Pages

19 February 2009

Diridon Sample


Just a couple of notes. Ask questions and I'll answer them. Comments thread will be moderated to include only Q&A about the image.
Notes:
  • Capacity is ~32,400 seats, plus 1,000 standing room
  • Two decks with 40 luxury suites tucked beneath upper deck, a la Cisco Field and PNC Park.
  • 2,900 field club seats. No other club level
  • 40 minisuites above field club
  • 4 party or large suites
  • 2,000 bleacher seats in left field
  • 2,000 family outfield seats in right field
  • Field dimensions: 325' in the corners, 373' in the power alleys, 408' to dead center. It could be expanded by 3-5' outward in each dimension. This was done to show that despite the land's unusual shape, it could house a field with standard and symmetrical dimensions. Actual footprint of the ballpark is 9 acres.
  • Bullpens are beyond the outfield walls in left and right.
  • The massive blank area beneath the seating bowl is flexible space which would house on multiple levels: clubhouses, back-of-the house facilities, retail space, and team offices.
  • 1,700 parking spaces in a 7-story garage to the west of the ballpark. It would also be dual-use as the facility is adjacent to Diridon Station. The garage would more than double the parking currently available in the lots between the arena and ballpark, parking which would be lost as the blocks are developed in the future.
  • The Stephens Meat sign, if left in place, would be in the warning track to the right of the LF 373' sign.
Fire away.

22 comments:

Jesse said...

unless I'm mistaken it looks like the location already has a lot of existing structures beneath your image there. How long would this park be under construction?

Anonymous said...

With the 1700 parking spaces you mention, how many total spaces are within 1 mile of this location?

What does the EIR say is needed for a 45,000 seat park?

Zonis said...

Given their historical unpopularity among fans, as the sections have always been empty in the Coliseum, and usually sparsley populated in every stadium I've ever visited that wasn't a sell out, why wouldn't the team remove the sections next to the foul poll on either side (not part of the bleachers) and put the Bullpens there, and then behind them a large Party indoor/outdoor Party/BBQ section and/or Childrens Play Section.

That would reduce capacity for the stadium, but it would take out the most unpopular seats.

Also, why is there a huge cap in the Centerfield bleachers? Is this for the batters eye? Could there perhaps be Luxury/Party boxes put there with tinted windows, so that it would look black or green on the outside, but the fans inside could still watch the game. It could even serve as part of the outfield wall, or be just above it.

To make up for the missing seats in the sections that are removed and replaced by the Bullpens/Funzone/BBQ Party Place, would it be possible to move the 2nd deck in that area closer to a 90 degree angle (maybe 70 degrees) and have it move in and "face" Home Plate?

Anonymous said...

how is moving power lines a deal-breaker but moving and entire substation manageable?

Anonymous said...

Any sense if the substation would need to be relocated and expanded, regardless of a ballpark, to support re-development of the train station in preparation for BART, the electrification of CalTrain and ultimately HSR?

Anonymous said...

Should have asked this with my previous question about the substation---any idea if the modification of Autumn Pkwy is considered "shovel ready" to potentially take advantage of the stimulus dollars?

Marine Layer said...

Jesse - Unlike the PC site, this would require demolition and clearing. That would take several weeks to a few months.

Anon 8:40 - Within 3/4 mile, over 21,000 spaces. On nights when there isn't an arena event, 15,000+ should be available. That could be cut in half when an arena event is on.

Zonis - This seating bowl does in fact remove many of the corner seats. However, that only goes so far because much of that space has to be used for concourses/public areas. CF has an extra large batter's eye. Something commercial could certainly go there. About the angle - for whatever reason ballpark designers have gone away from the really tight angle. It's one of the main differences between old and new Yankee Stadium.

Anon 8:57 - The relocation can be done in a way that doesn't affect businesses. A new substation would be built south of the ballpark. At the Coliseum, there's no such option.

Anon 9:11 - Way over my pay grade there. It sounds like it would make sense to accommodate increased demand in this way.

Jeffrey said...

Wouldn't it be more efficient use of the space to not have a symmetrical layout? Possibly include more retail as part of the stadium?

Is there any room for ancillary development outside of the pictured area?

Where did you come up with the seat numbers/configuration? Are those PC Cisco Field numbers just tweaked?

Marine Layer said...

Anon 9:19 - Autumn Pkwy is on Mayor Reed's long term stimulus list, so it is not considered "shovel-ready." They wouldn't be able to get started for a couple of years anyway. Temporarily during ballpark construction, Autumn St could be converted into a 2-way, 4-lane road with no shoulders.

Jeffrey - Assymetrical can yield extra space but not as much as you might think, maybe an extra 10-15 feet. Then you have to build a high wall. A 5-acre triangle of land is just south of the site, though some 2 acres of it is meant for the substation. North of the site is the 6-block area bounded by HP Pavilion, Diridon Station, Los Gatos Creek, and the ballpark site. That area has been earmarked for redevelopment for some time and all area landowners are well aware of this. Regarding capacity, when you do two decks you really limit yourself. In this case, neither deck wraps around the foul poles and there are limited outfield seats. Club seats' extra width and more numerous aisles also eat into space.

Anonymous said...

Would the 34K capacity figure hold true in SJ? Is it possible to build a larger capacity park in this location? Say 42K?

Marine Layer said...

Anon 7:17 - Certainly. A ballpark could be designed with three decks instead of two. This particular concept was used because due to its smaller size, it's much cheaper than a 40,000+ stadium.

Jeffrey said...

i kind of like the smaller capacity idea. I think back to two Game 3's I have attended... 2001 with 55k and 2006 with 34k.

Both were great games, lot's of fan involvement... but the 2006 game felt way more energized to me from the start. It's counter intuitive, but the smaller crowd just felt more connected to me.

