Forget about rebuilding -- will the A's even be <i>building</i>?
by monkeyball on Dec 15, 2007 11:16 AM PST
in News
Email
PrintIn the context of the Haren trade discussion, notah8er brought up something that I've been thinking a lot about lately myself.
Namely, what effect (if any) will the respective crises in the economy as a whole, the real estate sector, and the mortgage and credit sectors have on Wolff's plan for the ballpark village in Fremont?
I will freely volunteer that I have no economic training or expertise (ask my accountant and my probation officer for confirmation of that), and the collective A's ownership is far wiser and more accomplished than I am, but I think it's quite clear that there are some significantly bad national trends right now that only look to get worse.
Obviously, the Bay Area will continue to remain one of the last holdouts for real estate value-retention. And Lew was never going to be targeting subprime candidates for his townhouses anyway.
As pressures increase on the margins of those protective hedges, though, it would seem to highlight what I have always thought were some signal weaknesses of the ballpark village marketing plan:
- The distance of the site from employment centers, the lack of access to public transportation, and the lack of any plan for funding or implementing capital roadway improvements
- The size, saturation, and growth potential of the baseball-fan market in the Bay Area (and that's ignoring the quality of the A's on-field product and its impact on the brand between now and 2012)
- Wolff's relative lack of experience in planning large residential projects (most of his experience is in resort and commercial properties)
- Intensive/exhaustive environmental review processes that always would have required changes in the plan (and for which Wolff, from all public statements, never seemed prepared for)
Basically, the sales pitch for one of these townhouses would be: live right next to a massive sound-and-light-polluter, on a strip of quasi-urban sprawl with neither the cultural benefits of a "real" city nor the solitude/serenity of a cloistered green suburb, and with a guarantee of a nightmarish (and frustrating due to its short actual length) commute in any direction.
What's more, the idea of dropping a hotel into the midst of all this -- with no easy access to the convention centers in SF or the South Bay, and no real area draw outside of the baseball season (and even then, only for the Yankees and Red Sox games, in any appreciable amount) -- has always seemed misguided to me.
So -- to my uneducated, jaundiced simian eye, it looks like a building project that already faced significant challenges to succeed, and was counting on a lot of things going right that now look unlikely to.
Much like the A's on-field prospects for 2008 looked to Beane two days ago.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Fremont plan scaled way, way back from its initial planning in the next couple years. If it even comes to fruition at all , or if Wolff even still remains a partner.
But, as I've said, I'm speaking off the cuff and without any real expertise in the underlying issues.
So, school me, AN'ers. Tell me how and why I'm wrong.
79 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
good points
besides the issue of suburban sprawl development not being as trendy as it was a few decades ago (not to mention, as free of environmental, transportation and other roadblocks), in a climate of housing market depreciation the infill urban developments already built and planned in cities such as Oakland may well come down in price, and perhaps become more attractive to would-be condo buyers.
The Fremont plan is no sure thing to be approved (although I'm sure Wolff lined up some important players who want it and will do all they can to push it through); even if it does get approved it won't be approved and built in time for the 2011 season, I think...and the national housing climate (which is beginning to affect the Bay Area, though not as sharply as elsewhere) does not favor a quicker approval.
this does not mean I think Wolff will reconsider
a ballpark in Oakland for the A's. If the Fremont plan doesn't go through I think he may cut his losses.
agreed
That's what I was hinting at near the end.
What I think is quasi-likely is that Wolff (via pressure from his partners) scales back the Fremont proposal to something more like Pac bell + some limited commercial properties (no housing, no hotel), gets that mostly underway, then allows himself to be bought out with part of his sale price being the new owner paying some amount of cash for an option to buy/expand on the property Wolff holds around the park site.
that's true
he is the managing partner, with most of the $$ ownership being the GAP owner. Wolff is also the managing partner of the Fremont ballpark village development plan. If he should want to bail I wouldn't be surprised to see the team put up for sale.
It's Fremont or bust
They've already invested over $100 million on the land and spent another $1-2 million on consultants with more to come. Pretty soon they'll eclipse the amount spent on the franchise. Scaling back in any measurable way isn't feasible because the numbers simply won't work.
