In a move that foretells the A's acquisition of Earthquakes v. 3.0, the team's sales and marketing veep, David Alioto, has accepted the newly created position of Executive VP of Earthquakes Soccer, LLC. According to the press release, Alioto "will oversee business operations, sponsorship opportunities, develop sponsorship opportunities and assist in venue development surrounding A's ownership's attempt at securing a soccer specific stadium in the Bay Area for a Major League Soccer franchise."
Basically, it means Alioto will be doing for the Quakes what Michael Crowley currently does as President of the A's - except there's no team yet, of course. Good luck to Alioto on negotiating the extremely murky waters that define San Jose politics. Alioto may end up leaning a bit on both Crowley's and Lew Wolff's South Bay local status to get the SSS deal done. I'd like to see the Quakes get the benefit of some clever McCann-Erickson ad campaigns, the same kinds used for the A's the last couple of years.
From a strategic standpoint, there's something attractive about being able to pool certain parts of operations for the two teams. The seasons run concurrently, so some stadium operations can be consolidated. Sponsorship opportunities can be pitched to cater to the different audiences. Packages of club seats and suites may look attractive if they're for two teams (and all related venues' events) instead of just one. The ballpark financing concept is already out-of-the-box, why not sales as well? (Trivia note: According to Andrew Zimbalist's splendid book In the Best Interests of Baseball?, MLB Advanced Media runs the MLS website.)
07 July 2006
06 July 2006
Coliseum BART lot mockup
I promised this a couple weeks ago, so here it is:
According to city records the combined parcels that make up the BART lot make up some 8-9 acres, 10-11 acres including some the extra streets that run through the lot. The neighborhood northeast of the ballpark has no real buffer separating it from the lot aside from some small auto shop/garage-type buildings. Residents there would be impacted by noise and possibly light pollution. The only ways to orient the field are north (shown), east (similar to the Coliseum's field orientation), or south/southeast (field facing Hegenberger Road).
According to city records the combined parcels that make up the BART lot make up some 8-9 acres, 10-11 acres including some the extra streets that run through the lot. The neighborhood northeast of the ballpark has no real buffer separating it from the lot aside from some small auto shop/garage-type buildings. Residents there would be impacted by noise and possibly light pollution. The only ways to orient the field are north (shown), east (similar to the Coliseum's field orientation), or south/southeast (field facing Hegenberger Road).
02 July 2006
Purdy puts Wolff at top of power player list
The Merc's newest edition of their "Bay Area's Most Powerful Sports Figures" is due, and columnist Mark Purdy has placed Lew Wolff at the very top. That's not surprising. Wolff currently controls the fates of two sports franchises - the A's and the future Quakes - and his deals may indirectly affect revenues for all other major pro sports teams in the region due to club/suite and ad revenues.
While A's ownership including Wolff (and family, I'm sure), President Michael Crowley, and GM Billy Beane have been living it up in Germany recently while attending the World Cup. Undoubtedly, they've gotten pointers looking at new and refurbished stadia, many of which hold a baseball-friendly capacity of 40,000. Before soccer fans get their hopes up, costs will prohibit a European-style fully-enclosed, mostly roofed stadium from being constructed here (unless someone other than the A's is willing to foot the bill). In the meantime, putting out a shingle for an Earthquakes office and retail store could help salve the wound created when the team Mayflowered its way to Houston.
Purdy takes a position that is a definite shift from what he has argued in the past. Instead of pitching Fremont as a diversionary tactic while the A's deal with San Jose, Fremont is meriting real consideration. As the greatest media flagwaver for the San Jose effort, this is almost downright earthshattering.
Back to the list. Bay Area sports history has had a huge range of personalities and styles among its power brokers, whether they were brilliant (Wally Haas, Peter Magowan, Eddie DeBartolo), inept (John York, Chris Cohan, Steve Schott), or somewhere in between (Al Davis, Bob Lurie). Superstar players and coaches also inhabit the list, as do some non-print media types. Wolff's ascent to the top of the list is a testament to how Wolff understands and plays the media game. Other than Trib columnist Art Spander, Wolff has Bay Area media eating out of his hand. He's skillfully given bits and pieces of his vision, never giving too much away and always leaving the curious (like me) wanting more.
Purdy ends the piece with could be interpreted as a bit of foreshadowing:
While A's ownership including Wolff (and family, I'm sure), President Michael Crowley, and GM Billy Beane have been living it up in Germany recently while attending the World Cup. Undoubtedly, they've gotten pointers looking at new and refurbished stadia, many of which hold a baseball-friendly capacity of 40,000. Before soccer fans get their hopes up, costs will prohibit a European-style fully-enclosed, mostly roofed stadium from being constructed here (unless someone other than the A's is willing to foot the bill). In the meantime, putting out a shingle for an Earthquakes office and retail store could help salve the wound created when the team Mayflowered its way to Houston.
Purdy takes a position that is a definite shift from what he has argued in the past. Instead of pitching Fremont as a diversionary tactic while the A's deal with San Jose, Fremont is meriting real consideration. As the greatest media flagwaver for the San Jose effort, this is almost downright earthshattering.
Back to the list. Bay Area sports history has had a huge range of personalities and styles among its power brokers, whether they were brilliant (Wally Haas, Peter Magowan, Eddie DeBartolo), inept (John York, Chris Cohan, Steve Schott), or somewhere in between (Al Davis, Bob Lurie). Superstar players and coaches also inhabit the list, as do some non-print media types. Wolff's ascent to the top of the list is a testament to how Wolff understands and plays the media game. Other than Trib columnist Art Spander, Wolff has Bay Area media eating out of his hand. He's skillfully given bits and pieces of his vision, never giving too much away and always leaving the curious (like me) wanting more.
Purdy ends the piece with could be interpreted as a bit of foreshadowing:
To me that sounds like a Fremont ballpark and Spartan Stadium (temporarily for the Quakes). Even if Ron Dellums' staff starting work on a proposal the minute Ignacio De La Fuente conceded the mayoral election, an EIR/study couldn't get fast-tracked to start in Oakland before the end of 2007."A year from now,'' Wolff says, "I'd like to be deep into the process of getting environmental approvals for a baseball park. And for soccer, I'd like a place we can play for the following season, even if it is just temporary.''
20 June 2006
Estuary plan moves forward
After a long give-and-take process between developer Signature Properties and Oakland-based environmental and affordable housing groups, the long-awaited Estuary (Oak-to-Ninth) development appears to be moving forward. Only a city council vote next Tuesday remains, and once that happens, you can officially cross one more site (one touted by Ignacio De La Fuente last year) off the list.
I was excited by the Estuary site last year as well, at least until I understood the grueling process it took to get to the actual planning of the development. This included passing legislation at the state level to approve of the land sale and numerous hearings with the aforementioned community groups so that they could have a say in the plan. Issues such as the height and placement of buildings as they related to the view from the hills, the amount of public parkland, traffic, and the preservation of historic structures all came into play.
One of the keys to getting this deal done was Signature's willingness to pay for site cleanup. However, they got a huge discount in the land price as a result. The Estuary plan's size makes it a better comparison to a potential Wolff-Fisher development somewhere than anything else in the works in the Bay Area. Compromises were made by all parties to get it done, and it took a long gestation period (ongoing). One neat little concession is that Signature is going to allow around 15% of the housing to be termed low income and senior housing - but it doesn't have to build it all at the Estuary. It could shift some of the units to one of its other Oakland projects, though it would have to build more of them. Considering the prime waterfront location, this shift sounds likely.
I was excited by the Estuary site last year as well, at least until I understood the grueling process it took to get to the actual planning of the development. This included passing legislation at the state level to approve of the land sale and numerous hearings with the aforementioned community groups so that they could have a say in the plan. Issues such as the height and placement of buildings as they related to the view from the hills, the amount of public parkland, traffic, and the preservation of historic structures all came into play.
One of the keys to getting this deal done was Signature's willingness to pay for site cleanup. However, they got a huge discount in the land price as a result. The Estuary plan's size makes it a better comparison to a potential Wolff-Fisher development somewhere than anything else in the works in the Bay Area. Compromises were made by all parties to get it done, and it took a long gestation period (ongoing). One neat little concession is that Signature is going to allow around 15% of the housing to be termed low income and senior housing - but it doesn't have to build it all at the Estuary. It could shift some of the units to one of its other Oakland projects, though it would have to build more of them. Considering the prime waterfront location, this shift sounds likely.
19 June 2006
Dellums wins outright
Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed in an election whose winner had a 154-vote margin. Ron Dellums is now Oakland's mayor-elect, and in a press conference at the Oakland City Center Marriott, he continued his message of hope that, unfortunately, lacked much detail. He argued that predecessor Jerry Brown's 10K plan was not enough, and that he wanted to have 100,000 new residents in the downtown area - though he didn't say when. And when I saw that Dellums will create task forces to study a variety of issues, I cringed. For Oakland's sake, I hope Dellums really follows through on his promise to be a galvanizing, uniting force for the city. Talk about public-private partnerships could set off some heated debate, as Oakland residents may not take too kindly to certain types of projects - of which a ballpark and ancillary development may be one. Note: An A's development simply won't be about throwing some land at Lew Wolff. