Acres for a stadium, some buildings and a park? The Coliseum is great for parking. Mainly because there are 105 acres with which to play and much of it is covered in asphalt specifically designed for the purpose of parking (or grilling and beer drinking while being parked).

A picture, with little numbers representing parking lots/garages:

4155533649_bc6501de98_medium

Parking near OFD (via obiwan2900)

The "A" in the picture is to the left of the imagined home plate entrance with the site being the area framed and crossed in magenta. Across 880 you can see a small sea of asphalt, perhaps more a bay than a sea, or even an estuary. That is a spot where folks may be allowed to park in addition to the parking garages depicted  by all the little numbers. Not to mention Jack London Square Amtrak is to the left of the site with parking and people coming on trains. And Lake Merritt BART across the freeway. While getting to the yard will require some walking (it is about 1.25 miles between the number "5" and the imagined ballpark) from all of these parking lots/garages, it looks to me that there is a lot of nearby options for parking.

That is not to say that parking is a non issue. There would most likely be the need for an additional parking garage somewhere nearby. A good estimate is 1,200 spaces (for premium season ticket holders, players, etc.). I am not sure where in the vicinity it would be built (I guess it could be shoe horned in and the park that was so central to my dreams of a cool culture goes bye bye), a safe bet is that the total cost of building a 1,200 space garage would be in the neighborhood of $30 million. I wouldn't expect for the A's to be willing to build the garage themselves, so the City's contribution so far is about $70 million ($40 million for the site plus $30 million for the garage).

Another automobile related issue... Freeway on/off ramps. The off ramps that serve this area are not designed to serve the amount of traffic a ballpark would bring. This is getting long so I am going to keep this part short. This website has all kinds of great info about transportation projects in Alameda County. Using these projects as a rough baseline, it will cost about $40 Million to bring this up to snuff. So the City would appear to need to find at least $110 Million to make this site work.

But what is the incentive for the A's? Is the $110 Million enough?

The San Jose Economic Impact Analysis is a good place to read tea leaves about the A's intentions. A $460 Million dollar investment to construct the stadium in Diridon is a good baseline. The problem is this... The A's say San Jose is the way to go because Oakland doesn't have significant corporate support nor a site. The $110 Million only addresses one of the two issues.

Another potential challenge here is that the construction of a stadium in this specific part of Oakland is most likely more expensive than the Diridon site in San Jose due to soil conditions (I am not that smart, I talked to an engineer friend of mine and he explained why but I only got "soil conditions" out of the whole explanation). So, worst case the stadium probably costs more like $500 Million. We can assume Cisco's naming rights deal will still apply and generate about $130 Million. This leaves $370 to cover.

The corporate base becomes a problem when it comes time to privately finance this chunk of change. While the facebook group is doing well with 25,000 members, Oakland Boosters realize that it is going to take real financial commitments from ticket buyers to get the stadium built. Charter Club style tickets for corporations would be a large part of the private financing mix as well as some kind of PSL programs for Average Joe's. In San Francisco, this accounted for 20% of the funding package. In that case it was $70 Million, in this case we are looking at $100 Million dollars that need to come from these presales.

I have to say one thing real quick: HOLY CRAP THIS IS A LOT OF MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now back to the matter at hand. One other source for funding in the San Francisco case was TIF. it accounted for roughly 5% of the total package there and that would be $25 Million here.

So, if Oakland believes there is enough corporate support to help build the stadium... They should be willing to guarantee it. If I was the A's I would ask the City to guarantee up to $125 Million towards stadium construction, with $25 Million being TIF. The other $100 Million is really a bad number, because the City would only be liable for the difference of $100 Million minus actual presales. If there isn't really the corporate support in place as the A's contend then they don't have to worry about it so much from a funding perspective (future revenues might be a challenge). If there is the corporate support as Oakland contends, then they don't have to pay any of that money.

(Frog's note: I cringe because this sounds so much like the stupid Raiders deal)

At this point in our imagined scenario, it is up to the A's to cover $245 Million. That is basically the same percentage of total stadium construction costs that the Giants took a loan for when they built AT&T Park.

So, citizens of Oakland... I ask "Are you willing to drop something potentially as high as $235 Million, guaranteed to be at least $135 Million, to keep the A's?"

I honestly don't know if I would be okay with that, but I think that is the high level plan that keeps the A's in Oakland.

Comment 79 comments  |  7 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Is that $245 million inflation adjusted?

Overall, wonderful assessment, Jeffro.

The reason I’ve been such a relentless cheerleader for a stadium within the Central Estuary Specific Plan area is because a lot of these costs (infrastructure in particular, but also possibly the cost of creating additional parking structures) would have been paid for through the user fees generated within the specific plan area by developers using the specific plan’s EIR for construction approval on their parcels.

The city of Oakland wouldn’t have to pay for it. It would have been paid for by developers for the right to build expensive condos near the ballpark. But, of course, that model would only work within a specific plan area. And the only specific plans that are currently in process in Oakland are for the Central Estuary and for Broadway Auto Row.

by cityplANner on Dec 4, 2009 12:30 AM PST reply actions  

not really

The numbers are generalizations. From a timing perspective, I guess the numbers should reflect 2015 dollars based on when you could feasibly expect something to happen at the site.

Has the Central Estuary idea evaporated with the omission of a stadium in the recently released plan?

by jeffro on Dec 4, 2009 7:18 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

That area is cool because it is close to JLS

But I wonder if it would be as effective from a “foot traffic” perspective as the SJ site. It’s kind of in a strange corner between the truly downtown Lake Merritt area, JLS, and the area around 12th St BART.

To go to a more philosophical issue though. So, this is one way to keep the team in Oakland and have a new stadium. But, with the idea of needing a season ticket commitment from some group of fans in order to partially finance a stadium, doesn’t this present a chicken-and-egg paradox? Regardless of where a stadium is built, the A’s will enjoy a spike in season tickets after a stadium is open. But before that, how do you convince a fanbase for a team that’s currently last in MLB attendance to buy season tickets for a team whose games they attend at a low rate already?

What’s more, considering what many people believe to be the team’s “working class” image, doesn’t this potentially shift that dynamic when you might need to pony up some serious dough to get season tickets?

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

by cuppingmaster on Dec 4, 2009 12:59 AM PST reply actions  

a case could be made

That a stadium in this area creates a tie between JLS and Dowmtown that doesn’t really exist right now. Of course, I sort of think the real issue is 880. Maybe improving offramps coupled with a stadium creates more of a flow between the two areas. I don’t know how you model that honestly.

Second, presales will be a requirement no matter where the stadium is built. The blue collar image doesn’t have to suffer, I guess. Maybe it will be similar to rich guys buying Harley’s? Sort of a faux blue collar image that becomes cool.

It seems weird to me that a team that stays competetive using Wall Streetesque principles is considered blue collar anyway.

by jeffro on Dec 4, 2009 7:27 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

I certainly see how it COULD work

Being the fourth corner of a square… er, trapezoid I guess. I honestly haven’t taken a walk down there in awhile… what is on the way to that corner now? Anything good, or Coliseum-y industrial area?

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

by cuppingmaster on Dec 4, 2009 10:02 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

I was there a few months ago

It is industrialish but borders a lot of new condos and such.

by jeffro on Dec 4, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions  

You can poke around on Google maps.

I did that a few weeks ago, but it’s almost as slow as walking.

Now that I’m in town I’m going to make a point of fitting in a visit, just to get a real on-site feel for it. Hopefully stroll the whole range from Laney to JLS via Estuary Park.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Dec 4, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions  

The JLS neighborhood north of Oak St. is really nice

lots of new condo, some conversions, some built up to look like they were conversions. There’s a TON of available commercial space, as it’s mixed-use zone and the bottom floors of said condos are designated for commercial space. It’s not a super vibrant neighborhood yet, but it’s heading in that direction. The stores around JLS on Broadway are starting to creep south to take advantage of this market.