I've brought this up every so often and it won't shrink in importance: this type of project is a trial balloon for every other owner who may be forced to privately fund either a ballpark or improvements to an existing venue. The owners need to know this will work so that they can use it as a blueprint for the future. Tampa Bay is already moving in this direction.
Demographics will bail him out
The big question is whether they'll do so in time to make the Wolffish financing scheme work. If they need all the housing to be built and sold within, say 2 years before and after park opening, then they may be in trouble. If, however, the housing development and sales are more graduated over a 10+ year timeframe, they should be fine. Here's why:
The Bay Area population will jump 2 million over the next 30 years. This article references an Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) report which says, simply, that this influx is happening like it or not.
Here's a link to a PDF from an ABAG/MTC (Metro Transport Commish) forum in October which highlights areas where housing stock needs to increase. Their big push is urban infill, transit corridors, etc. (like, say, a mallpark+highrise on Broadway Auto Row? Nah...) But check the map on Page 2. While Fremont ain't exactly urban core now, it's going to be transit/development corridor in the coming years, like it or not. Here's another link to the ABAG/MTC forum page, which includes lots of other links to info along these lines.
Here is an excellent primer on CEQA, written by my favorite Oakland development blogger, though I don't always agree with her. There is no f'in way that Lew has been unprepared for the CEQA process vis the mallpark. And he's a goddamn liar for even suggesting that the delays have caught him by surprise. All this is built into his internal timeline, with room to spare, I think. And if I hear that obnoxious "someone would oppose a cure for cancer" line one more time I'm gonna scream...more. But all that said, I believe he and the City of Fremont's army of Lew-funded consultants have the review process well in hand. Their bigger concern has to be someone forcing a ballot initiative...that really could slow things down.
This is something of a...uh...hobby for me. My take is that the housing slump makes the project less lucrative in the immediate term, and potentially makes the financing scheme more precarious, depending on deal structure aspects to which we of course are not privy. But long term the housing demand is there, the 880 corridor location is pretty much can't miss, and Wolffish Development Inc. still stands to make great coin out of this.
And that's all without factoring in the effect of the deal on the franchise asset value itself, which has already appreciated like $120 million in four years of the Lew regime, pre-new park, and probably stands to jump by, I'll guess, $300-500 million more over the next ten years, by which point it will (I'll again guess) be spun off to the next rapacious ownership group.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 15, 2007 11:59 AM PST reply actions
check out the demographic
in the expected population growth.
The job sectors will largely be filled with workers who aren't in the target demographic for the Ballpark Village condos -- or on the downtown Oakland condos either, for that matter.
The other demographic projected to grow is that of senior citizens, which isn't in the target population either.
That's true in a very general way
But not all the population growth is senior citizens, and the demography skews less old in the Bay Area that nationwide, and even less so in Silicon Valley than in the greater Bay Area. And there's a displacement effect, since urban core land is already pretty built, where the ring of dwelling locations perceived as acceptable widens by necessity. There'll be plenty of housing demand for all strata of development, especially new homes with good schools. The variable will be the price point.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 15, 2007 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
You really ARE Jake Gittes.
When is workable siting a "bail-out," and ...
... when is it just "smart siting," based on those same demographics?
by The Dogfather on Dec 15, 2007 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
Piling on
The dance has really been between the Wolffs and the city council. The city council has asked for concessions, so far the Wolffs have complied. It is that set of changes that have created the delay in submission, not so much CEQA matters. I don't think they've made many changes yet that will be necessary to pass muster with CEQA.
That six-month delay has made it possible for all parties to further appreciate the housing bubble burst. As a result the mix of housing has changed from about 90% townhomes to 60-70%. At the same time one of the parcels has been more flexible as its dev timeline has moved out from 7 to 10 years. As a result additional commercial or office development may be the mode of choice.
I've heard/read recently that the national housing market should rebound to stable levels by 2009-10. Even now there are four counties in the Bay Area that continue to see median price increases: Marin, SF, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. Alameda County tends to vary a lot due to its proximity to employment centers. Fremont is more stable than most other AC cities. FWIW Solano and Contra Costa counties are in the worst shape.
Beyond that, we're starting to see a real push-pull market dynamic. As Bay Area exiles in the Central Valley have trouble in that market and/or tire of the commute, some are moving back into the Bay Area, where planners in almost every city are putting together TOD developments.
The housing market could very well rebound
by the time the Ballpark village hits the market. Also remember that it won't be a huge amount of houses going into the market-they are staggering the development so that they go on the market over a period of years.
thanks
I've been reading that site for years. That's a good place to start.
I've also done a lot of reading on my own regarding public transportation planning, environmental impact reports of planned developments, and similar issues. (It's been part of my job to a greater or lesser extent for about 15 years.)
I think smart real estate developers begin their
... projects during a downturn, the better to get cheaper bids from more available contractors, and in anticipation that the project will be completed several years hence, as/when the economy has rebounded/self-corrected (notice there's no "if" -- it ALways comes back, and the Risk associated with "no-comeback" or "delay" would be small and calculable into the interest rates charged by the financiers).
Note that the Fed has cut interest rates recently, and that mortgage rates, for "well-qualified" buyers remain low. Our Cisco Kid and his caballeros are dealing with very savvy, high-end investment banks here -- indeed, I understand that some of those financial institutions have special units with expertise in funding sports-related stadia and other development. There's a lot of greedy pros with a lot at stake -- and they mostly make their dough when projects go forward.
I also think that the concept of the urban core as employment center is changing with the rise of remote work-sites. Given that Fremont is on the edge of the SiliValley epicenter of such trends, that particular species of worry may be overstated, as well.
All that said, I expect that there WILL be changes to The Plan, but they'll be in the ordinary course of business for such plans. And I also suspect they'll provide further fodder for folks who oppose the Field to digest and sling some bi-products around to see if anything sticks. It sells newspapers.
"very savvy, high-end investment banks here"
... who are the self-same folks who brought you Big Shitpile (as Duncan Black calls it).
Who's he, and what's that?
If it's the Big Phoney, then bring it on. If it's Mt Davis, I think we have a County who's mostly to blame.
And if it's aesthetics that make whatever-it-is the Big Ammo Pile, the bankers have never been accused of good taste, just a highly developed sense of how to turn a buck.
by The Dogfather on Dec 15, 2007 2:47 PM PST up reply actions
Duncan Black = Atrios
Big name liberal blogger. Arguably second only to Blez's buddy Kos.
regarding
"the quality of the A's on-field product and its impact on the brand between now and 2012",
how about this scenario, post Mitchell report:
- MLB and the players feel obligated to begin/allow hard-core testing for PEDs.
- the median age of ML ballplayers drops significantly (no more record numbers of 40+ year olds in the big leagues)
- young teams quickly gain a competitive advantage.
Under this scenario, the A's may be poised to prosper (forgive the alliteration). Just a concept.
perhaps
I've also read some analyses that the report -- which hits players and low-level employees far harder than upper management or owners -- may infuriate the union to the point that the truce brokered between players and owners may have been broken. Not sure what that might mean in practice (how long is the new agreement in force?)
almost forgot ...
... my other recent unfounded speculation, which is that, given how clumsily culpable Magowan looks in the Mitchell Report, Bud and his cronies could use that as leverage to build a pretext for finally yanking away the Giants' territorial rights to SJ. Wollfisher then steps in to put together a combined A's/49ers/Quakes complex that better facilitates the multiuse facility concept.
Not going to happen
First, I doubt that gives Seilig any leverage. The Owners still have to vote on it.
Second, the A's have already invested a lot of money into the Fremont plan. A Plan that will fizzle and which they will get nothing out of if they pull the Stadium and/or the A's from that plan, since that is the reason Fremont is accepting it.
Third, the point of moving to Fremont is to get OUT of a Shared facility with a football team! Why would we go back into one!
I suspect he means two stadia, one complex.
Lots of shared facilities, which makes some sense. Isn't that the way KC does it, and maybe Pittsburgh?
I wish they'd have put a shared baseball stadium on Treasure Island. Hey -- let's start a rumor.
I also think it's Sabean who's most at-risk after Mitchell. Magowan appears to have been guilty of believing his underling, whereas Sabean was actively mendacious. (This may have been covered elsewhere -- I've been out-of-town. If so, sorry).
by The Dogfather on Dec 15, 2007 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
Not enough room - anywhere
The Truman Sports Complex is nearly as old as the Coliseum. It also has 19,200 parking spaces for both stadia. You'd have to move out to the Mojave Desert to find that kind of expanse cheap enough to build upon.
Pittsburgh did their stadia in sequence. Both Heinz Field and PNC were built simultaneously on parking lots while Three Rivers was still in use. Both were ready in 2001, which allowed for the old stadium to be demolished soon thereafter. Heinz has more parking around it, PNC is closer to downtown. Pirates' poor teams not withstanding, the arrange has worked out well.
All of the above venues were largely financed publicly. For Pittsburgh, state legislation was used after a referendum failed.
Sabean-Magowan
Magowan appears to have been guilty of throwing his employee under the bus. Sabes has been vociferously denying Magowan's accounting of their interactions.
While I don't think much of the way Sabean manages a roster, and I do have a lot of respect for Magowan, I think Magowan's being a grade-a turd here. (And regarding that sort of thing, I do know of what I speak, in contradistinction to the rest of my comments herein.)
monkeyse.cx?
Reversal of Fortune
I'd like to see:
all those property owners between the Fruitvale BART station and the flea-market/drive-in, magically, astonishingly, banding together and offering their properties together as a block, for 70% of what they could have got if they'd got wise in 2005.
Well, it's simply a thought. No way at this stage, or any other stage. I think it's a pity that the city of Oakland screwed up the Coliseum plus can't upgrade the baseball situation to a baseball only park, downtown.
Why didn't they build three-story "affordable housing at 17th-20th & Broadway, and on the fourth floor... a baseball stadium!!! Nitwits in government (see, Fire Department, accepting applications now..)
by One won lost won on Dec 15, 2007 5:15 PM PST reply actions
Beane and Wolf do not care about us fans
It is clear that Billy Beane and Wolf have forsaken us A's fans. Honestly I cannot think of any good reason why fans should spend their hard earned money to go see a team that will not spend the money to put a quality product on the field other than to see the other teams they are playing.
I would not have a problem with the rebuilding if I thought that the A's would make a commitment to keep a core of players that they could build around. The problem is that the A's will not commit to this and I cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel. I have no hope for the A's because I know that all of my favortie players will never stay with the A's long term other than Chavez and look how well that has worked out.
by 3Chavy3 on Dec 15, 2007 5:47 PM PST reply actions
Well, there's always the Giaunts.
Maybe the new ballpark they're paying for out of pocket change -- or is it public money? -- can be renamed "Forsaken Field."
by The Dogfather on Dec 15, 2007 5:51 PM PST up reply actions
i never thought i'd see the day
when there was a front page story on AN based on a notah8er comment... these are dark times.
I think he just wants Wolff
to build the new complex in DC.
New Idria
would be a fascinating spot for a ballpark.
http://www.new-idria.org/
by One won lost won on Dec 15, 2007 11:10 PM PST up reply actions
lots of interesting predictions here
but the problems in our economy are broad. The forth-coming recession (with the dramatic drop of the dollar) is going to make plans this Fremont deal: DOA!
by GrewUpAtTheColiseum on Dec 15, 2007 9:09 PM PST reply actions
One other effect of the housing crisis
The rise of the SIVs
SIVs (Special Interest Vehicles) and their predicted demise might hurt private, big money projects. We'll just have to see.
Financially, the Earth is so overwrought with the complexities that random dis-equilibriums will result in all sorts of unpredicted consequences when something "touches it off!".
Stay tuned!
by One won lost won on Dec 15, 2007 11:08 PM PST up reply actions
Structured Investment Vehicle, not Special
Interest Vehicle.
Thanks! correct you are..
Just shows the newness of some of these entities. Not comfortable with all the terminology.
"Notional value" is another 'new' term getting extensive play, and I think it is misguided to even mention "notional value". It's an excuse to put the words "trillions of dollars" into a doom and gloom article.
After all, what is the "notional value" of all the car insurance Geico has in effect? If every vehicle was "totaled", what would Geico have to pay out? Trillions? Could they pay it?
by One won lost won on Dec 16, 2007 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
This is a brilliant question.
I am in the real estate industry, and I do see Bay Area housing doing just fine over the next 7-10 years, which is the duration of the project.
I agree with the criticisms of the Fremont project location. It's not a foregone conclusion one way or the other how it will play out, but I've learned not to bet against the Bay Area housing market. I see the macroeconomic issues like credit crunch as being temporal.
Spoken like a true real estate broker. I've yet
to meet a broker who doesn't think this is a "GREAT" opportunity to get involved in real estate.
Because it's never a bad time to get into
Real Estate. It's almost impossible to lose unless you're gullible enough to buy a large swath of the Mojave Desert. Hell, if you buy high at the wrong time just wait around a few years. You'll make your money sooner or later. Thing about real estate, it's a finite market. They aint making no more.
It's easy to lose when you lever up to 110% of a
depreciating asset (real estate). Your philosophy is what got the american homeowner into this mess in the first place.
That's not true ...
his philosophy would have saved the American homeowner.
He's talking about real estate as a long term investment -- and in that case, it is a great investment.
The current mess was caused by subprime loans and interest only loans. People were buying houses they couldn't afford -- and paying it back so slowly that temporary downturns in the market led to them owing more than their homes were worth.
Now is a great time to buy a house -- IF you can realistically afford the payments AND you plan on staying there for at least ten or fifteen years.
But that's not true
they are making more.
Real estate isn't just a piece of land. What makes real estate valuable is that it's developed -- connected by roads, sewer, electricity, etc. The expansion of these services into new areas constitutes the creation of real estate, manufacturing developed land from raw land.
It's a strong industry, sure, but it's not just magic. It has its rules just like any other industry. What makes land valuable is its location. The Bay Area has remained a high-demand location for a long long time, and WaddellCanseco might well be right that it's fine for the next 7-10 years. But if you think the same logic applies everywhere, you're fooling yourself.
"The Sky is Falling..."
The real estate market is correcting itself, a part of the business cycle of "bulls & bears." I'd be more concerned about the unreliability of Chavez's & Crosby's health, and questioning their relation to "performance enhancing drugs." (to be expanded upon in another thread) Regardless of the fallout from the steroid scandal, or the current housing market, the A's economics will remain the same at the coliseum. The plan in Fremont will be a great success.
That said, I'm gonna miss the $2 Weds. tickets!
fremont has always been a mistake
really now, and what was that quote about oakland? "there is no there there?"
the damage is done, but i'll say it again. golden gate fields in albany would have been the PERFECT site.
sigh. here's to stucco, chain restaurants, and tacky condos. just what the bay area is about!
for those of you supporting this move, take a gander at the HBO on demand documentary "rebels of oakland"
i just watched it last night. the a's were a representation of the gritty east bay. now they will be the representation of the suburbs, sprawl, and the monster bucks of cisco.
Albany is great if you don't travel 880...
I support the Fremont location, because it is central to the thousands of families who live in the East Bay & commute to the South Bay. Anyone who tries to head north on 880 to attend a weeknight game, after working a full day, can attest to the frustration. The proposed site, though inconvenient for all North Bay fans (Marin, Sonoma, & Solano Counties), it gives access to all Alameda & Santa Clara fans, as well as all of the corporate luxury suite business. Finally, the new site's access from 680 taps into a market that would never consider traveling to Oakland after work.
The result is going to be a greater attendance, Monday through Friday. The 10,000 fans that attend week night games highlights the barrier that the 880 commute currently presents. The A's will not grow, so long as they have to attract fans through $2 week night promotions! A stadium in Fremont will be a great success.
by BillyBall 81 on Dec 16, 2007 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
ummmm
i don't think the 10k attendance on weeknights is a result of 880. i believe it is the result of living in an area where there are many many things to do on any given night. also, in the past few years the a's have done a good job at retaining hardcore baseball fans such as us, but really haven't had the "commercial" success of the team across the bay. this is the fault of the team (lack of big name talent etc), not the location of the stadium. i will give you that the coliseum complex isn't really a draw for anything other than sports, so on a weeknight you would sacrifice a great dinner for a possible foul ball.
