Pages

10 September 2008

Reconstructing the Coliseum

To follow up on Monday's Raiders/Coliseum post, I put together a few mock-ups that show how the renovation would progress. To set it up, we'll make the following assumptions:
  1. The A's begin construction of Cisco Field by the end of 2010.
  2. Cisco Field fully signals the Raiders and the Coliseum to fully pursue an extension.
  3. The NFL either wants an expansion team or a franchise other than the Raiders to move to LA, thereby locking the Raiders out of stadium financing, or they don't want a team there at all thanks to LA market TV ratings and revenues.
  4. The A's open Cisco Field in April 2012.
Let's start off the the good ole' Coliseum the way it looks now (courtesy Google Maps, pic taken prior to a Stones concert?):

Now let's look at how it would look if the original bowl were demolished and the portable seats removed, leaving only the permanent portion of Mt. Davis.

Next, new permanent lower level seats would be built around three-quarters of the field. The old portable Mt. Davis seats would be re-utilized on the other side of the field as temporary seating while the rest of stadium is under construction. New locker rooms and team facilities would be built on the roughly 50,000 square feet under the yellow sections, while back-of-the-house stuff would be placed beneath the blue sections. Since the old press box would be gone, a new one would be built within the third level of suites in Mt. Davis. New temporary capacity would be around 47,000 only for the 2012 season.

The final phase would involve the removal of the portable seats, which could have a future purpose - additional on-demand seating. Notice the large gray area beyond the blue end zone sections? There's plenty of room for concessions, restrooms, and additional seating, up to 5,000 seats.

The red area shows new permanent lower level seating, which would have behind it a level of suites (a la the suites behind the bleachers). In addition, a new West Side Club (teal sections) would be built as a near mirror image to the East Side Club. Above the club seats would be a slightly cantilevered level of luxury suites and third deck. This third deck would be lower than the Mt. Davis third deck because it would have one less level of suites. New ramps would be placed along the wings of the concourse.

One last thing. Beyond the gray circle on the left and right are the current scoreboards. They look pretty far away from the action, don't they? They could be pulled in and lined up immediately behind the end zones seats, which will have a couple of benefits. Not only could the supports and framework be reused, the displays will appear crisper and larger simply because they'll be nearly 100 feet closer to the action. There's space in each frame for a single ultra wide HD screen of 23' x 70', nearly as large as the display at AT&T Park.

Final capacity would be around 63,000, the current NFL sweet spot.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting plan. But I don't have to tell you that the financing plan is the real mystery. Surely the city and county aren't going to pony up even more money for Davis. And you know he isn't going to spring for it. There's no way naming rights and PSLs are going to cover it. A tax on hotels and car rentals perhaps? What else?

Anonymous said...

With Oakland stuck with so many problems, the city would be a longshot to pony up money for the Raiders. If, as they have been saying this week, they hope to have a retail village plan for the area around the stadium then maybe a special tax can aid the process and give the Raiders a home of their own once the A's abandon it for Fremont.
Oh, and I believe this concert setup was actually for the Police tour from last June. The Stones stage was not in center field.

Anonymous said...

The Fremont site has never made baseball sense and now, with the real estate market falling, it's not working from that angle, either. The A's originally talked of a 2011 opening, then 2012. Now, it's 2013. Can 2014 and 2015 be far behind?

- Glenn Dickey

Anonymous said...

As I've written, A's management has given every indication of writing off the Oakland fans - and now, it's very unlikely the Fremont park will ever be built.

- Glenn Dickey

Marine Layer said...

As Wolff said during the AN interview:

We are not foolish enough to go into any long-term project with only one option in terms of how we finance it. Somebody thinks we are, then they're wrong. So the housing element was critical and interesting, and we don't know that if by the time we get going again that it won't be booming again. We've got some other options which I'd prefer not to discuss but they're logical business options. And we have our own resources. So we're not without capital if we need to do something. Listen 3,000 townhomes don't sell in 20 minutes even in a good market. So it's a matter of how you flow funds. The best part about us is that we can say if it takes an extra five years to sell these homes, we'll bridge it now and you can take us out when that happens. You know, things like that.

If it was the housing market that made the project "very unlikely" it sounds as if they at least have methods to insulate themselves from it.

Anonymous said...

"other options" he'd prefer not to discuss = taxes, subsidies, and other handouts

Marine Layer said...

anon 9:16 - Since you claim to know so much about the process, why don't you explain how "taxes, subsidies, and other handouts" factor in?

Keep in mind that the working agreement between Fremont and the A's involves the city not issuing new bonds or taxes.

Anonymous said...