And the new construction in JLS (Harvest Hall) should have a pretty transformative effect. It’s billed as Oakland’s version of the Ferry Building markets in SF.

by cityplANner on Dec 4, 2009 6:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Whether there's a stadium or not,

I sure hope they succeed in reviving this piece of waterfront and reconnecting it to downtown.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Dec 4, 2009 9:20 PM PST up reply actions  

ditto

The stadium would be great, but ultimately it would be good to see Oakland’s waterfront become a real “waterfront” with people milling about and things to do and such. I mean beyond visit FDR’s old boat and jump a ferry to SF.

by jeffro on Dec 5, 2009 7:42 AM PST up reply actions  

for the downtown area in general recently, there are indeed sparks

of life down there, and not too far from the proposed site (though not connected yet of course). hip little bars around the broadway/telegraph junction, popular poetry reading series tucked off broadway, blue bottle coffee, great new restaurants, the stunning fox theater, etc. if a stadium were to go in there i’d think lots of little businesses could spring up nearby. maybe covert a warehouse into a bunch of food stalls, etc. but it’s always dead at night— which is why a stadium wld liven things up quite a bit. it just couldn’t get any better for an oaklander, really.

by oaklidiot on Dec 5, 2009 12:21 AM PST up reply actions  

yeah, white collar street cred,

gotta love it. jeffro, this is a great post— really like the location and ideas of linking the downtown area to JLS etc. my stomper bobblehead is getting all squiggly w/ hope again over this. call me wak but i think the a’s would have a chance to save downtown oakland by keeping the team here. kind of a second chance— or maybe a final chance— before the other shoe of this economic meltdown finally fully drops.

by oaklidiot on Dec 5, 2009 12:15 AM PST up reply actions  

I agree

A stadium development in this area could be great for Oakland. I think saving Oakland is a bit of a high expectation to put on a stadium though.

A stadium can speed up the redevelopment/economic growth of an area. Coors Field is an example of this. AT&T Park is an example of this. But only the most ardent supporters of stadium development make the claim that the stadiums were responsible for all of the growth and economists have pretty much proven otherwise. It is rare for a stadium to have even a negligible public benefit, I think Neil deMause (who is way skeptical of stadium development but very, very well informed on the topic) wrote that the only stadium with measurable public benefit is AT&T Park and that was because the public contribution to stadium construction was 5% of the total cost. Meaning the City made a very small investment and got a very small return.

This isn’t a situation where a larger investment brings a larger return. There is sort of a fixed return that a City can bank on. If they spend more than that to build a ballpark, they won’t get a return.

Ultimately it is not up to the A’s to save Oakland, they can be one part of a larger plan, a minority partner if you will. But it is up to Oakland to rally support and “save” Oakland. It will take more than a ballpark to make the waterfront a vibrant part of the downtown and it can be done without one.

by jeffro on Dec 5, 2009 7:56 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

no doubt i overstated the saving oakland bit--

there’s just this part of me that loves this town and will not buy into the notion that sports are a business and marketing opportunity first, and a cultural thing second. even the players themselves reciting the mantra during interviews: “i understand baseball is a business first” etc. i’m sure the execs and well-to-do’s at the top are sagely nodding their heads to this wisdom, but really, does this always have to be acceptable to us? oakland is very likely going to lose this historical and colorful team, but if they retain it within a new stadium here, upsetting all of the odds, i dont think we can really measure the intangibles of the value it would bring. a huge win for a long-embattled city, a huge ray of hope (if you will), even beyond oakland. i really thought lew wolff was one of those guys who might sympathize with this kind of position, but i guess not (it seems).

by oaklidiot on Dec 5, 2009 12:49 PM PST up reply actions  

For me, the whole point of this site is that

it changes foot traffic. You’re thinking of Lake Merritt, downtown, and JLS as they are now. The hope is that this plan would not just be a “strange corner” but would become a new traffic center that would help integrate the others.

In my view, this is exactly why something like this would be beneficial for Oakland. The reason the City would consider investing in it would be for the sake of transforming the city’s public geography for the better. That could be a lasting benefit for the city, much more than just keeping the A’s per se. (Whether that benefit warrants the price it would cost is another matter, of course.)