i'll give you the proximity issue for south bay fans (hey they are all part of the family too) but i wonder if it would be a wash with loss of BART access.
thats is why i still dream (pipe dream) that the a's would locate near an EXISTING urban center rather than trying to create there there.
and again, i know i am crying about spilt milk, but this all still feels very much as speculation. i have not been following the development as closely as some of you, but can you give me this point:
building a "town centre" for the sake of a ball park seems to be putting the cart in front of the horse.
while the uptown oakland plan would have revitalized downtown oakland in a year, we are now using a sports team to build a population center in suburbia. of course we have AG Moonbeam and his disdain for anything other than his political donors to blame for this, but still.
albany golden gate fields has the space, the built urban area, freeway and bay access. but then again, whats done is done. albany and el cerrito would have benefited tremendously, pouring much needed tax dollars into the area. (WCCUSD could really use the bucks).
still. a fan i am. so i will root for the suburban a's anywhere (except SOCAL!!!)
by greendatitiz on Dec 16, 2007 10:23 AM PST up reply actions
Um
while the uptown oakland plan would have revitalized downtown oakland in a year
Like all the other stadiums that have revitalized various downtowns around the US?
This argument is essentially bogus. Every study ever done shows that downtowns can be "revitalized" far more efficiently by other means. Me, I'm partial to burying bags of money in random locations, but your mileage may vary.
bogus?
have you been to downtown oakland? i work there, and i can tell you that it would have brought the money and folks to the area.
at night, downtown oakland is a ghost town.
as for your bogus statement, try not being so obtuse. this is a discussion, not a shit throwing competition.
ah, a stanford fan. 'nuff said.
hows that for shit throwing? feels good doesn't it? happy holidays........
by greendatitiz on Dec 16, 2007 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
and generalization does not work here, btw
every downtown is different, and their needs are different.
by greendatitiz on Dec 16, 2007 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
Would you prefer "patently false"?
"Academically disproven"?
You're right that every downtown is different. The one thing that all downtowns seem to have in common, however, is that stadiums don't do anything to help them.
As for the Stanford thing, I'm not an alum. I went to school in LA. It just happens to be the college team I follow the most closely.
He didn't accuse you of being an alum ...
just a fan.
Also, while I agree with the general sentiment that downtowns don't vary much in how much stadiums will help them, I would suggest that stadiums (particularly ones that are accompanied by large scale housing and retail development) can vary in how much they help downtowns.
Also, the argument that there are more efficient ways to revitalize downtowns is not necessarily relevant.
It goes back to the classic econ example -- the economy as a whole would be better off if we imported cheap oranges from other counties and paid the growers in Floria what they would have been earning if we had imposed protectionary restrictions on the import of oranges. Yes, that works ... assuming we would actually pay the growers that money. Yes, if the money would actually be invested in more efficient downtown revitalization, that would be more effective -- except that it almost certainly wouldn't -- for a number of reasons, but most centrally, because Wolffischer wouldn't be donating the money they would spend on the ballpark and developments out of the good of their hearts.
Whoa there, pardner
Also, while I agree with the general sentiment that downtowns don't vary much in how much stadiums will help them, I would suggest that stadiums (particularly ones that are accompanied by large scale housing and retail development) can vary in how much they help downtowns.
Can you clarify this? It sounds like you're saying "Not A, but actually A."
What I think you mean here is "the key variable is not the particular city, but the details of the stadium proposal." I suppose that's probably the case, but again-- no one has yet constructed a proposal, in any city, whereby the amount of public money spent justifies the actual effects on the local economy, other than models in which the stadium is totally or near-totally financed by private money.
The last bit gets into those should/will questions that I'd rather avoid. Fiat is a wonderful thing.
I will say this, though: the statement "Sure, it's inefficient, but at least it's rebuilding" could equally well apply to this putative stadium proposal and the Aaron Rowand contract...
OT Stanford thing: I interpreted it as him accusing me of having a "Stanford mindset" toward Oakland (Peninsula, affluent, anti-Cal) which I was trying to dispel.