I'm with Dickey ... looks like there are way too many issues with this site and it looks doubtful that this thing will ever get off the ground. Not sure Fremont is the right place anyway ... pretty barren wasteland out there.

Anonymous said...

Marine Layer, I appreciate your efforts in showing stadium scenarios for the Raiders. Even though this blog is for tracking the progress of the A's new stadium Cisco Field, it good to hear some Raider Info as some of your readers are both A's and Raiders Fans.

This remodeling scenario of turning the Coliseum into a football only stadium looks realistic and sound. Even though there is talk of possibly building a brand new stadium by some Raider and County Officials, remodeling the current stadium would be much more cost effective and feasible than starting from scratch.

Anonymous said...

Is that really Glenn Dickey posting here?

Anonymous said...

No, those are quotes from his website. I've been a Glenn Dickey reader for years, but he's really started going off the deep end in recent years. He keeps saying the plan is falling apart, but gives no sources, no proof, no anything to support it. He just keeps saying it as if that will make it true. And now, lucky us get to hear sheep who can't think for themselves parrot the same unfounded claims on here. Oh goody!

Jesse said...

I'm sure Glenn Dickey, if that really is his comment, came to that conclusion with good research and going to Fremont and talking with the politicians and business owners. I'm kidding of course, no one here can imagine that being true. LMAO. But when grasping for straws you'll quote the corner drunk if possible.

Also, ML I heard another hard working competent american, Ignacio DeLaFuente say that it could be many many years before the A's break ground in Fremont due to lawsuits that would surely come. Is that likely just more hot air from a man who has managed to stay in the city council in spite of murder rates rising and school drop outs increasing in his city every year he's held his seat in City Council.

Marine Layer said...

Let's not assail the pols here for issues not germane to the A's ballpark matter. They get plenty of criticism at any of the local papers' message boards.

The whole point of working out a deal with all of the local constituent groups (business owners, city/county) is to prevent lawsuits. The only lawsuits I could see coming are of the environmental variety, but that's largely dependent on how the development plan looks and potential mitigation efforts. Delays for years? I doubt it.

Jesse said...

Any chance the raiders and niners can come together on their stadium plans. I mean come on do we need 2 of these massive things in the bay area. not including the college stadia. Why wouldnt that be the best idea for both teams? Anyone? Your talking about like 20 days A year. Both teams combined, its a joke to think there should be two.

Marine Layer said...

The two teams are working on their own plans in hopes of extracting favorable deals from their respective home cities. It's quite possible that in SF, Oakland, and Santa Clara, the well will be too dry for them to go it alone, thereby forcing a combined stadium deal like the Giants-Jets. It would be the most fiscally responsible deal for everyone involved. There is also a good chance that the NFL could invite stalking horse cities for either/both teams. I'm guessing the latter happens first.

Pudge said...

With all due respect, your plan is not cost effective and will never happen. The only thing the Raiders need to do is to replace a portion of the field level risers with a new seating section that would parallel the sideline. There's not enough money just lying around somewhere to rebuild 2/3 of the stadium.

Marine Layer said...

I have to respectfully disagree. There is no chance that simply replacing the field-level risers will result in a venue that approaches the amenities and utility of a modern NFL venue. The NFL simply won't accept such a concept.

I agree that money is incredibly scarce, but we're talking about the lesser of two evils here - the other being a new, $800+ million venue.

Anonymous said...

Yep, Fremont is pretty barren wasteland. Except for the bustling high-tech sector. Oh, and being the fourth most populous city in the region. And being nicely placed between the East and South Bay. Not to mention strategically located within the Silicon Valley sphere of influence (read: money). Yeah, except for all that, not much to say about Fremont. Maybe if they could get some restaurant takeover robberies. Then it would be a place worthy of hosting the A's.

Anonymous said...

Are you sure about the press box in Mt Davis? I don't think so. That would mean the media and their cameras would face west looking into the sun during afternoon games. There's a reason why the press box at the Coliseum and at AT&T face the east.

Marine Layer said...

You make a good point anon. I originally drew up the plan keeping the original upper deck intact, which would include the press box. By doing so, a large part of the stadium could not be demolished and then rebuilt until after the 2012 season ended. I don't think that 8 months is enough time. Perhaps they could build a temporary press box behind the portable stands. It would have to hold 200 people and several broadcast booths and workrooms to boot.

Anonymous said...

Why don't the Raiders/niners create a joint stadium on treasure island for both teams to use?

Anonymous said...

TI would be a horrible location, but yes, the Raiders and Niners need to build a stadium together. It's senseless to build two separate facilities of that size.