I agree with Jeffro that 880 is the key. 880 is a big part of what killed Oakland, and it’s not going away. The question is how to work around it.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Dec 4, 2009 9:51 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I've always thought 980 was the bigger scar,

severing West Oakland the way it does. 880 seems more of a necessary burden. In this case, since it’s presence helps to leverage the resources Caltrans is already investing to fix the horrible 880/5th street section, it could help.

Everybody's got a little light under the sun.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 4, 2009 7:06 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree about West Oakland but disagree about 980

What finished off West Oakland (it wasn’t the only factor, but it was the final blow) was the Cypress Freeway; not 980, which didn’t go up until much later. West Oakland was already in decline, due to various economic changes, but it was the Nimitz that tore it up, plowed it down, and cut it in half.

In the 1920s and 1930s West Oakland was the hottest part of the city. The jazz clubs on Seventh Street were the soul not just of Oakland, but of the entire West Coast. So much history there. Now West Oakland almost like a completely separate community, and its former glory is as dead as Greenwood. So sad.

(If the A’s do leave Oakland, maybe we can put a AAA team in West Oakland, following Tulsa’s example with Greenwood. Preferably the team will be the San Jose A’s affiliate, not the Giants’. And preferably named “Oakland Oaks”.)

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Dec 4, 2009 10:04 PM PST up reply actions  

oops, forgot the reason I started to reply at all: a big +1 on the transforming Oakland’s public geography bit. The ballpark, plus the Measure DD improvements to the channel, plus the Oak-to-Ninth development, plus the new residents in Brown era condos, together with Jack London Square, could all work together to help revitalize a huge part of Oakland. This vision could also work to unify local political will.

Everybody's got a little light under the sun.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 4, 2009 7:12 PM PST up reply actions  

This is on the front page already but I'm recommending it anyway.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 4, 2009 6:05 AM PST reply actions  

thanks

I got one more I want to write, but after that I will stop the insanity.

by jeffro on Dec 4, 2009 7:30 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Dublin a better location

  Why it is the most central location in the bay area for fans. Better weather and easy to get to. Would increase fans from San Jose, Vallejo, and Sacramento. All the while in a safer area close to bart.

by Arcman on Dec 4, 2009 7:57 AM PST reply actions  

Dublin?

Are you freaking kidding?

by jeffro on Dec 4, 2009 8:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Better than oakland

  lets see in oakland you sit in traffic jams and cant go anywhere after the game because the area is full of crime. Jack London square is out because of the idiot mayor who has pushed them further into bankruptcy. Thanks to former mayor Brown the best place to have a stadium in oakland was thrown out. I have no faith in old man dellums doing anything to keep the A’s when he can’t even run his own office. Dublin is the most central place in the east bay to draw fans from the area. There is much government land to build a stadium on and will create a after the game economical area.

by Arcman on Dec 4, 2009 8:29 AM PST up reply actions  

So traffic jams are a problem in Oakland?

When was the last time you drove on the 580/680 interchange at 5, or 6, or 7 PM?

I guess I will just say, I respectfully disagree on Dublin being a better location to build a ballpark than Oakland or San Jose.

The City Government in Oakland has traditionally been a hindrance, no question. But the City Government of Dublin also recently poo pooed overtures from Al Davis and the Raiduhs over traffic/quality of life concerns. Here is a quote contained the linked article from Dublin’s Mayor:

"My personal opinion is it would destroy the city of Dublin if we even considered it," Lockhart told the Times.

There also is not much population density to the east and immediate south of Dublin. It really isn’t that close to all that many people.

From a purely selfish standpoint, I would love it if the A’s played in Dublin. I live in Pleasanton and they would be in my backyard. I just don’t think there is much of a compelling case to actually building a stadium in Dublin.

by jeffro on Dec 4, 2009 8:42 AM PST up reply actions  

I thought it would look much better

in Doubly.

I'll have a sandwich and a draft(sic). - Bill King (RIP)

by BleedGreen on Dec 4, 2009 8:02 PM PST up reply actions  

to be fair, dublin is a really good pick if we cant get oakland.

i want oakland but that whole corridor from dublin/ san ramon/ danville/ alamo/ walnut creek/ concord is absolutely loaded with families and sports-freaks/jocks of all ages. the local municipal sports leagues are very competitive from the kids all the way up to the seniors. they would cram that place i guarantee it. a huge fan base opportunity. plus arcman is right, the weather is unbeatable, 10 – 20+ degrees warmer than oakland in spring, summer and most of fall. perfect baseball weather. so i want 1.) oaktown, 2.) dublin/pleasanton 3.) san jose — a very distant third. las vegas go to hell (i mean, already is hell).

by oaklidiot on Dec 5, 2009 12:32 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, this is ludicrous

I understand that Oakland first fans don’t like San Jose because it offers a true alternative to Oakland, but the Tri Valley is not close to realistic. The immediate area has a population of about 300k. As you move away from Dublin/Pleasanton to the east you go through large patches of areas with no population at all.

I live in the Tri Valley and would love a baseball team in my backyard, but reality is the Tri Valley is more a potential home for a Cal League team than a big league team.

The A’s should play in Oakland or San Jose. It is an arm wrestling contest at this point… between OFD site and Diridon. May the stronger site win.

by jeffro on Dec 5, 2009 7:27 AM PST up reply actions  

maybe you're right, but i'm not thinking of the immediate area

the census figures say contra costa county has 1 million. and those people are constantly travelling the 680 corridor, so the immediate area of dublin doesn’t mean that much. also, the 25 minute freeway drive from oakland is do-able. my real point is that the burbs have money (paying customers with jobs and the will to spend) that oakland does not. seems likely that people would also come in from livermore, stockton, etc. also. if we added all that population up, is it still ludicrous? i dunno

by oaklidiot on Dec 5, 2009 1:01 PM PST up reply actions  

the 300 thousand

includes Livermore (73k), San Ramon (44k), Dublin (47k), Pleasanton (64k) and Danville (42k) and then some.

It is really a stretch though there are big corporations headquartered out there. Ross, Safeway, and Chevron.

by jeffro on Dec 5, 2009 1:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Well, I'm not sure it's a BAD idea

Obviously, the same fans who attend now would still attend. It would attract new fans that want to come out and see the new place, and maybe also still gain some new corporate support.

It’s just that creating a stadium way out there is the same problem the Coliseum has now: great transportation access, but no “vibe” in the area. What we are looking for is the best balance between the two extremes — that it’s easy enough to get to but not as ridiculously easy as now, but also in the middle of somewhere you might also go even without a game going on.

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

by cuppingmaster on Dec 5, 2009 5:22 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd say this

If the A’s move south then the SJ Giants should seriously consider Downtown Pleasanton (on the corner of Bernal and Old Bernal, right behind the train station), Dublin (there is an empty warehouse right by the new BART station) or Livermore (no idea where) for a landing spot. It beats the hell out Visalia!

I am just joking when I make fun of Visalia, I spent many a summer evening at rec park rooting on the Oaks in my Run DMC t-shirt and Air Jordan sneakers back in the 80’s.

by jeffro on Dec 5, 2009 10:47 PM PST up reply actions  

yeah it stunned me that brown was the guy

who killed my hopes for keeping the a’s in oakland. such a poor decision; it really was a great location. . . .

by oaklidiot on Dec 5, 2009 12:24 AM PST up reply actions  

Need a new mayor first

  Dellums is a idiot old man who couldn’t even get the A’s a new paint job at the net. Oakland needs a business man to run the city and keep the A’s. The fire department site does have potential since it is in a place which could be rebuilt into a urban business center with shops and diners. Think of Emeryville as a example. First step would be get a real mayor with a vision into the future and it could work. Second set it up as a urban renewal plan with federal money.

by Arcman on Dec 5, 2009 8:22 AM PST up reply actions  

The way I am looking at it

  Only on a business view. Oakland would have been a good sight 20 years ago but ecnomics have changed in the way they look at basball parks. Its a business first and ball game second. All the new stadiums are built in business districts with after game activities. If the stadium was built in jack London square where they could transform the area into a after activities and this would create more money and the stadium actualy pays for itself. Corporate sponsors are the other big money in baseball now so you need a place where salesmen can sit down and go over deals after the game. Business owners influence the mayors of cities more than ever. Tax revenue is the new source of city income. As you can tell I am still angry at former mayor Brown for throwing away the best opportunity for a stadium in Oakland.

by Arcman on Dec 4, 2009 9:18 AM PST reply actions  

The hope (well, my hope anyway) is

that the OFD site is close enough to JLS that the area in between would develop into a business district with evening activities, drawing traffic from both sides. Right now Jack London Square is a dead end. It creates activity for itself but doesn’t really connect much with the rest of Oakland. A plan like this would hopefully open that up.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Dec 4, 2009 10:38 AM PST up reply actions  

note to jeffro

thank you for this informative post… as a long-time advocate for keeping my A’s in Oakland, i always like reading proposals with Oakland as a centerpiece.

And, there has been a lot more sympathy for the Oakland cause, as of late, on this site.

Let’s Go A’s – in Oakland!

by GrewUpAtTheColiseum on Dec 4, 2009 9:59 AM PST reply actions  

Sympathy

Thanks. To be honest, I am not trying to sympathize with anyone or anything. My only motivation for writing these “articles” is that I have heard a lot of people make generalizations about San Jose and Oakland and attendance and transportation without much analysis to back it up.

My point from the very beginning of writing these is that A. There is no market better than the Bay Area for MLB to move the A’s to. B. A new stadium can be successful in Oakland or San Jose.

I still feel that way after spending late nights researching this stuff. I am writing one more post, about San Jose and then I will stop with the long winded stadium talk and leave it to the master at this site.

by jeffro on Dec 4, 2009 11:32 AM PST up reply actions  

Speaking of other markets

Maybe it’s just me, but does anyone else find it strange that Indianapolis is the site of the Winter Meetings given our stadium situation and the fact that the BRP hasn’t made up its mind yet?

I’m probably way off the mark — but it’s cold as hell there and they could have gone anywhere else in the country. Hawaii, LA, Orlando, etc… warm places. But they chose Indy. Hmmm…

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

by cuppingmaster on Dec 4, 2009 11:47 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

I think you should layoff the Dan Brown books

Just kidding. I don’t see Indianapolis as a smart move by MLB if that is a move they plan to make. It would be like adding a team in Kansas City.

by jeffro on Dec 4, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions  

I was wondering why they offered me a tinfoil hat with book purchase ;-)

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

by cuppingmaster on Dec 4, 2009 1:49 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

hawaii sounds good (neutral zone)

they can always save $$ to acquire better players by camping out on the beach instead of spending it on luxury hotels

by OakA'sHoney on Dec 4, 2009 12:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Hawaii

Is in the bay area TV market rights. I have read the SF Giants are a huge draw on the big island, especially in the last couple of years.

by hishnik on Dec 4, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions  

hmm...

seems like the A’s should be able to capture that market with Suzuki. Maybe a promotional campaign is in order?

by MaineAthletic on Dec 4, 2009 1:12 PM PST up reply actions  

camping

We’ll just be the Yosemite A’s and the players can live in the “Housekeeping” area.

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

by cuppingmaster on Dec 4, 2009 1:52 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

They might have some fleece blankets left over from a give away day

Fleece blankets are .25 WAR for 10 bucks versus a sleeping bag’s 1 WAR for 80 bucks. Who needs sleeping bags when you can get four give away fleece blankets for half the price and still get the same WAR? You know?

by jeffro on Dec 4, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions  

That's okay

only 25 of the blankets can be used at a given time. And if you put one away, you have to keep it there for at least 10 days unless one of the other blankets needs to be mended and will be unavailable for at least 15 days.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Dec 4, 2009 4:10 PM PST up reply actions  

Golden Gate Fields?!?!!?

How about using the Golden Gate Fields location? They are auctioning off the land in February I think. It’s not Oakland, but it’s closer than San Jose and has tons of parking and good freeway access. There’s just no BART, but Amtrak does stop relatively nearby. We could be the Oakland A’s of Albany? ha ha.

by daveman on Dec 4, 2009 1:20 PM PST reply actions   1 recs

I live near there

That will never, ever happen. Ever ever ever.

by richwol1 on Dec 4, 2009 1:26 PM PST up reply actions  

what richwol1 said

Plus, the City of Oakland has leaked 4 potential sites and this is one of them. A few folks who claim to be on the inside have told me that this site is THE site for Oakland. Honestly, I think it is the best shot.

by jeffro on Dec 4, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions  

GGF

And talk about some of the coldest, foggiest weather is all the bay area…

by Dr Pez on Dec 4, 2009 3:57 PM PST reply actions  

Welcome to my shit list, senior scutaro

"They (The 1989 A's) are the best team I ever saw"- Mike Krukow

by 9Custs on Dec 4, 2009 5:41 PM PST reply actions  

*senor

"They (The 1989 A's) are the best team I ever saw"- Mike Krukow

by 9Custs on Dec 4, 2009 5:41 PM PST up reply actions  

I dunno. The guy wants a championship and Boston offers a better chance than the A's currently do.

Plus, we were the ones who traded him away and there might still be hard feelings for that.

by LoneStranger on Dec 7, 2009 9:29 AM PST up reply actions  

Another excellent post

But Oakland sure isn’t going to pay for or be a guarantor of any stadium construction funding, and I don’t get why you feel the A’s should expect that. No one’s suggested San Jose guarantee a share. Practically speaking, such a subsidy would guarantee a ballot initiative fight. More to the point, no city’s got that kind of money these days.

The ante for Oakland or SJ is to assemble the land, lease it back on favorable terms, and clear the zoning and entitlements. Paying for the stadium itself is the A’s and MLB’s part of the deal, and I don’t think even they expect municipal backing for that.

Fun fact about your fave Oakland site…there are cranes working there right now! The improvements that Caltrans already plans to make in that area should help a great deal with the freeway access issues.

Everybody's got a little light under the sun.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 4, 2009 6:26 PM PST reply actions  

Forgive me if I sound "anti-Oakland",

As I know you’re an ardent supporter. I’ve morphed into holding a soft spot for the little burg in the last few years, but it hasn’t changed my perception of reality. I’d like to see the stars line up and Oaktown pull off one more long shot, but in the end, I think this has to do with future prospect status rather than current economics.

I think Selig and company are looking long term in the economic sense. If that’s the case, I think the same economic sun that is rising in SJ is setting in Oakland. Old world port city, light industry, etc, verses the dot.com juggernaut, the burgeoning age of the information highway….etc etc. Hard to resist the siren call that beckons in the new world order…..the future lies in silicon, not steel.

That or I’ve had a beer to many.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Dec 4, 2009 8:25 PM PST up reply actions  

yes but we don't have to accept their version of the future now do we?

their version always seems to include profit at any cost, higher ticket prices, higher beer prices, gaudy marketing, no soul, box seats, a world for the corporate and the well to do— as if there’s just no other choice, as if it’s all just so inevitable.

by oaklidiot on Dec 5, 2009 12:39 AM PST up reply actions  

Some things are eternal....

and this is one of them. Tell me, what do you think a cup of wine cost in the Roman Coli back in the day? Do you ever wonder if a couple of fans such as you and I bitched about our favorite gladiator school rushing prospects up from the provinces?

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Dec 5, 2009 8:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Its bullshit

that they stopped selling meade after the 7th battle

by Future Ed on Dec 5, 2009 8:54 PM PST up reply actions  

iswydt

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Dec 5, 2009 11:42 PM PST up reply actions  

A celebrity sighting! Again!

I kid… but it is nice to see FSU in the house.

So, that is a good question. Two reasons why I suggested it:

1. There is plenty of speculation about corporate support in Oakland. I imagine that you don’t doubt the support is there. I am not as sure. I can see how it could be easier to get more corporate support in the South Bay. The logic from my perspective on this is to offset that perceived advantage make it a nonissue. If the corporate support is really there, nothing to worry about.

2. I am not engineer. I preface this with that statement cause I will be horrible at backing this up. I spoke with a friend who is one and he explained to me that the soil in that particular area of Oakland is less than optimal for stadium construction. It can be mitigated but it increases costs significantly. $500 Million is just a guess as to what it would really cost. Maybe you know a more accurate number?

So the underlying theme in that suggestion is that if you are talking about building a stadium in a city that will cost a lot more and has less corporate support there will need to be some balancing act to make it happen. Guaranteeing some portion of construction cost may not be feasible, what is another way?

by jeffro on Dec 4, 2009 8:32 PM PST up reply actions  

No kidding.

Very nice to see some old friends.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Dec 4, 2009 9:23 PM PST up reply actions  

And FSU, too!

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 5, 2009 6:08 PM PST up reply actions  

$30 million for a 1200-space parking garage??!!

Considering how many VLCC’s* are going to be scrap when all the transition to “double hulls” finishes, I don’t see why a floating parking garage cannot be constructed for a tenth of the cost of a concrete one.

Sure, you cannot have “tailgating” except on the top deck, but I’m sure many of the game attendees would not mind, if it was a covered and secured parking situation.

The reason parking garages IMO cost so much is because of earthquake/soil considerations. Earthquake effects would not be a consideration (although laughably, a consultant mention “seiches” to me) in retrofitting a floating garage…even a stadium.

Talk about spreading the financing….I’m sure some Asian shipyards would beneficially do the steelwork, just to keep working, and spread the costs over time. If a program of floating garages/stadiums were begun with worldwide distribution of say, twenty-five structures, I’m sure the costs would come down dramatically compared to “one-off, site-specific” structures. Custom built anythings are waaaay too costly, and is the reason I oppose “infrastructure” projects as a way to get the USA out of the “Great Recession”. Japan tried, and the return on investment showed it to be ineffectual.
-—————————————————————————————————————————————-
*Very Large Crude Carriers

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."-Plutarch

by One won lost won on Dec 5, 2009 9:03 AM PST reply actions  

The point of infrastructure projects in a recession

is not return on investment. The point is that you have to pump money into the economy anyway for the sake of stimulus and to keep unemployed people from starving, so as long as you’re giving way free money you may as well at least get something to show for it, like roads and stuff.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Dec 5, 2009 9:47 AM PST up reply actions  

I can see the article now...

“The Oakland floating parking garage is heading towards the open ocean in what officials are calling ‘the largest carjack in history.’”

by LoneStranger on Dec 7, 2009 9:35 AM PST up reply actions  

"Large wave beaches Oakland floating parking garage, A's win. Oakland loses"

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Dec 9, 2009 5:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Aperture_logo_small
Community Prospect List #4
Img_2672_small
Long-Term Outlook

Recent FanPosts

Small
A's reportedly sign Cespedes
Unknown_small
Is It Really Worth It: Three Veterans Who May Be Playing Oakland Next Year, But Shouldn't Be
Small
Manny's Contract
Small
fantasy baseball league for A's fans!
Small
NYY Proposal
Small
Roy Oswalt = opportunity
Choice_small
Tom Milone, by the numbers: Maddux, Glavine, Halladay, Radke...
Img_1877_small
Behind Enemy Lines
Lt-922060_small
All-Time Oakland A's team

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Front Page Writers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Josefav2_small danmerqury

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Img_0653_small dwishinsky

Front Page Writers

Smiley_face_small gigglingone

Venasfans_small OaklandSi

60-minutes-clock_small cuppingmaster

Patpicturebucky2_small YonYonson

Img_3830_small David Fung

Moderators

Photofunia-5c770b_small coffee roaster

Denver_small Colorado Fan

Ls_logo100_small LoneStranger

Thumbs_up_small LongTimeFan

Marty_profile_in_green_small mrod

Img_1877_small Billy Frijoles

Babycomputergeek_small paris7

Img_0115_small Tutu-late