See, what you're saying ...
is kind of what I'm getting at. The overall stadium plan that Wolffco offered for Fremont -- with the city chipping in nothing more than some logistical/infrastructural support (which would undoubtedly be expanded to helping obtain the land, if we were discussing Oakland) -- would change the bottom line dramatically.
Also, (separate from the previous point) a plan that involved a significant "ballpark village" concept would do much more to spur development than the ballpark alone. People don't necessarily have that much impetus to live and build next to a stadium. They have plenty of impetus, though, to live and build next to a brand spanking new, upscale area offering restaurants, shopping and 'desirable' neighbors.
lots of things to do on given night?
You'll please to forgive the Shiraz speaking (or the Merlot as is now the case) but exactly what is going on in Fremont and Oakland (and San Jose for that matter) that keeps fans from attending games on Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday-Friday-Saturday night games? Please. This argument is old and soggy. Like my depends. And my unborn daugter's diapers, which by the way I think I'll leave soggy as to build character.
Actually ...
it's no slower and not much farther to take 80 to 680 to Fremont than 80 to 880 to the Coliseum.
I live in Sacramento.
And don't forget, that stucco will be painted
Coffee-house colors. Chocolate brown, deep red, some kind of burnt orange. No green or gold to be found anywhere, probably.
Seriously, I must not have been paying attention when this trend gained it's momentum these past 5 years or so. It's even happening out here in BF Idaho.
While I would have loved the A's in Albany
do you know the HELl we are going through right now in Albany just trying to get Baseball fields down there?
The Sierra Club bought out the City Council and only wants either a) nothing or b) their OWN Sierra Club hotel down by the waterfront, and are trying to close down the racetrack. They don't even want dogs down there. And the City of Berkeley is charging literally millions of dollars in fees just to build a few sports fields.
yeah
as a long time albany denizen (AHS '90), now in EC i have lightly been following the GGF drama.
i just prey ya'll don't allow that SOCAL developer build a shopping center with fake rocks that play muzak and bronze statues of himself and his family as he did in SOCAL.
by greendatitiz on Dec 16, 2007 10:26 AM PST up reply actions
Have you ever been anywhere else?
You think the Bay Area is about chain restaurants? Wow ... just wow ... you, quite seriously, couldn't be more wrong.
The Bay Area is far and away the least saturated with chain restaurants of any area in California and California, from my experience, is not on the high end in terms of chain restaurant saturation.
Golden Gate fields would have been perfect ... as long as you don't have to drive, take public transportation or attend an evening baseball game in April there ... but the view would be great.
I disagree
I had the same feeling as you at first but people said the same things about the Giants park... it was in the middle of a terrible run down part of SOMA, crowded freeway access, limited parking etc... but the whole neighborhood got revitalized when the stadium got built. There are tons of high demand high rent apt buildings there... and many people live in them and put up with the game/event traffic and crowds. The one thing I would say the Giants stadium has over fremont is the public transportation... caltrain and light rail are right next to it (but BART is a long walk).
I think the stadium move will end up working out great. San Jose has the highest per capita income out of the big 3 bay area cities and the highest population. Plus tons of big high tech companies are headquartered in Silicon Valley = sell tons of luxury boxes. Plus all the execs and engineers who live in the suburbs los altos/palo alto/menlo park/cupertino/los gatos have really high incomes.
The A's will generate way more revenue in Fremont and will be able to avoid future dan haren firesales b/c we will be able to afford to keep our stars. Moneyball works... just look at the Red Sox... they are a moneyball obp team WITH MONEY. If Beane with no money = 5 playoffs in 7 years and an ALCS appearance, imagine Beane WITH MONEY. The A's will be dominant.
by johnjahafanclub on Dec 16, 2007 12:09 PM PST reply actions
BART a long walk?
Each time I've been, it's been a short light rail, really. And the last time well, lets just say that Giants Fans are EASY.
Fremont and China Basin are not analogous
The Giants just had great timing -- getting a cheap piece of land in a neighborhood that was already on the verge of exploding. The ballpark had little if anything to do with it.
yup
There's also the fact that SF already had all the infrastructure in place (or adjacent) that Fremont lacks: public transit, easy freeway access, lots of parking, reasons besides the ballpark to live there, etc.
not really
most of the luxury apartment buildings were built or finished construction AFTER the Giants stadium was built... there are many projects still under construction right now. So no, it wasn't just "great timing," although that was some of it. Much of the development there was spurned by the ballpark.
Yes the Giants stadium has way better public transportation access but no on freeways... it has the same access to crowded freeways that the Fremont stadium will have... and that seems to work fine. I280 and 80 are right there and they are both nightmares during commute hours, similar to 680 and 880 near the fremont stadium. Plus fremont will have more parking than the Giants stadium.
by johnjahafanclub on Dec 17, 2007 4:45 PM PST up reply actions
I don't speak a lot of latin ...
but there's one phrase I know well ... "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" ...
It means, "after, therefore, because"
The buildings that are going up today have nothing, what-so-ever to do with the ballpark. They almost exclusively have to do with the demand that exists in San Francisco and, secondarily, the desirability of the neighborhood, due to the rash of upscale condos that have been put in there later, starting shortly before plans to build the park came to be.
even if
you don't agree with the development arguments... nobody is arguing with the revenue points - the south bay has way more people and wealthier people than san franciso or oakland... and more corporations who will buy luxury boxes... so the A's will still be better off financially even if the condos arent as successful as SF
by johnjahafanclub on Dec 18, 2007 4:46 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry ... I'll argue with one of those points ...
The South Bay does not have more people than the East Bay. The East Bay has about 40% more people (according to 2006 Estimates of the US Census).
Regardless -- I think this is a good move from the team's standpoint. I never said otherwise. What I was (and quite clearly, I think) arguing against was the idea that China Basin and Fremont are at all similar. What happened in San Francisco will not happen in Fremont. The situations could not be less similar.
Sacramento would be ideal.
They can obviously support a team. Look at what the Kings attendance records were since they came here.
There is space for building, the AAA club is literally downtown.
And hell, the Bay Area obviously is too in love with the Giants (KNBR I'm looking at you), to support the A's.
Bring'em out East.
by zachmiller on Dec 18, 2007 12:39 PM PST reply actions
Yeah, no ...
- The metro area is smaller than the East Bay, not to mention any draw the A's get from the South Bay or San Francisco.
- The media market is also puny -- I assume you live here -- when stores like Beyond Gotham can afford to advertise constantly on prime time TV, they clearly don't have to pay much for it.
- It's much easier to support a basketball team than a baseball team, here's a few cities that are considered too small for baseball that have basketball teams: Memphis, New Orleans, San Antonio, Portland, Salt Lake City,
Miami(well, sorta), Charlotte, Orlando, Indianapolis -- the Warriors are a very well supported team. - The more affluent portions of Sacramento are very transient and most hail from other areas of the states and already have loyalties to other baseball teams.
- The housing market here is terrible (much, much worse than the Bay), so there wouldn't be any market for the condos they'd need to sell to pay for the park.
Won't happen
Hi all. Read the comments alot this past season, but first time posting here. Personally I don't think Fremont A's will ever happen. Too many things going against it:
- poor location
- no public transit (if you're counting on BART then keep dreaming
- project needs the housing component and that market will not recover for years despite what RE people like Waddell Canseco say (it is difficult to get someone to understand something when their livelihood depends upon them NOT understanding.) The economic fundamental of income to prices is far too out of whack. Homebuilders, Wall St, the Federal Reserve, the MBS investors, realtors, lenders, and foolish buyers have created a financial disaster that is going to play out for a long time; certainly longer than the fantasy timeline laid out by Wolff and Co. thus far.
- Any new team name that involves Fremont or Bay Area would be moronic, kind of like the POS LAA.
Also, I believe that Wolff only has an option on the land, so when it falls apart he won't get creamed (he's not as dumb as many of the homebuilders were). Hate to say it, but I think there is a much greater chance that the A's will leave the Bay Area before they build Cisco Field.
All that being said, I'm bummed to see Haren leave and I'm also bummed to see Cust in Mitchell's report. I enjoy reading the comments and look forward to learning alot in the upcoming year.
by Hamilton on Dec 18, 2007 2:41 PM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
