Fremont Councilman Steve Cho is keeping up his call for a ballot measure to decide the ballpark village. The other council members and the mayor apparently disagree. In Chris DeBenedetti's article there are comments from both pro- and anti-development ex-pols.
So what's the issue here? Cho believes there are "concerns from Fremont citizens that cannot be completely ignored," yet he also believes if it came to a vote it would prevail in a majority. So it's not as if there is overwhelming sentiment against the project, far from it in fact. In a way he has marginalized the process that the city and the A's have crafted, which appears to be the real issue that some opponents are uncomfortable with.
Why would any citizen's concerns be completely ignored? The council as a group has shown its displeasure over certain aspects of the plan, such as residential makeup and the school site. There were pointed land use questions that came from Anu Natarajan and Bob Wieckowski. Lew Wolff actually met with Gus Morrison, though Morrison's concerns weren't allayed. If there is some feeling that the plan is not getting the scrutiny it deserves, it wasn't on display from the comments the council and the city's community development director made. We're talking about Fremont, not Oakland, San Jose, or San Francisco, where big machine politics are the order of the day. Fremont can't count on Don Perata or Carole Migden to grandstand or ram legislation through the state senate.
Then there is the question of what the public would be voting on. Is it simply a land use decision? A vote to accept the team? Redevelopment agency bonds for infrastructure? School bonds? Would it end up being 1, 2, or 5 separate issues? And what would happen if one or more failed while others succeeded?
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention what happens when these issues get to a vote. There's something called the 10:1 rule, in which proponents of a stadium plan typically outspend opponents 10:1 in campaigning. In Texas it's even higher. Why? Because usually there is a big tax-free bond measure at stake to finance the stadium. That's not going to be the issue here since it will be a privately financed stadium. Proponents trot out legendary retired players and coaches to shill for the project. Opponents complain that they don't have the funds to compete. Whether or not the issue passes, hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars are spent and the truth frequently gets lost in the hubbub. That doesn't invalidate the idea of having a vote, but it does highlight circumstances. At least in California, we tend to be a little more level-headed about these issues than other states.
Lew Wolff isn't interested in a vote because he thinks the project is far too complex to be left in the hands of a single up-down measure. So do the mayor and the council outside of Cho. Opponents often ask what the proponents are afraid of, that it wouldn't pass if it got to a vote. But we're not talking about your typical stadium subsidy issue here, are we? I've already had to go onto different message boards and respond to e-mail from people who are armed with a lot of misinformation. I'd like to know that all voters are fully up to speed on all issues, that they have read the probable 1,000-page EIR and its comments, that they've reviewed the alternatives. Unfortunately, that isn't realistic. So what would voters base their opinion on? Emotion? Prejudice one way or the other? Whether they're a baseball fan or not? That's definitely not how it should be decided. It's hard to weigh cost-benefit from a single ballot measure unless the concept is egregiously bad (or amazingly good).
I applaud Councilman Cho for wanting to act as the conscience of the council. But honestly, he's jumping the gun on the ballot measure idea. It would be preferable to have the plan's details get worked out, and if there is a bond measure some other major issue that would directly affect taxpayers then it absolutely should be voted on. Until then, let's keep focused on the task at hand, which is fleshing out the details.
26 July 2007
25 July 2007
The stuff not in the paper
Chris DeBenedetti's Argus article is first out of the gate, followed by Barry Witt's Merc piece. Of course, there are only so many inches in the papers, so I'm here to fill in the blanks (TV links: KTVU-2, KGO-7). (Update 5:34 p.m.: The archived webcast is now online.)
The A's and the city packed a lot of content into an hour, yet they're merely skimming the surface. What wasn't covered in any real depth? Here's a list:
Onto parking. The 10-11,000 figure falls in line with tally I posted last Saturday. Natarajan said that she has "no concerns about parking at all." The interim parking plan (west of Cushing Pkwy on future residential land) definitely has legs. Discussion went from "how to get enough parking" to "What can we do to make it useful, beautiful and environmentally friendly?"
This was the first of many public sessions. Format may change a bit to allow for more dialogue exchange, or that may simply take care of itself as the discussions become more narrowly focused. The schedule moving forward:
The Wolffs appear to be aware of these issues and others that haven't been mentioned much (such as the rights of nearby Pacific Commons retailers to have their parking lots left intact) and the city's insistence on thoroughness means that yes, the right questions are being asked. And then some.
The A's and the city packed a lot of content into an hour, yet they're merely skimming the surface. What wasn't covered in any real depth? Here's a list:
- Transportation, other than acknowledgment of the previously planned train station and shuttles.
- School site options (admittedly the least analyzed issue)
- Affordable housing (except that the city-developer guidelines dictate that affordable housing should have no distinction by location - i.e. segregation)
- Infrastructure and public services planning
- Retailer possibilities for the ballpark village
- The 40-acre parcel which may hold additional parking, the train station, a school, or other infrastructure
- Parking: 10-11,000 spaces around the ballpark. More on that later.
- Residential planning: This looks to be a contentious issue, as it's likely we'll have the bottom-line oriented developer pitted against the city's progressive, New Urbanist leanings. Councilwoman Anu Natarajan took the biggest swipe at the plan, suggesting that the planning team should've gotten the city involved earlier. She said that the superblock-type residential development in the 115-acre townhouse area had very little variety in terms of densities. She even disclosed that a few years ago she worked for SF-based planning and design behemoth EDAW, who is working for the A's on this project.
- Phasing: Unlike the 5-6 year projections in the economic impact report, it looks like housing will be more gradually built. At a pace of 300 units per year, it's expected to take 7-10 years to complete the entire residential portion.
- Mixed use outside the village: Both Natarajan and Vice-Mayor Bob Wieckowski had previously suggested that the A's have a little more flexibility in the plan to keep some amount of commercial space, specifically office space. There appears to be a unified stance to keep the townhouse section from looking like a typical suburban subdivision.
- Outreach: Valley bigshot Jim Cunneen is heading this effort, which I've been told is going to get moving quickly.
- The ballpark: I hope to get cross-section graphic that Keith Wolff used during the presentation, because it actually appears more aggressive than the original simulation. Should they follow through the ballpark would most certainly take on Fenway-like intimacy.
- Minisuites: They would be located 15 rows from the field, with four 6-person suites sharing a common, large lounge area. Cute design that's sure to cause some suite envy elsewhere in pro sports.
- Environmental: Community Development Director Jill Keimach brought up the guidelines in use by the city and the developer. Out of that came the point that much of the wetlands just beyond the project area are still in transition and need protection. Buffers and other measures must be taken to ensure the development is compatible with the recently restored wetlands.
- All those consultants: So it's a team consisting of 360 Architects, Gensler (Andy Cohen was co-presenting with Keith Wolff), EDAW, and Cisco. There might have been others but I missed their names. This isn't some mom-and-pop operation.
Onto parking. The 10-11,000 figure falls in line with tally I posted last Saturday. Natarajan said that she has "no concerns about parking at all." The interim parking plan (west of Cushing Pkwy on future residential land) definitely has legs. Discussion went from "how to get enough parking" to "What can we do to make it useful, beautiful and environmentally friendly?"
This was the first of many public sessions. Format may change a bit to allow for more dialogue exchange, or that may simply take care of itself as the discussions become more narrowly focused. The schedule moving forward:
- Preliminary view - 7/24
- Council input on plan - September
- Business terms - Fall '07
- Financial analysis - On-going
- Input from agencies - On-going (Caltrans in a couple of weeks)
- Community outreach - On-going
The Wolffs appear to be aware of these issues and others that haven't been mentioned much (such as the rights of nearby Pacific Commons retailers to have their parking lots left intact) and the city's insistence on thoroughness means that yes, the right questions are being asked. And then some.
23 July 2007
Wolff preso at 7/24 City Council session
Lew and Keith Wolff will provide an update on the Cisco Field project during a work session prior to the regular city council meeting next Tuesday night. The one hour work session is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. and the A's are the only item on that session's agenda. There will be a public comment period. The regular city council session is scheduled for 7, as usual.
Will they file the long-awaited application? Answer some of the questions brought up by Gus Morrison? If you can't be there, you always have the live webcast.
Update: The 7 p.m. session will not be a normal council session. It will be a Redevelopment Agency meeting. The 5:30 p.m. session will combine the regular council meeting and the ballpark work session. Attendees are encouraged to arrived at least 15 minutes prior to the start of the session.
Will they file the long-awaited application? Answer some of the questions brought up by Gus Morrison? If you can't be there, you always have the live webcast.
Update: The 7 p.m. session will not be a normal council session. It will be a Redevelopment Agency meeting. The 5:30 p.m. session will combine the regular council meeting and the ballpark work session. Attendees are encouraged to arrived at least 15 minutes prior to the start of the session.
21 July 2007
Land use plan emerges
First, take a look at the Argus and Merc articles. The first article has links to three new PDF's that contain descriptions of the buildings in the core village and two views of overall layout:
Context A and B differ in one major way: timing. Context A shows the development after all of the residential units have been built. Context B shows the development some years prior to completion. Instead of housing west of Cushing Parkway, 5,970 surface parking spaces are shown. For the first few years, that parking combined with the planned parking east of Christy Street and additional spaces in both the village and the Albrae lot (across Auto Mall) should provide plenty of parking. By the end of 2016, all of the extra parking will be replaced by townhomes (and probably the school), but that gives the A's several years to truly gauge parking demand. If demand is high enough, additional garage parking can be built to make up for the loss. Interestingly enough, the Giants are facing their own parking loss, as the Port of S.F. has to decide what to do with a 14-acre parking lot across McCovey Cove from AT&T Park.
The best part is that according to the lease plan there will be 3,110 spaces set aside for retail use. Obviously, much of that parking will be claimed by retailers and the hotel, among other commericial uses. But there's no reason why a good portion won't be available for game attendees as well. And the funny thing is that I added up all of the non-residential parking shown there, and I got 4,510 spaces. So it would appear that at least for a few years, there's the possibility of over 10,000 spaces in the immediate vicinity. It'll be nicely broken up due to the design plan. Whatever the final number is, I don't get the sense that the A's are terribly worried about it.
There are also a pair of mystery elements: ramps that appear to run underneath the village. The ramps may be service entrances to the ballpark's outfield. They may also lead to additional parking for players, team employees, and VIP's.
Moving over to retail, the big surprise was a theater smack dab in the middle of the village. Articles refer to it as a movie theater, but that isn't a given. Small multiplexes such as the CineArts (Century) brand in Santana Row, Marin, and Pleasant Hill usually show smaller budget and independent films, and it could make sense in this location because the only nearby indie moviehouses are across the Dumbarton Bridge in Palo Alto.
However, a more interesting move would be some kind of performing arts center. Currently the only one in the city is the Gary Soren Smith Center on the Ohlone College campus, and it's just a little over a decade old. There would be a huge question of financing such a complex, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the table for discussion. Perhaps there's a way to split the 54,000 s.f. allotted for the theater so it could accommodate both a live theater facility and a smaller film multiplex. The movie theater would be the bean-counter's choice since a private concern would capitalize and operate it. A performing arts center would be a far more culturally significant venue.
Ah, but there's more. Certain buildings in the village have been identified as anchors. Those orange blocks are in the north corner (upper right) and southwest area (left). The north anchors are around 30,000 s.f., which should accommodate a multitude of large retailers such as Crate and Barrel and Best Buy. The intriguing space is the 140,000 s.f., two-level southwest space. Based on size and location, I'd lay my money on Nordstrom being the tenant, since a typical Nordstrom is around that size.
The school's location still needs to be worked out, and the transit hub needs to be addressed. There's plenty of time to make those elements work.
Context A and B differ in one major way: timing. Context A shows the development after all of the residential units have been built. Context B shows the development some years prior to completion. Instead of housing west of Cushing Parkway, 5,970 surface parking spaces are shown. For the first few years, that parking combined with the planned parking east of Christy Street and additional spaces in both the village and the Albrae lot (across Auto Mall) should provide plenty of parking. By the end of 2016, all of the extra parking will be replaced by townhomes (and probably the school), but that gives the A's several years to truly gauge parking demand. If demand is high enough, additional garage parking can be built to make up for the loss. Interestingly enough, the Giants are facing their own parking loss, as the Port of S.F. has to decide what to do with a 14-acre parking lot across McCovey Cove from AT&T Park.
The best part is that according to the lease plan there will be 3,110 spaces set aside for retail use. Obviously, much of that parking will be claimed by retailers and the hotel, among other commericial uses. But there's no reason why a good portion won't be available for game attendees as well. And the funny thing is that I added up all of the non-residential parking shown there, and I got 4,510 spaces. So it would appear that at least for a few years, there's the possibility of over 10,000 spaces in the immediate vicinity. It'll be nicely broken up due to the design plan. Whatever the final number is, I don't get the sense that the A's are terribly worried about it.
There are also a pair of mystery elements: ramps that appear to run underneath the village. The ramps may be service entrances to the ballpark's outfield. They may also lead to additional parking for players, team employees, and VIP's.
Moving over to retail, the big surprise was a theater smack dab in the middle of the village. Articles refer to it as a movie theater, but that isn't a given. Small multiplexes such as the CineArts (Century) brand in Santana Row, Marin, and Pleasant Hill usually show smaller budget and independent films, and it could make sense in this location because the only nearby indie moviehouses are across the Dumbarton Bridge in Palo Alto.
However, a more interesting move would be some kind of performing arts center. Currently the only one in the city is the Gary Soren Smith Center on the Ohlone College campus, and it's just a little over a decade old. There would be a huge question of financing such a complex, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the table for discussion. Perhaps there's a way to split the 54,000 s.f. allotted for the theater so it could accommodate both a live theater facility and a smaller film multiplex. The movie theater would be the bean-counter's choice since a private concern would capitalize and operate it. A performing arts center would be a far more culturally significant venue.
Ah, but there's more. Certain buildings in the village have been identified as anchors. Those orange blocks are in the north corner (upper right) and southwest area (left). The north anchors are around 30,000 s.f., which should accommodate a multitude of large retailers such as Crate and Barrel and Best Buy. The intriguing space is the 140,000 s.f., two-level southwest space. Based on size and location, I'd lay my money on Nordstrom being the tenant, since a typical Nordstrom is around that size.
The school's location still needs to be worked out, and the transit hub needs to be addressed. There's plenty of time to make those elements work.
20 July 2007
First poll results
Voting for the first poll is now closed. Here are the results:
The next poll topic comes courtesy of a Georob comment from this morning regarding the ill-fated Piccinini group. Save Mart owner Piccinini put together a prospective ownership group that would've included Men's Wearhouse founder George Zimmer, former A's marketing veep Andy Dolich, and Reggie Jackson (preceded by Joe Morgan). In 1999 the group was on the verge of buying the A's from the Schott-Hofmann group but a vote of all MLB team owners resulted in a 28-2 decision to table the sale pending the Blue Ribbon committee's further study. The bid subsequently died on the vine, and the rest is history.
The question: How would have the Piccinini group been different?
- A. Outright betrayal - 12 (10%)
- B. Necessary but unsavory - 23 (20%)
- C. Little to no difference to me - 3 (2%)
- D. Fine as long as they stay in the Bay - 44 (38%)
- E. Extremely positive - 33 (28%)
The next poll topic comes courtesy of a Georob comment from this morning regarding the ill-fated Piccinini group. Save Mart owner Piccinini put together a prospective ownership group that would've included Men's Wearhouse founder George Zimmer, former A's marketing veep Andy Dolich, and Reggie Jackson (preceded by Joe Morgan). In 1999 the group was on the verge of buying the A's from the Schott-Hofmann group but a vote of all MLB team owners resulted in a 28-2 decision to table the sale pending the Blue Ribbon committee's further study. The bid subsequently died on the vine, and the rest is history.
The question: How would have the Piccinini group been different?
- A. Downtown Oakland ballpark
- B. New Coliseum lot ballpark
- C. Stayed in Coliseum indefinitely
- D. Moved elsewhere in Bay Area
- E. Moved out of Bay Area
If you like, you can post a comment here to go with your vote. Cheers.
18 July 2007
Welcome back Quakes
Quakes fans can now consider the last two years to be a poorly-timed hiatus. A press conference in Denver today should make it official. Earthquakes 4.0 is expected to start play again in the 2008 season, with a new stadium targeted for the old FMC site in San Jose by (hopefully) 2010. MLS commissioner Don Garber and Quakes principals Lew Wolff and David Alioto are expected to be in attendance. Articles:
For other games, it's a bit of a dilemma. There are a few venues that are generally too small for MLS games, such as SCU's Buck Shaw Stadium (cap. = 6,800), PAL stadium in SJ (5,000), and Kezar Stadium in SF (9,000). Buck Shaw would seem to be the most logical choice since it's a stone's throw away from the future stadium site and it's undergoing renovations that will benefit the school's excellent soccer programs. A rumor is floating around that the Quakes may even do some kind of barnstorming in an effort to introduce themselves to more of the Bay Area. There's little chance of the Quakes and A's sharing new stadia since both would have their venues under construction at the same time, with the Quakes opening a year earlier.
They must be open for business, since they're taking deposits for season tickets.
What isn't clear is what the Quakes will use for interim venue(s) until the new SSS (soccer specific stadium) opens. Apparently they've ruled out venerable but decrepit Spartan Stadium, going with a two-pronged approach. Games (er, matches) that require higher capacity may be played at the McAfee Coliseum, where 47,000+ attended a Mexico-Guatemala tilt a few weeks ago. Stanford Stadium may also be a possibility, since it has pretty much perfect sizing for soccer events and admirably hosted last weekend's match (also 47,000+) between Chelsea FC and Club America.For other games, it's a bit of a dilemma. There are a few venues that are generally too small for MLS games, such as SCU's Buck Shaw Stadium (cap. = 6,800), PAL stadium in SJ (5,000), and Kezar Stadium in SF (9,000). Buck Shaw would seem to be the most logical choice since it's a stone's throw away from the future stadium site and it's undergoing renovations that will benefit the school's excellent soccer programs. A rumor is floating around that the Quakes may even do some kind of barnstorming in an effort to introduce themselves to more of the Bay Area. There's little chance of the Quakes and A's sharing new stadia since both would have their venues under construction at the same time, with the Quakes opening a year earlier.
15 July 2007
Morrison unswayed, gets company
Chris De Benedetti of the Argus has the results of last week's Morrison-Wolff koffee klatch, and the former mayor remains unconvinced. Morrison added a new concern: the residential component would introduce 1,400 students, not 684 as was previously estimated. Morrison claims that he received the figure from a school board member, but FUSD superintendent Douglas Gephart disputed Morrison's number, saying,
Look beyond the posturing, and what you have here are simple philosophical differences. On one hand you have Morrison, who tends towards a skeptical approach to development. On the other hand you have Mayor Wasserman, who looks at the project as more of a partnership. Remember that it was Wasserman and county supe Scott Haggerty that initiated these discussions. There is something of a precedent when it comes to development decisions: when Morrison was still in office he opposed a Warm Springs Wal-Mart store, while Wasserman approved of the store as long as it wasn't a SuperCenter (grocery store component as well).
All of this highlights the notion of political will and its importance. It's likely that if Morrison were in office today, this plan would not have gotten past square one. For better or worse, Wasserman and the city council have the project at a relatively advanced stage, and are willing to play ball (pun intended).
"I think the number generated by the A's is within reason," Gephart said. "We don't expect 1,000 kids at all."It appears that another former mayor, Don Dillon, also shares concerns about the ballpark village project:
Don Dillon, another former Fremont mayor, echoed Morrison's concerns about land-use issues. "Mainly, what troubles me greatly is that we're going to have to put 3,000 houses in our industrial zone," said Dillon, 85. "It's a total departure from the concept ... of keeping that area available for the kinds of uses that produce real income and local jobs without a whole lot of expense. (Rezoning) scraps that idea badly."Dillon also questions the wisdom of holding several meetings with the A's before a development application has been filed.
However, Wasserman strongly defended the city's efforts with the A's, saying that type of criticism "is ludicrous."
"This is the biggest project, by tons, that this city will ever deal with, so it takes a lot of time," Wasserman said. "To say we don't sit down to talk with developers is really wrong. The (A's) have some of the best architects in the country working on this. They have deposited $500,000. It would be foolish for us to tell the A's, 'We're not going to talk to you.' "
This is where I got confused. Why wouldn't the city want an ongoing dialogue with the developer, especially if it increases the likelihood of a positive outcome for all parties? This project is far too complex to simply be taken in a single vote with minimal or no discussions.
Look beyond the posturing, and what you have here are simple philosophical differences. On one hand you have Morrison, who tends towards a skeptical approach to development. On the other hand you have Mayor Wasserman, who looks at the project as more of a partnership. Remember that it was Wasserman and county supe Scott Haggerty that initiated these discussions. There is something of a precedent when it comes to development decisions: when Morrison was still in office he opposed a Warm Springs Wal-Mart store, while Wasserman approved of the store as long as it wasn't a SuperCenter (grocery store component as well).
All of this highlights the notion of political will and its importance. It's likely that if Morrison were in office today, this plan would not have gotten past square one. For better or worse, Wasserman and the city council have the project at a relatively advanced stage, and are willing to play ball (pun intended).
13 July 2007
HBO: The Ghosts of Flatbush
If you haven't yet destroyed your TV or cancelled your subscription in reaction to the Sopranos finale, check out the new HBO documentary, Brooklyn Dodgers: The Ghosts of Flatbush. Like many other entries in the HBO Sports documentary library, The Ghosts of Flatbush provides a nice balance of facts and anecdotes intercut with great footage and stills, tied together with narration by the consummate pro Liev Schreiber (who I saw play Henry V in Shakespeare in the Park a few years ago).
The first hour covers the pre-Jackie Robinson era and Robinson's monumental rookie season. Comparisons are made between the Dem Bums and the hated Giants and patrician Yankees.