So, the obvious question about the stadium is funding... with limited ancillary development, there is gonna be a slight gap as compared with fremulont. Any ideas on that?

Anonymous said...

ML- any idea of how much property exists and who owns it east of San Fernando, bounded by the train station, Santa Clara and 87?

I know that some of this is parking for the Tank (does the city own these lots?), you have the old SJW parcels that Adobe bought etc but would be interesting to see who owns what in this area-

The u-tube video you provided in the past shows what the area can look like in the future--would be interesting to have an idea as to how much of this could be made available via development rights to support ballpark construction-

Marine Layer said...

Jeffrey - There will be a major funding gap. Don't know how much that matters since the economy blew the much of the financing model out of the water. Being in SJ is worth more than being in Fremont when it comes to access to corporate entities.

Anon 9:21 - Two years ago I attended a meeting for residents and property owners in the Diridon/Arena redev area. Feel was positive. A pastor for an affected church was plenty open to relocating as long as someone helped out. Much of the usage is light industrial/commercial, including a limo company. The only one I have an attachment to is Poor House Bistro. I love me some muffaletta.

Oakland Sí said...

Jeffrey, I was also at those two Game 3 ALDS that you mention (I was also at Games 1 and 5 of the 2003 ALDS, with a three-deck packed and rocking coliseum). All games were plenty energized...and as I recall there was lots of demand for more seats in 2006 as well, prompting Wolff to promise to open up the third deck if the A's made it to the World Series.

Jeffrey said...

Actually, the third deck would have been opened by MLB if I recall correctly.

Definitely one of the things I like about this stadium model (regardless of location) is the distance from the stands to the playing field. At both of those game 3's I sat right behind the dugout (my bro used to work for MLB so we got some comp'd tickets) and I felt farther away from the action than I had sitting in the third deck at AT&T Park.

ML, one other question about the rendering. I once read an article with Andrew Zimbalist in which he suggested the smaller stadium would be appropriate but should be built with expansion in mind. I know it is highly speculative, but could you foresee the model in this picture being conducive to future expansion... for instance maybe a second deck over the right field section sort of the reverse of Safeco Field (with left field lower reserve and then bleachers up higher)? Or some other way? About how many seats could such an expansion accommodate?

Anonymous said...

The big advantage of limiting the size of the ballpark to 34,000 or so is that it creates a supply and demand issue and drives up season ticket sales--as I recall right now the A's have maybe 10,000 or so season tickets---because we all know for any given game we can typically buy on game day--

Relative to previous ALCS games--what I remember was the large amount of non-A's fans that were in attendance--especially Boston fans who easily got tickets to the games and made it almost feel as if it were an away given--you drive season tix sales high enough and you can help to remedy this situation---

bartleby said...

The decision to open the upper deck if the A's had made the WS in 2006 had nothing to do with Wolff or the A's. Wolff would have kept the upper deck closed as a strategy to sell season tickets for the following year(e.g. "Buy a full season package for 2007, get 2006 WS rights!). In fact, they originally announced this would be the case.

This would have been a smart business move, but MLB controls WS ticket sales and wouldn't allow it. MLB appropriates a lot of WS seats itself to accommodate sponsors and other commitments (as I recall, they take at least 10,000 seats).

The decision to open the upper deck had nothing to do with demand for WS games themselves. No one ever believed the A's would have any trouble selling out a World Series, even if they opened up the upper deck of Mount Davis.

If the A's are smart (and I believe they are), they will keep capacity at around 32,000 even if they do land in San Jose. First, this dramatically reduces their construction costs.

Second, it keeps average ticket prices high. The seats which are not being built are lower priced upper deck seats

Third and most important, it helps maintain demand. The Red Sox model of perpetual sellouts is the way to go. No team except maybe the Yankees can consistently sell out a 45,000 seat ballpark year after year (see your SF Giants). But with the small-park model, much of the excess demand for "glamour" games spills over to low demand games. (In Boston everyone would prefer to see the Yankees, but when they can't get tickets to any other games a lot of them buy tickets for that mid-week game against the Royals instead). If you're lucky enough to get to the point where you are selling out all of your games and there is still high demand, you can simply raise ticket prices, increasing your margins without increasing your costs.

Tony D. said...

I personally like the 32k-seat capacity of a hypothetical Diridon South ballpark because it may lower the noise of downtown NIMBY's; particularly those area's further west in Shasta/Hanchett Park, Rosegarden and perhaps even Willow Glenn. The "worst case" noise and traffic scenarios were previously done with a 45k-seat ballpark in mind. Having 13k less patrons should do wonders in terms of impact to surrounding area's.

If it ever comes down to it, I believe residents of SJ proper will be encouraged to take light-rail (Campbell and Guadalupe lines) or park in the downtown core (to walk or take a light-rail shuttle). Residents outside SJ proper will/should have Caltrain, future BART and High-Speed rail to get to said ballpark.

jeepers said...

Why do the A's only need 1,700 spaces at the Diridon site, but more than 5,000 at the Coliseum? Also, where will all of the associated retail and residential development occur at Diridon? Don't they have a lot less than 95 acres with which to work?

Marine Layer said...

More spaces are needed at suburban sites than downtown sites because few or no other nearby parking facilities exist. Cincinnati built Great American Ball Park with only 800 on-site spaces.

The "ballpark village" concept is essentially dead thanks to the economy. There's no point in trying to move it to SJ.

homestar22 said...

Hey ML is there any reason to be concerned with such a north facing stadium. both AT&T and the coliseum face much more to the east. I made a quick sun model on sketchup and it looks like this could be problematic especially with a shorter stadium. what dictates the park orientation, the site or the sun?