The second hour reflects upon the Brooklyn Dodgers' first and only World Series championship in 1955. Only two years later would owner Walter O'Malley, frustrated with his failed efforts to build a replacement for Ebbets Field, pull up stakes and run away with the Giants to California.
O'Malley saw the phenomenal gate success of the Milwaukee (née Boston) Braves and sensed opportunity. Yet he repeatedly lobbied to build a stadium in Brooklyn at his preferred site. His efforts did little to convince legendary NY über-planner Robert Moses, who is considered one of the first chief architects of the white flight phenomenon. Moses felt that instead of Brooklyn, a stadium would be better situated in Queens, where it would be geographically centered in relation to the rest of the five boroughs and the suburbs.
O'Malley felt that Brooklyn was the only home (at least locally) for the team, so it didn't matter if the stadium were 30 miles or 3000 miles away - the team would cease to be the Brooklyn Dodgers. He wanted a site at the corner of Flatbush and Atlantic, which was near several subway lines and the terminal for the Long Island Railroad. And unlike Ebbets Field, which only had 700 parking spaces nearby, there would be potential for thousands of spaces for fans in the suburbs who would rather take a pleasant drive in from Long Island on one of Moses' new parkways.
News of the move gradually changed from rumor to certainty, and sensing the inevitable, fans withdrew their support in disgust. While O'Malley is held up as the eternal villain, Moses is portrayed as almost equally culpable because of his disinterest in an eminent domain move (O'Malley and Dodger shareholders would have paid for the new ballpark's construction). Moses eventually got his stadium in Queens after the Giants and Dodgers left. Modern Shea Stadium would be home to the expansion New York Mets, whose colors would include Dodger blue and the Giants' orange.
Ironically, the site previously sought by O'Malley is near the home of the Atlantic Yards project, the multi-billion dollar mixed development that will contain a new arena for the Nets basketball franchise. Developer Forest City Ratner is trying to acquire the land via an expensive, highly controversial eminent domain effort. The Nets would be the first major sports team to call Brooklyn home since the Dodgers left 50 years ago. The Dodgers took up residence on a hillside near downtown LA called Chavez Ravine, which was cleared through - that's right - eminent domain.
It's not difficult to draw parallels between the current A's and the mid-century Dodgers. Both were run by maverick general managers, both had a blue collar ethos. Both typically fell short in the postseason. But perhaps it is one quote that best - and most eerily - depicts the team's fans, via author Michael Shapiro:
Brooklyn Dodgers: The Ghosts of Flatbush will air several times over the next week or so and is also available via HBO On Demand.
A couple of housekeeping notes: Blogger recently added a poll feature, so I'm testing it out on the sidebar. For now the poll will replace the Scorecard, which will return when there's a real proposal and media reaction.
The first hour covers the pre-Jackie Robinson era and Robinson's monumental rookie season. Comparisons are made between the Dem Bums and the hated Giants and patrician Yankees.
The second hour reflects upon the Brooklyn Dodgers' first and only World Series championship in 1955. Only two years later would owner Walter O'Malley, frustrated with his failed efforts to build a replacement for Ebbets Field, pull up stakes and run away with the Giants to California.
O'Malley saw the phenomenal gate success of the Milwaukee (née Boston) Braves and sensed opportunity. Yet he repeatedly lobbied to build a stadium in Brooklyn at his preferred site. His efforts did little to convince legendary NY über-planner Robert Moses, who is considered one of the first chief architects of the white flight phenomenon. Moses felt that instead of Brooklyn, a stadium would be better situated in Queens, where it would be geographically centered in relation to the rest of the five boroughs and the suburbs.
O'Malley felt that Brooklyn was the only home (at least locally) for the team, so it didn't matter if the stadium were 30 miles or 3000 miles away - the team would cease to be the Brooklyn Dodgers. He wanted a site at the corner of Flatbush and Atlantic, which was near several subway lines and the terminal for the Long Island Railroad. And unlike Ebbets Field, which only had 700 parking spaces nearby, there would be potential for thousands of spaces for fans in the suburbs who would rather take a pleasant drive in from Long Island on one of Moses' new parkways.
News of the move gradually changed from rumor to certainty, and sensing the inevitable, fans withdrew their support in disgust. While O'Malley is held up as the eternal villain, Moses is portrayed as almost equally culpable because of his disinterest in an eminent domain move (O'Malley and Dodger shareholders would have paid for the new ballpark's construction). Moses eventually got his stadium in Queens after the Giants and Dodgers left. Modern Shea Stadium would be home to the expansion New York Mets, whose colors would include Dodger blue and the Giants' orange.
Ironically, the site previously sought by O'Malley is near the home of the Atlantic Yards project, the multi-billion dollar mixed development that will contain a new arena for the Nets basketball franchise. Developer Forest City Ratner is trying to acquire the land via an expensive, highly controversial eminent domain effort. The Nets would be the first major sports team to call Brooklyn home since the Dodgers left 50 years ago. The Dodgers took up residence on a hillside near downtown LA called Chavez Ravine, which was cleared through - that's right - eminent domain.
It's not difficult to draw parallels between the current A's and the mid-century Dodgers. Both were run by maverick general managers, both had a blue collar ethos. Both typically fell short in the postseason. But perhaps it is one quote that best - and most eerily - depicts the team's fans, via author Michael Shapiro:
That fanbase was not all living together. There were spread out. They were not in one place where they could gather and share their despair.Fans these days have the internet. Problem is, message boards and blogs don't usually end up on the evening news.
Brooklyn Dodgers: The Ghosts of Flatbush will air several times over the next week or so and is also available via HBO On Demand.
A couple of housekeeping notes: Blogger recently added a poll feature, so I'm testing it out on the sidebar. For now the poll will replace the Scorecard, which will return when there's a real proposal and media reaction.
10 July 2007
Parking Clarifications
I somehow find myself looking through some city's municipal code once a month. So I wanted to see what Gus Morrison's parking concerns were based on. Sure enough, there's plenty to consider. Fremont's Municipal Code, Title VIII, Chapter 2, Article 20, Section 8, has the details:
It would appear that code almost mandates that the ballpark be built "in a sea of parking" so to speak, since the distance requirement could be highly restrictive. I haven't checked ADA regulations, but those will certainly come into play as well. We know that the sea of parking is not feasible given the village concept and housing needs, so there has to be more to it than that. Given the ballpark's schedule of events, parking will be needed 90+ days per year, or 1/4 of the year. Should that much parking be required for such a limited schedule? And how can it be beneficial to other users such as non-resident village patrons?
There's even one more detail that shouldn't be ignored. The concrete plant is shown as a 16.3-acre parcel, but only 10.3 acres may be usable due to the existence of a pond on that site. It's possible that the pond may not be developed because it's a habitat for migratory birds. These are wetlands, after all. Reduction of the site to 10.3 acres would reduce available land for parking, further pressing the need for a garage or the acquisition of additional nearby property, or both.
But as I wrote previously, the map shouldn't be taken anything resembling a proposal or final plan. The devil truly is in the details.
- Sec. 8-22003. Required parking spaces by type of use.
(b) Business uses.
(1) Entertainment and recreation:
a. Theaters, auditoriums and sports arenas or stadia, including school auditoriums and stadia--For all fixed seating capacity, one for each four seats; theaters in shopping centers, one per three and one-half seats. - Sec. 8-22005. Location of required parking and loading facilities.
(a) The off-street parking facilities required for the uses mentioned in section 8-22003 and for other similar uses pursuant to section 22011, shall be on the same lot as the structure or use they are intended to serve. When practical difficulties, as determined by zoning administrator, prevent their establishment upon the same or immediately adjacent lot, they may be located within 400 feet of the premises to which the parking requirement pertains, provided such parking area meets all other requirements of this Code. - Sec. 8-22014. Assessment districts for parking.
(a) Exemptions. Whenever, pursuant to statute, public off-street parking facilities are established by means of a special assessment district, or by any other means which the city council may determine, all existing buildings and uses, and all buildings erected or uses established thereafter within the special assessment district, or other district which the city council may have determined, shall be exempt from the requirements of this article for privately supplied off-street parking facilities except as hereinafter provided.
It would appear that code almost mandates that the ballpark be built "in a sea of parking" so to speak, since the distance requirement could be highly restrictive. I haven't checked ADA regulations, but those will certainly come into play as well. We know that the sea of parking is not feasible given the village concept and housing needs, so there has to be more to it than that. Given the ballpark's schedule of events, parking will be needed 90+ days per year, or 1/4 of the year. Should that much parking be required for such a limited schedule? And how can it be beneficial to other users such as non-resident village patrons?
There's even one more detail that shouldn't be ignored. The concrete plant is shown as a 16.3-acre parcel, but only 10.3 acres may be usable due to the existence of a pond on that site. It's possible that the pond may not be developed because it's a habitat for migratory birds. These are wetlands, after all. Reduction of the site to 10.3 acres would reduce available land for parking, further pressing the need for a garage or the acquisition of additional nearby property, or both.
But as I wrote previously, the map shouldn't be taken anything resembling a proposal or final plan. The devil truly is in the details.
09 July 2007
All-Star Break Newswrap
As our green and gold heroes sputter into the break, there's a lot of news to cover. Where to begin? Let's start locally. From the Argus:
- Lew Wolff and former Fremont mayor Gus Morrison will meet today over coffee to discuss the ballpark village plans, and Morrison's misgivings over them. I'm guessing Massimo's?
- The Tri-Cities Landfill at the west end of Auto Mall Parkway closed to the public at the end of June. Fremont, Newark, and Union City garbage is going to the new Transfer Center a mile away, and soon the refuse will be trucked from there to the Altamont landfill. In the future Tri-Cities will be covered over with grass so that it looks less like a landfill and more like, um, a grass-covered former landfill.
- The City of Oakland is opening a four-month window to negotiate with the Wayans Brothers and Pacifica Capital Group on their proposed movie studio and entertainment center concept. There would be 100,000 s.f. of studio lot, 457,000 s.f. of retail, and a 331,250 s.f. for a "Creative Factory business park." I know you're going to ask, "Why would the City support this as opposed to keeping the A's?" The 70-acre plan doesn't include any housing, which would conflict with Port operations. Housing is the linchpin to the A's Town concept.
- Authors Roger Noll and Dave Zirin contributed two articles titled, "Are stadiums worth the high price?" Noll gives an overview of stadium funding history over the last two decades and contrasts it with the A's and 49ers' situations, while Zirin covers the owners fleecing the public in far more broad terms.
- The paper's 20 worst commutes has I-880 south at Fremont Blvd (South) as the second worst in the Bay Area, though it notes "Work under way to widen a highway that drops down to three lanes. Things should improve when work is finished in 2009." They should've also qualified that the 880 South problem is only during the morning commute.
07 July 2007
High speed rail: The other white meat
With the Warm Springs and San Jose BART extensions running into major funding-related delays, you may be surprised to know there's an alternative virtually nipping at its heels. It's not increased Amtrak service or Caltrain running into the East Bay. It's the state's high speed rail initiative. CAHSR is being pitched as an alternative to personal intra-state air and freeway travel, particularly trips between the Bay Area and Los Angeles. Proponents claim that a trip from SF to LA would be around 2:30, the length of a well-pitched A's game. Best of all, the 1-2 hour prep time needed to arrive at the airport and check in would be reduced to about 15 minutes. The cost? $40 billion, same as the value of all of the infrastructure bills passed last November. The first $10 billion is supposed to be covered by a bond measure that's slated for referendum in 2008. That appears to be the biggest problem in getting HSR on the ballot, as Governor Schwarzenegger appears heavily reluctant to put his weight behind the proposal unless, as he puts it, there is venture capital or other private means to help out with funding. And it definitely won't be built in a day, as construction could start in 2009 at the earliest with service actually beginning in 2020. That's right, 2020.
The project has gone through numerous levels of planning over the past decade, and pretty soon it'll be time to find out if it'll happen. Environmental impact reports have largely been completed, leaving a few major issues other than the funding to sort out. Chief among those is the route the line will take between the Central Valley and the Bay Area. One has the line running through Pacheco Pass, whereas the other runs near I-580 through Altamont Pass. Naturally, both have their local advocates. The Pacheco Pass option has new CAHSR board member Rod Diridon (former county supe and transit magnate) and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group behind it. Altamont Pass has Stuart Cohen and the Transportation and Land Use Coalition on its side. Either option would have large unavoidable expenses: Pacheco would require extensive tunneling and is not environmentally friendly, Altamont requires a bay crossing (either near the Dumbarton Bridge or via a new Transbay Tube). As it stands, the South/East Bay layout looks like this (station locations labeled in blue, Cisco Field is the red "X"):
The light green line represents the East Bay section that runs down to San Jose. The nice thing about the East Bay section is that even though it runs on a separate line from BART, it's set up to link directly to BART. All three Oakland stations, Union City, and Warm Springs would have multimodal operations. There would also be a fast, direct link between Pleasanton/Livermore/Tracy and the South Bay and Livermore-to-SF would finally be real instead of those residents waiting for a BART extension to materialize. However, the service wouldn't run nearly as frequently as BART, so HSR shouldn't be considered a complete replacement for BART. There's potential for other regional rail services to run on the HSR tracks. For instance, ACE Rail could be transformed into such a service and it could serve more stations along the line, while express trains bypass the ACE stations. Another option is a modified version of the Caltrain Metro East concept.
BART and HSR have other differences as well. BART utilizes a wide gauge, electric third rail system similar to the Washington Metro and Atlanta MARTA, and its top speed is 80 mph. HSR would use overhead electric wires on regular gauge rails, similar to high speed trains used in Europe. The closest US-based relative to HSR would be Amtrak's Boston-to-DC Acela Express service, which uses similar trains but shares tracks with freight trains. Top speed for HSR is projected to be 225 mph, though that speed would only be approached in the Central Valley (Bay Area speeds would be less than 120 mph due to noise concerns and the higher number of stations in close proximity to one another). Both BART and HSR would run on dedicated guideways, free from congestion and the potential for accidents with passenger cars.
The real issue among supporters of HSR is the lack of consensus among them. At some point the Bay Area-Central Valley route will be established, which will resolve a good deal of the infighting. Beyond that, there's a philosophical issue: How should HSR be positioned? While the original vision was for a cheap, environmentally friendly alternative to 737's in the air and SUV's on I-5, others have latched onto the concept of HSR acting as a good commuter train option. Consider a commuter train that makes the trip from Tracy to San Francisco in less than an hour. Or a San Jose to Warm Springs trip in 8-12 minutes (!). It sounds too good to be true, but if you want proof check out the performance of the same technology in Europe - or better yet try it yourself if you ever go there - and you'll see it's possible.
The commuter-versus-intercity debate is interesting because it actually pits certain environmental factions against each other. On one hand, the commuter option isn't getting emphasized because having a fast commuter train - especially one far faster than driving - could lead to increased sprawl as even more workers flee for the exurbs for more affordable and now more accessible housing. That has the land use folks worried. On the other hand, posing HSR as mostly a long distance replacement means you might not win over commuters who could potentially be off the freeways if the plan wasn't realized.
The great thing about the possibility of HSR is that it could significantly benefit the A's after they head down to Fremont, and they'd have little to do with HSR's development. Fresno-based fans could get to the ballpark in just over an hour. A few minutes less if they're coming from Sacramento. I could conceivably leave work at 3 on Friday and head down to Anaheim to catch the first of a three game A's-Angels set, since the Anaheim HSR station would be very close to Angel Stadium. That is, if the Angels are staying in Anaheim after 2015.
Whatever your feelings are on high speed rail, the people in power need to get off their asses to get this on the ballot in 2008. It's already been delayed twice, and delaying it further in hopes of getting a certain type of political climate will only raise the costs of the project and waste large amounts of preparatory work that have already been completed. The governor can't pussyfoot around. And the private industry groups like SVLG and its member should get their wallets ready if they're really behind the plan. Then we can know for certain if high speed rail is for real, or as the kids say, pipe.
Notes: HSR supporters have been pressing the media in recent weeks. Former State Senator Quentin Kopp wrote an opinion piece for Friday's Chronicle. Kopp is CAHSR's board chair. If you're looking for a point of comparison, the San Jose/Warm Springs BART extensions will cost an estimated $5.5 billion to go 21 miles. For more information on CAHSR, check out SF Cityscape's HSR forum.
The project has gone through numerous levels of planning over the past decade, and pretty soon it'll be time to find out if it'll happen. Environmental impact reports have largely been completed, leaving a few major issues other than the funding to sort out. Chief among those is the route the line will take between the Central Valley and the Bay Area. One has the line running through Pacheco Pass, whereas the other runs near I-580 through Altamont Pass. Naturally, both have their local advocates. The Pacheco Pass option has new CAHSR board member Rod Diridon (former county supe and transit magnate) and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group behind it. Altamont Pass has Stuart Cohen and the Transportation and Land Use Coalition on its side. Either option would have large unavoidable expenses: Pacheco would require extensive tunneling and is not environmentally friendly, Altamont requires a bay crossing (either near the Dumbarton Bridge or via a new Transbay Tube). As it stands, the South/East Bay layout looks like this (station locations labeled in blue, Cisco Field is the red "X"):
The light green line represents the East Bay section that runs down to San Jose. The nice thing about the East Bay section is that even though it runs on a separate line from BART, it's set up to link directly to BART. All three Oakland stations, Union City, and Warm Springs would have multimodal operations. There would also be a fast, direct link between Pleasanton/Livermore/Tracy and the South Bay and Livermore-to-SF would finally be real instead of those residents waiting for a BART extension to materialize. However, the service wouldn't run nearly as frequently as BART, so HSR shouldn't be considered a complete replacement for BART. There's potential for other regional rail services to run on the HSR tracks. For instance, ACE Rail could be transformed into such a service and it could serve more stations along the line, while express trains bypass the ACE stations. Another option is a modified version of the Caltrain Metro East concept.
BART and HSR have other differences as well. BART utilizes a wide gauge, electric third rail system similar to the Washington Metro and Atlanta MARTA, and its top speed is 80 mph. HSR would use overhead electric wires on regular gauge rails, similar to high speed trains used in Europe. The closest US-based relative to HSR would be Amtrak's Boston-to-DC Acela Express service, which uses similar trains but shares tracks with freight trains. Top speed for HSR is projected to be 225 mph, though that speed would only be approached in the Central Valley (Bay Area speeds would be less than 120 mph due to noise concerns and the higher number of stations in close proximity to one another). Both BART and HSR would run on dedicated guideways, free from congestion and the potential for accidents with passenger cars.
The real issue among supporters of HSR is the lack of consensus among them. At some point the Bay Area-Central Valley route will be established, which will resolve a good deal of the infighting. Beyond that, there's a philosophical issue: How should HSR be positioned? While the original vision was for a cheap, environmentally friendly alternative to 737's in the air and SUV's on I-5, others have latched onto the concept of HSR acting as a good commuter train option. Consider a commuter train that makes the trip from Tracy to San Francisco in less than an hour. Or a San Jose to Warm Springs trip in 8-12 minutes (!). It sounds too good to be true, but if you want proof check out the performance of the same technology in Europe - or better yet try it yourself if you ever go there - and you'll see it's possible.
The commuter-versus-intercity debate is interesting because it actually pits certain environmental factions against each other. On one hand, the commuter option isn't getting emphasized because having a fast commuter train - especially one far faster than driving - could lead to increased sprawl as even more workers flee for the exurbs for more affordable and now more accessible housing. That has the land use folks worried. On the other hand, posing HSR as mostly a long distance replacement means you might not win over commuters who could potentially be off the freeways if the plan wasn't realized.
The great thing about the possibility of HSR is that it could significantly benefit the A's after they head down to Fremont, and they'd have little to do with HSR's development. Fresno-based fans could get to the ballpark in just over an hour. A few minutes less if they're coming from Sacramento. I could conceivably leave work at 3 on Friday and head down to Anaheim to catch the first of a three game A's-Angels set, since the Anaheim HSR station would be very close to Angel Stadium. That is, if the Angels are staying in Anaheim after 2015.
Whatever your feelings are on high speed rail, the people in power need to get off their asses to get this on the ballot in 2008. It's already been delayed twice, and delaying it further in hopes of getting a certain type of political climate will only raise the costs of the project and waste large amounts of preparatory work that have already been completed. The governor can't pussyfoot around. And the private industry groups like SVLG and its member should get their wallets ready if they're really behind the plan. Then we can know for certain if high speed rail is for real, or as the kids say, pipe.
Notes: HSR supporters have been pressing the media in recent weeks. Former State Senator Quentin Kopp wrote an opinion piece for Friday's Chronicle. Kopp is CAHSR's board chair. If you're looking for a point of comparison, the San Jose/Warm Springs BART extensions will cost an estimated $5.5 billion to go 21 miles. For more information on CAHSR, check out SF Cityscape's HSR forum.
06 July 2007
A word of caution
Earlier this week former Fremont mayor Gus Morrison submitted a letter to Fremont's City Council (posted in the Tri City Voice) urging caution in their dealing with the A's. Morrison wrote, "I have long thought this project was one where the cart seemed to be getting far ahead of the horse." He went on to suggest that "a Fatal Flaw Analysis ought to be performed to find out if there are things in this project which could kill it." Among those, parking and ingress/egress were considered paramount.
Morrison is absolutely right. It took a while for the Council to get the report and it's taking longer for them to get the plan, which appears to be getting out to different stakeholders on a piecemeal basis. I don't know what goes on in the twice-a-month sessions, but I hope that it's not the same kind of situation.
To the Council's credit, they've expressed their interest in being part of the planning process. Paraphrasing council member Anu Natarajan, she cautioned the A's that she didn't want to receive an already packaged plan without going through proper planning steps.
While Morrison's concerns are well placed, he may be jumping the gun a bit. The key indicator of this is the reported number of condos and townhomes in the project, which seems to vary with each newly released piece of information. It shows that the plan is still undergoing major gestation. What isn't clear is how much the city is helping to scope it out. If anything, the only part with real detail is the core village area. Everything else lacks detail. It is that "everything else" that will be heavily debated over the next few months.
If the plan were submitted today based on the graphic released for FUSD, it probably wouldn't pass. Vice-Mayor Bob Wieckowski, who Morrison endorsed previously, clearly said that placing the school on the public parcel outside the neighborhood was a non-starter. And there's no way the plan would work with only Auto Mall Parkway as the single major freeway access point, especially if the Fremont Boulevard/Cushing Parkway interchange can be utilized. Thankfully, there are ways to address these concerns. They'll require compromise from both the A's and Fremont. As I noted in my review of the economic impact report, there are creative ways to make everything work.
Of course, the cart-horse analogy should be studied further. It would appear that in this case, the A's are both cart and horse. I suppose that makes the City of Fremont the reins.
Morrison is absolutely right. It took a while for the Council to get the report and it's taking longer for them to get the plan, which appears to be getting out to different stakeholders on a piecemeal basis. I don't know what goes on in the twice-a-month sessions, but I hope that it's not the same kind of situation.
To the Council's credit, they've expressed their interest in being part of the planning process. Paraphrasing council member Anu Natarajan, she cautioned the A's that she didn't want to receive an already packaged plan without going through proper planning steps.
While Morrison's concerns are well placed, he may be jumping the gun a bit. The key indicator of this is the reported number of condos and townhomes in the project, which seems to vary with each newly released piece of information. It shows that the plan is still undergoing major gestation. What isn't clear is how much the city is helping to scope it out. If anything, the only part with real detail is the core village area. Everything else lacks detail. It is that "everything else" that will be heavily debated over the next few months.
If the plan were submitted today based on the graphic released for FUSD, it probably wouldn't pass. Vice-Mayor Bob Wieckowski, who Morrison endorsed previously, clearly said that placing the school on the public parcel outside the neighborhood was a non-starter. And there's no way the plan would work with only Auto Mall Parkway as the single major freeway access point, especially if the Fremont Boulevard/Cushing Parkway interchange can be utilized. Thankfully, there are ways to address these concerns. They'll require compromise from both the A's and Fremont. As I noted in my review of the economic impact report, there are creative ways to make everything work.
Of course, the cart-horse analogy should be studied further. It would appear that in this case, the A's are both cart and horse. I suppose that makes the City of Fremont the reins.
02 July 2007
Peeling back the layers
If you haven't had a chance to download the ballpark village plan at the Merc's website, you really should. It's a good snapshot of what the developer's vision is now, prior to an inevitable series of changes - hopefully all for the good.
While studying the plan further over the weekend, I noticed that some graphical elements would quickly flash on the screen and then disappear as I scrolled through the drawing. I had seen this with my own mock-ups, which got me thinking there was more to this document than met the eye. I proceeded to open the file in a graphics program. Lo and behold - there was more under the surface!
I thought it was odd that the condos (yellow-gold) would be arranged in large, monolithic buildings. Upon further inspection, there was a good deal of extra space set aside for parking. Since there are 560 residential units in the core village area, there would have to be at least that many spaces for residents, plus a set number of visitor spots. The rest of the parking could be split between the retail part of the village and the ballpark. I'm assuming there'd be one level of garage parking, but it's possible there could be two levels. The layout of the residential-only buildings allows for large plazas above the parking, which will be needed as all of the elements are set rather tightly with limited amounts of open space at street level.
When looking at the plan it's easy to ignore the legend at the right. The legend's explanations pull everything together - sort of. The numbers deserve to be explained further - and once that's done it starts to really take shape.
V9 has to be the busiest piece outside of the ballpark because it contains the hotel, a relatively large amount of parking, and 100 housing units to boot. V2 and V7 are potential homes for larger retailers.
The core village is over 20% smaller than Santana Row in terms of acreage and retail/commercial space. There are fewer than half the residences as well. While the buildings will vary in height and cladding, they probably won't be as tall as their Santana Row counterparts.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the ballpark's footprint. The artist placed a bitmap over the top of the footprint, but I removed it and what's left is a most unusual outfield design. There's no indication that the Polo Grounds-like outfield will carry over to the final project. Nonetheless it is a change of pace from the all too commonplace bandbox design we've seen elsewhere. This is one element I'd take with a grain of salt.
While studying the plan further over the weekend, I noticed that some graphical elements would quickly flash on the screen and then disappear as I scrolled through the drawing. I had seen this with my own mock-ups, which got me thinking there was more to this document than met the eye. I proceeded to open the file in a graphics program. Lo and behold - there was more under the surface!
I thought it was odd that the condos (yellow-gold) would be arranged in large, monolithic buildings. Upon further inspection, there was a good deal of extra space set aside for parking. Since there are 560 residential units in the core village area, there would have to be at least that many spaces for residents, plus a set number of visitor spots. The rest of the parking could be split between the retail part of the village and the ballpark. I'm assuming there'd be one level of garage parking, but it's possible there could be two levels. The layout of the residential-only buildings allows for large plazas above the parking, which will be needed as all of the elements are set rather tightly with limited amounts of open space at street level.
When looking at the plan it's easy to ignore the legend at the right. The legend's explanations pull everything together - sort of. The numbers deserve to be explained further - and once that's done it starts to really take shape.
- Building B1 - Ballpark
- B2 - Left field building, mixed use, 11 residences
- B3 - Right field building, mixed use, 13 residences
- V1 - Residential, 89 units
- V2 - Commercial, 140,000 s.f.
- V3 - Residential, 87 units
- V4 - Mixed use, 44 units, 48,000 s.f.
- V5 - Residential, 57 units
- V6 - Mixed use, 24 units, 56,000 s.f.
- V7 - Mixed use, 28 units, 71,000 s.f.
- V8 - Commercial, 30,000 s.f.
- V9 - Mixed use, 100 units, 77,000 s.f.
- V10 - Mixed use, 23 units, 34,000 s.f.
- V11 - Mixed use, 52 units, 29,000 s.f.
- V12 - Commercial, 3,000 s.f.
- V13 - Mixed use, 54 units, 30,000 s.f.
V9 has to be the busiest piece outside of the ballpark because it contains the hotel, a relatively large amount of parking, and 100 housing units to boot. V2 and V7 are potential homes for larger retailers.
The core village is over 20% smaller than Santana Row in terms of acreage and retail/commercial space. There are fewer than half the residences as well. While the buildings will vary in height and cladding, they probably won't be as tall as their Santana Row counterparts.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the ballpark's footprint. The artist placed a bitmap over the top of the footprint, but I removed it and what's left is a most unusual outfield design. There's no indication that the Polo Grounds-like outfield will carry over to the final project. Nonetheless it is a change of pace from the all too commonplace bandbox design we've seen elsewhere. This is one element I'd take with a grain of salt.
30 June 2007
Ballpark plan leaked - er, linked?
The overview planning document that was shared with the Fremont Unified school board is now available, courtesy of the Merc and Barry Witt.
Witt's article has quotes from former Fremont mayor Gus Morrison, including a "scathing critique of Wolff's proposal." The excerpt:
In reference to the proposed school site, Vice Mayor Bob Wieckowski asked, "Who wants to be next to the dump?" He argued that the community will not support the proposed site.
Another coming bone of contention is the layout. The light green areas are housing sites, while the dark green areas are parkland of some sort, whether they are pocket parks or greenbelt space. 14 acres of parkland are in the plan. My worry is about the greenbelt established at the edges of the housing area. To preserve the wetlands area next door, there should be a much larger buffer, and I sense there will be an active fight to expand and define that greenbelt, at the expense of land available for housing and potentially for other public purposes, such as a school.
The plan looks similar to the mock-ups I've put together in the past, but there's a surprise. The parking area closest to the ballpark village includes the concrete plant, but only a portion of the Brandin Court properties. The Scott Gas property, in particular, is not included in the parking assessment. Is that a sign of continuing uncertainty regarding negotiations, or is it simply that those properties are currently occupied? An additional 1000 spaces are available if the entire Brandin Court area is included.
Witt's article has quotes from former Fremont mayor Gus Morrison, including a "scathing critique of Wolff's proposal." The excerpt:
That assumes a shuttle bus system is in play. There's certainly no guarantee of a shuttle bus going to the remote parking lots. Should the Warm Springs BART extension materialize, it is thought that shuttle buses would be running from the station, which would be 1.5 miles away. Add shuttles from the remote parking lots and the area traffic associated with the existing shopping center, and you have a recipe for gridlock. When Wolff mentioned "a comfortable walking distance" previously, I think it means walking, not shuttling. I'll let the individual decide if 3/4-mile is overly arduous.Morrison, the former mayor, said he doesn't see how a shuttle bus system would function from the remote lots given their distance from the park and the absence of mass-transit close to the stadium.
'You've got to move about 500 people a minute' into and out of the stadium, he said. 'It just doesn't work.'
In reference to the proposed school site, Vice Mayor Bob Wieckowski asked, "Who wants to be next to the dump?" He argued that the community will not support the proposed site.
Another coming bone of contention is the layout. The light green areas are housing sites, while the dark green areas are parkland of some sort, whether they are pocket parks or greenbelt space. 14 acres of parkland are in the plan. My worry is about the greenbelt established at the edges of the housing area. To preserve the wetlands area next door, there should be a much larger buffer, and I sense there will be an active fight to expand and define that greenbelt, at the expense of land available for housing and potentially for other public purposes, such as a school.
The plan looks similar to the mock-ups I've put together in the past, but there's a surprise. The parking area closest to the ballpark village includes the concrete plant, but only a portion of the Brandin Court properties. The Scott Gas property, in particular, is not included in the parking assessment. Is that a sign of continuing uncertainty regarding negotiations, or is it simply that those properties are currently occupied? An additional 1000 spaces are available if the entire Brandin Court area is included.
The race factor
The last several months I've written a few articles about casual fans and their impact on the A's. Not season ticket holders, not hardcore fans. Why? Because casual fans are the bulk of attendance, and have been for a long time. They are also the great variable, since numerous factors can affect their desire to choose the A's over other forms of entertainment, whether the substitutes are Giants games, other sporting events, or entirely different types of entertainment.
The casual fan, who usually brings a spouse/SO or friends/family, has his own decision-making process. Maybe he wants to tailgate before the game. Maybe he's interested in the opponent or star players. Maybe the A's are doing well, maybe they're not. Maybe they don't care much for baseball or sports in general. Race may be a factor in determining whether he wants to go or not, but how much? Please enlighten me, because I can't see how casual fan gives it that much thought.
How much does the black/latin player disparity matter? Is that phenomenon something that can even be linked to something as localized as attendance patterns? Do casual fans care much that Milton Bradley was a black player? Or that the team's makeup is mostly white, then latin?
Now there are some that choose not to go because the stadium is in Oakland and they feel it's unsafe. Then there are others who'll go to Oakland only for A's games or other Coliseum events but never go elsewhere in Oakland because of their own prejudices. Which is worse? Is that institutional racism? Or is it someone expressing their personal preference, even if it is ignorant? When does the abundance of personal prejudice become institutional?
To extend that further, let's say ownership knew that the above attitudes were somewhat prevalent and they factored that into their decision-making on where to build a ballpark. Can they quantify it? And can you? Because if they/you can't, it's very difficult to say it's anymore important than, say, access to BART, land availability, municipal politics, or true economic factors. These days it's difficult to run a business on a notion that's hard to substantiate. Quantify it, and we can have a real discussion. Until then, it's just a hot-button topic that unfortunately hasn't changed much in the A's nearly 40-year residence in Oakland. If the perception problem is as bad as some say, it's even worse that not much has been done to change it.
The casual fan, who usually brings a spouse/SO or friends/family, has his own decision-making process. Maybe he wants to tailgate before the game. Maybe he's interested in the opponent or star players. Maybe the A's are doing well, maybe they're not. Maybe they don't care much for baseball or sports in general. Race may be a factor in determining whether he wants to go or not, but how much? Please enlighten me, because I can't see how casual fan gives it that much thought.
How much does the black/latin player disparity matter? Is that phenomenon something that can even be linked to something as localized as attendance patterns? Do casual fans care much that Milton Bradley was a black player? Or that the team's makeup is mostly white, then latin?
Now there are some that choose not to go because the stadium is in Oakland and they feel it's unsafe. Then there are others who'll go to Oakland only for A's games or other Coliseum events but never go elsewhere in Oakland because of their own prejudices. Which is worse? Is that institutional racism? Or is it someone expressing their personal preference, even if it is ignorant? When does the abundance of personal prejudice become institutional?
To extend that further, let's say ownership knew that the above attitudes were somewhat prevalent and they factored that into their decision-making on where to build a ballpark. Can they quantify it? And can you? Because if they/you can't, it's very difficult to say it's anymore important than, say, access to BART, land availability, municipal politics, or true economic factors. These days it's difficult to run a business on a notion that's hard to substantiate. Quantify it, and we can have a real discussion. Until then, it's just a hot-button topic that unfortunately hasn't changed much in the A's nearly 40-year residence in Oakland. If the perception problem is as bad as some say, it's even worse that not much has been done to change it.
27 June 2007
Fremont School Board meeting tonight
Chris De Benedetti reports that Keith Wolff and A's consultant Jim Cunneen will present their plan at a FUSD board meeting tonight. FUSD has been keenly aware that there's no elementary school at Pacific Commons and at the very least one would be required there for the projected 700 grade school students. Some accommodations would have to be made for a large number of secondary school students as well.
New to the plan is the concept of placing the school on the city's 40-acre parcel, where a train station and park are planned. It seems like a reasonable use for the property, but there's one issue: the school would be separated from the neighborhood by at least the 0.6 miles I cited earlier. The school would be far more attractive if it were well integrated into the neighborhood, but using city land would be a much cheaper alternative. FWIW I'd rather see a land swap between the two parties to make the school work within the neighborhood confines - important since the residential area will be a gated/limited access area.
New to the plan is the concept of placing the school on the city's 40-acre parcel, where a train station and park are planned. It seems like a reasonable use for the property, but there's one issue: the school would be separated from the neighborhood by at least the 0.6 miles I cited earlier. The school would be far more attractive if it were well integrated into the neighborhood, but using city land would be a much cheaper alternative. FWIW I'd rather see a land swap between the two parties to make the school work within the neighborhood confines - important since the residential area will be a gated/limited access area.
25 June 2007
Newswrap: Billionaires vs. Billionaires
Not much happening right now regarding the Fremont project, but I've heard noises about another report in the offing. We'll see soon enough. On a related note, Fremont officials and staffers held a closed session last Tuesday to discuss the 40-acre parcel west of the planned ballpark village. The A's are looking at this parcel for parking, while prior plans originally called for a mix of a public park next to the future transit hub/train station. The parcel's eastern tip (closest to the ballpark site) is approximately 0.6 mile away from the ballpark.
Over in Phoenix, debt raised to build Chase Field (previously Bank One Ballpark) is about to be retired an astonishing 19 years earlier than expected. The "BOB" opened in 1997 and was funded by a 59%-41% public-private mix, the public part being a 1/4-cent sales tax hike in Maricopa County. According to the article, "All tax revenue portions for funding the stadium were met before it opened, meaning no taxes have been used toward the stadium since November 1997." Before you ask, don't think this is in any way feasible in the Bay Area. Paying off the BOB worked because the Phoenix metro's staggering growth over the last 20 years. That kind of growth is not anticipated in the Bay Area, where redevelopment has become the operative word, not sprawl.
Down in San Jose, Lew Wolff and Merc reporter Barry Witt appear to be firing a few indirect jabs at each other. First up was Witt's interview of Wolff for Valley AM station KLIV-1590. I didn't listen to it myself, but many Quakes faithful apparently like how Wolff went after Witt's line of questioning. Sunday's edition of the Merc had a Witt article describing how other area developers oppose rezoning of the Edenvale property, which would largely fund the Quakes' stadium project. Among the opposition is billionaire Carl Berg, who wanted some nearby Evergreen land that he owns rezoned. Berg was denied the zoning change, which not coincidentally was industrial-to-residential, similar to what Wolff is seeking but without the promised additional development (stadium + commercial west of SJC at the old FMC plant). To add more intrigue to the situation, Berg was once owner of the Quakes in the early 80's. Witt also threw in the prospect of IKEA placing a store on the Edenvale property. I've heard little to suggest that IKEA is really interested even though its plans for a Dublin store fell through.
The Quakes' situation brings to light something I hadn't thought about until recently. One thing that could sink the Quakes' stadium deal is the possibility of capital gains taxes that the developers (Wolff et al) would have to pay post-rezoning. It stands to reason that an even larger capital gain would occur with Fremont. While I'm certain they're investigating all manner of ways to mitigate the impact of capital gains taxes (*cough* loopholes *cough*), for a non beancounter such as me, it's still a head-scratcher.
Over in Phoenix, debt raised to build Chase Field (previously Bank One Ballpark) is about to be retired an astonishing 19 years earlier than expected. The "BOB" opened in 1997 and was funded by a 59%-41% public-private mix, the public part being a 1/4-cent sales tax hike in Maricopa County. According to the article, "All tax revenue portions for funding the stadium were met before it opened, meaning no taxes have been used toward the stadium since November 1997." Before you ask, don't think this is in any way feasible in the Bay Area. Paying off the BOB worked because the Phoenix metro's staggering growth over the last 20 years. That kind of growth is not anticipated in the Bay Area, where redevelopment has become the operative word, not sprawl.
Down in San Jose, Lew Wolff and Merc reporter Barry Witt appear to be firing a few indirect jabs at each other. First up was Witt's interview of Wolff for Valley AM station KLIV-1590. I didn't listen to it myself, but many Quakes faithful apparently like how Wolff went after Witt's line of questioning. Sunday's edition of the Merc had a Witt article describing how other area developers oppose rezoning of the Edenvale property, which would largely fund the Quakes' stadium project. Among the opposition is billionaire Carl Berg, who wanted some nearby Evergreen land that he owns rezoned. Berg was denied the zoning change, which not coincidentally was industrial-to-residential, similar to what Wolff is seeking but without the promised additional development (stadium + commercial west of SJC at the old FMC plant). To add more intrigue to the situation, Berg was once owner of the Quakes in the early 80's. Witt also threw in the prospect of IKEA placing a store on the Edenvale property. I've heard little to suggest that IKEA is really interested even though its plans for a Dublin store fell through.
The Quakes' situation brings to light something I hadn't thought about until recently. One thing that could sink the Quakes' stadium deal is the possibility of capital gains taxes that the developers (Wolff et al) would have to pay post-rezoning. It stands to reason that an even larger capital gain would occur with Fremont. While I'm certain they're investigating all manner of ways to mitigate the impact of capital gains taxes (*cough* loopholes *cough*), for a non beancounter such as me, it's still a head-scratcher.
18 June 2007
The 101 Rivalry
So this is what passes in the Bay Area as a bidding war. Two cities, separated by 40 miles on a major freeway. One is a world-renowned city with image and attitude to spare. The other is a much smaller suburb hoping to bring in entertainment and tourist dollars.
What do San Francisco and Santa Clara have in common? Both have two of the original missions founded by Father Junipero Serra. Both have Catholic, West Coast Conference universities. The City counts GAP and Bechtel among its corporate headquarters. Santa Clara has Intel and Applied Materials. And of course, both have pieces of the 49ers: SF has the history and current stadium on its side, Santa Clara has the current headquarters/training facility.
The media is painting the situation as a tug-of-war for the team, and the NFL is doing whatever they can to perpetuate this notion by having officials visit both cities on consecutive days. Gavin Newsom gave a pull today when he said there was "no way to justify" a potential $180 million stadium investment by Santa Clara. Great America's operator, Cedar Fair, also entered the fray by announcing their opposition to the Santa Clara project, saying that the stadium could adversely affect their operations. Cedar Fair left an opening for compromise.
There's a fundamental problem with all of this posturing: Nobody's offering anything. Since a report in April about the possible use of a utility reserve, Santa Clara has been skittish about pronouncing any level of financial support, let alone a method. Cedar Fair's position mucks up the works a bit because it is essentially a hand outstretched (enormous parking garage, anyone?) San Francisco, despite its bluster, hasn't really pledged anything except for a site, which may or may not be ready by the time the team wants to start construction.
Unfortunately for the 49ers, they're stuck with the economic reality. It's all too easy to compare the A's plans favorably (no cash outlay by Fremont, financing method fairly transparent). But let's keep in mind that the 49ers' stadium will be twice as big and twice as expensive as the A's. Value engineering won't net big savings. Uncertainty causes delay, and delay means money. The Niners are counting on a revamped loan program from the NFL to provide the bulk of funds, yet the NFL can't just rubber stamp a deal since the Raiders, Saints , and Vikings are still in play and they'll be looking for loans as well.
The Niners aren't perpetuating the bidding war myth. They've been upfront about Santa Clara as Plan A, while SF is a far off Plan B. That could be to curry favor with Santa Clara. Maybe not. Whatever the case, the reality is that it's too damned expensive to build a NFL stadium these days. I'm not a Niners fan, but for many of my friends' sake, I hope they stay in the Bay Area. I'm just glad I don't have to figure it out.
What do San Francisco and Santa Clara have in common? Both have two of the original missions founded by Father Junipero Serra. Both have Catholic, West Coast Conference universities. The City counts GAP and Bechtel among its corporate headquarters. Santa Clara has Intel and Applied Materials. And of course, both have pieces of the 49ers: SF has the history and current stadium on its side, Santa Clara has the current headquarters/training facility.
The media is painting the situation as a tug-of-war for the team, and the NFL is doing whatever they can to perpetuate this notion by having officials visit both cities on consecutive days. Gavin Newsom gave a pull today when he said there was "no way to justify" a potential $180 million stadium investment by Santa Clara. Great America's operator, Cedar Fair, also entered the fray by announcing their opposition to the Santa Clara project, saying that the stadium could adversely affect their operations. Cedar Fair left an opening for compromise.
There's a fundamental problem with all of this posturing: Nobody's offering anything. Since a report in April about the possible use of a utility reserve, Santa Clara has been skittish about pronouncing any level of financial support, let alone a method. Cedar Fair's position mucks up the works a bit because it is essentially a hand outstretched (enormous parking garage, anyone?) San Francisco, despite its bluster, hasn't really pledged anything except for a site, which may or may not be ready by the time the team wants to start construction.
Unfortunately for the 49ers, they're stuck with the economic reality. It's all too easy to compare the A's plans favorably (no cash outlay by Fremont, financing method fairly transparent). But let's keep in mind that the 49ers' stadium will be twice as big and twice as expensive as the A's. Value engineering won't net big savings. Uncertainty causes delay, and delay means money. The Niners are counting on a revamped loan program from the NFL to provide the bulk of funds, yet the NFL can't just rubber stamp a deal since the Raiders, Saints , and Vikings are still in play and they'll be looking for loans as well.
The Niners aren't perpetuating the bidding war myth. They've been upfront about Santa Clara as Plan A, while SF is a far off Plan B. That could be to curry favor with Santa Clara. Maybe not. Whatever the case, the reality is that it's too damned expensive to build a NFL stadium these days. I'm not a Niners fan, but for many of my friends' sake, I hope they stay in the Bay Area. I'm just glad I don't have to figure it out.
17 June 2007
Attendance Watch 2007, Game 35 edition
Back from some other responsibilities, and I figure we're overdue for a new installment of Attendance Watch. As you can see from the sidebar, this year's A's are nearly 100,000 better than last year's. They're also nearly 50,000 above 2005's YTD mark.
So why are the A's doing better? It's not on-field performance since the A's have the same 37-31 mark as they did at this juncture last season. There are a few possible explanations:
- Yankees. Last season's opening homestand featured the Yanks, who sold out all three games. However, this robbed the A's of an additional sellout because they could've had any team visit on opening night and have gotten a sellout. This season, the Yanks were the second team in, allowing the A's to have four sellouts during the first homestand (3 Yankees, 1 White Sox). Each sellout represents an additional 10,000+ attendees.
- Red Sox. The Red Sox did not visit the Coliseum in 2006 until the second half, and the series was your garden variety weekday, three-game set. This season's visit from the Sox was also a weekday set, but it was four games, not three. Surprisingly, there were no sellouts this time despite the Sox holding the best record in baseball when they visited (though Sox fans were by no means underrepresented).
- Weather. Some have dismissed my theory that weather plays a part, but there definitely appears to be some effect, albeit one difficult to measure. The dry spring we've had in California has been much more conducive to bringing out casual fans than the wet spring of 2006. Temperatures have been fairly steady (cool), but rain has to be a huge deterrent. Simply watch the A's day-of-game ticket operations when rain has fallen prior to a game. There's a difference.
As well as the turnstile performance has looked, expect the curve to flatten out over the rest of the season. The A's are on pace to break 2 million. Once again, the A's second half on-field performance will play a factor. Should they remain close in a race with the Angels and Mariners, the fans will come. If not, 2 million could be a reach.
This week's series against the Reds should find the gap between 2007 and 2006 shrinking ever so slightly. The weather forecast? More of the usual for Monday and Tuesday, temps around 60 degrees at first pitch and dropping down a few ticks by the end of each game.
03 June 2007
Praise from afar
South Florida Sun-Sentinel baseball columnist Mike Berardino praised the A's ballpark plans and thinks the Marlins should consider downsizing its planned 38,000-seat ballpark in an effort to to reduce their current $30 million funding gap. Not a bad idea, IMHO. It doesn't resolve the need for a retractable roof in the Miami area, but that's another kettle of fish.
Berardino goes on to laud other aspects of the project:
Berardino goes on to laud other aspects of the project:
Another aspect of the A's plan that is refreshing is the limited reliance on public funds.Talk of an A's-funded school? If there's one thing that could really make the project a winner, that's it. That said, let's wait to find out the true infrastructure costs before declaring it a no-brainer.
Wolff, 69, has already secured purchasing rights for 226 acres that would be used for the proposed Ballpark Village. The A's new home would eat up $450 million of the planned $1.8 billion redevelopment deal, a project that would include a hotel, nearly 3,000 luxury townhouses and 550,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space.
There is also talk of an A's-funded school on the property.
The club would fund the vast majority of that overhaul. No bond issues. No grab for general funds.
"I'm basically a developer that does urban redevelopment," Wolff said. "I've learned over the years, the more cookies you take out of the public jar, the sicker you get. It's really good for the public and private side to minimize trying to use funds that can go to other priorities."
Now you might say Wolff has little choice but to go this route after the Giants built their new home across the bay without taxpayer assistance, but it's still nice to hear such straight talk from a member of baseball's ownership fraternity.
31 May 2007
Futbol Football
There's a bevy of articles about the 49ers' dealings with Santa Clara:
... and one in the Merc about the Quakes' dealings with San Jose.
For the Niners' stadium project, the previously unknown cost for moving and/or reconfiguring the on-site power substation now has a price tag: $20 million. In addition, a planned parking garage would need to be moved to accommodate the stadium. Demand estimates indicate that the area will face a shortfall of parking should football games run concurrently with Great America operating days. There will probably be 3-4 such conflicts every year. Remember that they have until July to figure this out. Glad it's not my decision.
Now on to the Quakes. Two months ago I put together a rough comparison of the A's ballpark village and the Quakes' project, which back then was a stadium shared with SJSU. Now the Quakes are going it alone, but the fundamentals are still there. A new memo from the City shows how the deal is structured, which really just confirms much of what we already know.
Two major differences exist between the plan as conceived for South Campus and the current one. Ancillary development next to the stadium is the big key. Almost as important is that Quakes and ancillary revenues will cover the city's $7.5 million per year in debt service on the recently purchased, 75-acre Airport West property. That effectively makes the deal a $7.5 million lease for the stadium and surrounding land. The iStar property proceeds will most certainly be used for the stadium and perhaps some of the ancillary development, but it's really important that revenues from new office, retail, and parking establishments foot the bill for the lease. It's unlikely that soccer revenues could contribute more than half of the lease requirement. One possible outcome: since a large amount of parking will be required for all of the various uses, I can see Wolff building a large multi-purpose parking structure which would also be used for airport long term parking. Airport officials have shown interest in using the existing long term lot for other airport operations.
Like the A's concept, it's a radical departure from typical stadium financing plans since the developer is taking the lion's share of the risk. If they can pull it off, more power to them.
... and one in the Merc about the Quakes' dealings with San Jose.
For the Niners' stadium project, the previously unknown cost for moving and/or reconfiguring the on-site power substation now has a price tag: $20 million. In addition, a planned parking garage would need to be moved to accommodate the stadium. Demand estimates indicate that the area will face a shortfall of parking should football games run concurrently with Great America operating days. There will probably be 3-4 such conflicts every year. Remember that they have until July to figure this out. Glad it's not my decision.
Now on to the Quakes. Two months ago I put together a rough comparison of the A's ballpark village and the Quakes' project, which back then was a stadium shared with SJSU. Now the Quakes are going it alone, but the fundamentals are still there. A new memo from the City shows how the deal is structured, which really just confirms much of what we already know.
Two major differences exist between the plan as conceived for South Campus and the current one. Ancillary development next to the stadium is the big key. Almost as important is that Quakes and ancillary revenues will cover the city's $7.5 million per year in debt service on the recently purchased, 75-acre Airport West property. That effectively makes the deal a $7.5 million lease for the stadium and surrounding land. The iStar property proceeds will most certainly be used for the stadium and perhaps some of the ancillary development, but it's really important that revenues from new office, retail, and parking establishments foot the bill for the lease. It's unlikely that soccer revenues could contribute more than half of the lease requirement. One possible outcome: since a large amount of parking will be required for all of the various uses, I can see Wolff building a large multi-purpose parking structure which would also be used for airport long term parking. Airport officials have shown interest in using the existing long term lot for other airport operations.
Like the A's concept, it's a radical departure from typical stadium financing plans since the developer is taking the lion's share of the risk. If they can pull it off, more power to them.
29 May 2007
A's Outreach
As part of the A's efforts to win the citizens of Fremont over, an event was held today involving a representative of the team and the Chamber's Task Force (of which I am a member). It promises to be the first of many different types of events involving the A's and the community.
A pamphlet was handed out that summarizes the benefits that the project will provide the community. If you live in Fremont or the Tri-Cities area, you'll probably run into the pamphlet at one or more events this summer, leading off with Sunday's:
Anyway, back to the pamphlet. My apologies in advance for not scanning it in, I seem to have misplaced the scanner's power adapter. The pamphlet is an 11 x 17 tri-fold with the overhead view of the Cisco Field rendering. Overlaid on the bottom half are the words, "Will you dream with us..." and the "Athletics" logo underneath.
Inside, at the top, in similar typeface are the words "Together, we could have..." followed by the bullet points touting the project. I've already gone into plenty of detail on most of those points so I won't rehash them now. There is one part that hasn't been covered much, so I'll quote it verbatim:
The second point is key to the political positioning of the ballpark proposal. If the developers can show that the ballpark village would have the same or fewer impacts than the original Cisco campus plan, they'll have a good shot at getting approval. Making such a case is no slam dunk, and the subject matter is well past my layperson's level of expertise.
A few other notes:
Task Force attendees included reps from FUSD's Board, Ohlone College, NUMMI employees, and others from various businesses in Fremont. There's a great sense of awareness about both the risks and rewards in City Hall and the private sector. FUSD wants to talk about an elementary school in the area - one that won't get fully funded by the projected $10 million development fees.
The 2,900 brownstones (emphasis on brownstones) will be in a gated community. I had speculated earlier that this would be required just for traffic control purposes, and that looks to be right on.
One other odd thing about the pamphlet: the line score on the inner rendering's scoreboard is:
A pamphlet was handed out that summarizes the benefits that the project will provide the community. If you live in Fremont or the Tri-Cities area, you'll probably run into the pamphlet at one or more events this summer, leading off with Sunday's:
The Great Rotary 16th Annual Chili Cook OffFor those that don't know, The Saddle Rack is a country music joint very close to Pacific Commons. Should Nick Swisher stay through his new contract extension and beyond, I can definitely see the Saddle Rack being an establishment much to his liking.
@ The Saddle Rack ($5 - ages 12 and under free, 11:00 AM - 5:00 PM)
benefiting the Tri-City Rotary Clinic, Washington on Wheels, and the Alisa Ann Ruch Burn Foundation
Anyway, back to the pamphlet. My apologies in advance for not scanning it in, I seem to have misplaced the scanner's power adapter. The pamphlet is an 11 x 17 tri-fold with the overhead view of the Cisco Field rendering. Overlaid on the bottom half are the words, "Will you dream with us..." and the "Athletics" logo underneath.
Inside, at the top, in similar typeface are the words "Together, we could have..." followed by the bullet points touting the project. I've already gone into plenty of detail on most of those points so I won't rehash them now. There is one part that hasn't been covered much, so I'll quote it verbatim:
- With Good Transportation
- Create a transportation system that connects the urban ballpark village to the existing BART and other light rail systems, buses and plenty of parking
- Generate fewer automobile rush hour trips than what is already approved for the existing property and roads
The second point is key to the political positioning of the ballpark proposal. If the developers can show that the ballpark village would have the same or fewer impacts than the original Cisco campus plan, they'll have a good shot at getting approval. Making such a case is no slam dunk, and the subject matter is well past my layperson's level of expertise.
A few other notes:
Task Force attendees included reps from FUSD's Board, Ohlone College, NUMMI employees, and others from various businesses in Fremont. There's a great sense of awareness about both the risks and rewards in City Hall and the private sector. FUSD wants to talk about an elementary school in the area - one that won't get fully funded by the projected $10 million development fees.
The 2,900 brownstones (emphasis on brownstones) will be in a gated community. I had speculated earlier that this would be required just for traffic control purposes, and that looks to be right on.
One other odd thing about the pamphlet: the line score on the inner rendering's scoreboard is:
- .........1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 - R H E
- BAYLOR...0 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 - 6 8 2
- TX TECH..1 0 2 0 2 1 1 3 . -10 15 1
21 May 2007
Noll: A's Study "More honest than most"
(See? I can create completely distorted headlines, too.)
Argus scribe Chris De Benedetti got Stanford sports economist Roger Noll's take on the ERA economic impact report. The assessment:
The costs issue hinges on two important details:
As for ongoing services such as police and fire, I've given my two cents. I'm of the belief that the project tax revenues will pay for itself. I don't believe that the city will be flush with cash - at least it won't be if the TIF district continues indefinitely. The best way to make this work is to use TIF (if it has to be used at all) only for the school and transit hub. When both of those projects are completed - and the redevelopment agency has reached its tax increment cap - the mechanism should cease to exist. As a result, money would flow back to the city's and county's general funds, and FUSD as well. Only when the tax increment district expires will those groups really start to see serious money roll in.
Argus scribe Chris De Benedetti got Stanford sports economist Roger Noll's take on the ERA economic impact report. The assessment:
The A's economic report on the proposed ballpark village in Fremont is "far better" than the 49ers' report presented to Santa Clara, said Roger Noll, an esteemed Bay Area sports economist.
However, Noll gives the report mixed reviews overall, knocking the study because its "analysis of fiscal impacts is about revenues only, and excludes costs."
The costs issue hinges on two important details:
- What additional infrastructure (schools, transit) will be required?
- What are the mechanisms to pay for it?
As for ongoing services such as police and fire, I've given my two cents. I'm of the belief that the project tax revenues will pay for itself. I don't believe that the city will be flush with cash - at least it won't be if the TIF district continues indefinitely. The best way to make this work is to use TIF (if it has to be used at all) only for the school and transit hub. When both of those projects are completed - and the redevelopment agency has reached its tax increment cap - the mechanism should cease to exist. As a result, money would flow back to the city's and county's general funds, and FUSD as well. Only when the tax increment district expires will those groups really start to see serious money roll in.
19 May 2007
Fremont City Council Session 5/22 - Minor item
From a note sent out earlier today:
Update: The Merc's Barry Witt has the scoop on the agreement up for consideration:
I think I'll sit this one out and check out the webcast instead. I like process, but not that much.FROM: CITY OF FREMONT
SUBJECT: BALLPARK VILLAGE PROJECT - GENERAL GUIDELINES
This is to advise you that an agenda item has been scheduled for the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, May 22, 2007, on a proposed set of General Guidelines for use in negotiations on the Oakland A's proposed Ballpark Village Project. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers located at 3300 Capitol Avenue, Building A, Fremont, California.
If you have any questions regarding this agenda item, please contact Economic Development Director Daren Fields at (510) 284-4020 or at dfields@ci.fremont.ca.us
Update: The Merc's Barry Witt has the scoop on the agreement up for consideration:
As part of a list of proposed "guidelines" to steer negotiations between the city and the A's, City Manager Fred Diaz said "there should be no future un-reimbursed general fund financial obligations or liabilities."Sounds like a good public gesture for both parties. Of course, when they say "general fund" they're conveniently leaving TIF funds out of the agreement. That's not to say that usage of TIF is a bad thing. A few days ago I outlined a couple of ways TIF could be used for positive community benefit when the time comes. However, that requires a level of restraint and discipline that too often is not applied when TIF comes into play.
17 May 2007
Trading one casual fan for another
A couple of interesting news items before I rant a bit:
Last night I sat in the Plaza Reserved section just to get a flavor for the $2 seat again. From the looks of the crowd, the announced 16,242 were evenly split between fans in the main bowl and everyone else in the bleachers and Plaza Reserved. The experience reminded me of how disinterested the $2 seat crowd is in the game. During the game the following happened:
In the end, casual fans are casual fans. Some are louder than others. Some cause more trouble than others. Some fall asleep easily. They are all transient and replaceable by nature. True, the baseball IQ at Coliseum is inversely proportional to the number of fans there. But how much should that factor into the game experience?
Casual fans are there because baseball's a unique form of entertainment first, with "quality of baseball" being further down the list of desired attributes. So what does it really matter how many there are or what type? The younger crowd comes with more energy and inherent risk. The older corporate crowd is safer and duller. How is it possible to claim that one is better than the other without showing class/racial bias? And who's to judge? Certainly not me.
There are many who lament this particular path that baseball has taken. They're easy to point fingers at the commissioner or the owners for selling baseball out, and they're right to a great extent. But isn't it incumbent upon us, the longtime fans, the diehards, to evangelize about baseball? To bring those casual fans into the fold and mesmerize them with the game's wonder? I posit the notion that if we don't, we are derelict in our duty as fans. It is not just the owners or the players that are stewards of the game. As fans, we have our own rich histories with baseball, and unless we are content to be selfish with our own recollections of the sport, we also have the responsibility to shepherd the next generations of fans. If we are not to raise the next group of diehards, who will?
This rant was inspired by the dearly departed author David Halberstam, whose Summer of '49 sits dogeared and worn in my bookcase.
- 106.9 Free FM (KIFR) is switching formats to classic rock, reviving the locally legendary KFRC call letters. Apparently there will be no change to A's coverage. Existing talk programming on KIFR will move to the weaker AM sister, KYCY-1550.
- Hennepin County is prepping the Rapid Park site for August's groundbreaking of the Twins' new ballpark in downtown Minneapolis. They may be able to make the Spring 2010 opening date after all.
- Mark your calendars for January 1, 2009. That's the date of the launch of MLB Network, which will be available on most major cable systems and DirecTV. MLB Network will reportedly be on either basic or digital tiers rather than on a sports tier, which means slightly higher monthly subscriber fees for those that get the channel. This positioning puts it on par with NFL Network (though Comcast is changing its arrangement with NFL Network). NBA TV only has such an arrangement on DirecTV, but is available only with League Pass on many cable systems. The deal is for four years with a three-year option that could bring the value of the deal up to $700 million. MLB is guaranteed $80 million per year ($2.3 million per team) with greater revenues coming with additional sales of the Extra Innings package. Ownership of the channel will be two-thirds MLB, the rest shared by the cable and satellite operators.
- Liberty Media CEO Greg Maffei on his company's purchase of the Braves (approved by MLB today): " 'The taxes clearly made it attractive... but we're interested in seeing the value of the asset grow.' Maffei said Liberty is a strong believer in the value of sports as television programming, but noted that the Braves' TV rights already are committed long-term. 'We believe there may be some promotional opportunities.' " Well, at least he's being honest about the tax dodge - the team and several other assets were placed in a Time Warner subsidiary and were swapped for Liberty Media's 4% stake in Time Warner. Nothing screams passionate ownership more than "tax free asset swap," that's what I always say. (A chronology of the sale if you want the gory details.)
Last night I sat in the Plaza Reserved section just to get a flavor for the $2 seat again. From the looks of the crowd, the announced 16,242 were evenly split between fans in the main bowl and everyone else in the bleachers and Plaza Reserved. The experience reminded me of how disinterested the $2 seat crowd is in the game. During the game the following happened:
- One or two aborted wave attempts
- Call-and-response between groups of fans singing "Happy Birthday" multiple times
- Call-and-response between groups of fans chanting the old high school football refrain, "We've got spirit! Yes we do! We've got spirit! How about YOU!!!!" (ends with fingerpointing)
- Teenage girls trying to distract Hiram Bocachica, who had no ML at-bats this season entering the game. The girls succeeded at least twice. I shook my head in shame. Bocachica looked overmatched in his 0-for-4 day with 1 K.
- Random fan yelling, "Hey! Where's (insert DL'ed player here)?"
- Numerous fans asking, "Who's this Cust guy?"
- Greater misplaced excitement than normal about various A's hitting pop-ups.
Now I'm not a hardcore elitist type of fan. I frequently bring my casual fan friends to games and I don't care about how little or much they follow the team. That's their prerogative. And I'm happy to explain why (insert DL'ed player here) went down to anyone who asks. But that got me to thinking about what occurs on the other side of the bay.
In SF, the Giants traded their younger, more boisterous, but unfocused casual fans for quieter, older, wealthier ones. Giants games without Bonds in the lineup tend to run similar in feel to Manhattan's Bryant Park during midday, with its lovely Parisian chairs and avid readers. It's gentrification in its most obvious form. Like Pac Bell, the first few years of Cisco Field will have numerous curiosity seekers and trendy types who simply want to be in the scene. Once the novelty has worn off they'll likely move on to something else. What will remain are the dwindling number of hardcore fans and the rising number of casual fans, and maybe some of the casual fans that have been converted into staunch supporters the process.In the end, casual fans are casual fans. Some are louder than others. Some cause more trouble than others. Some fall asleep easily. They are all transient and replaceable by nature. True, the baseball IQ at Coliseum is inversely proportional to the number of fans there. But how much should that factor into the game experience?
Casual fans are there because baseball's a unique form of entertainment first, with "quality of baseball" being further down the list of desired attributes. So what does it really matter how many there are or what type? The younger crowd comes with more energy and inherent risk. The older corporate crowd is safer and duller. How is it possible to claim that one is better than the other without showing class/racial bias? And who's to judge? Certainly not me.
There are many who lament this particular path that baseball has taken. They're easy to point fingers at the commissioner or the owners for selling baseball out, and they're right to a great extent. But isn't it incumbent upon us, the longtime fans, the diehards, to evangelize about baseball? To bring those casual fans into the fold and mesmerize them with the game's wonder? I posit the notion that if we don't, we are derelict in our duty as fans. It is not just the owners or the players that are stewards of the game. As fans, we have our own rich histories with baseball, and unless we are content to be selfish with our own recollections of the sport, we also have the responsibility to shepherd the next generations of fans. If we are not to raise the next group of diehards, who will?
This rant was inspired by the dearly departed author David Halberstam, whose Summer of '49 sits dogeared and worn in my bookcase.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)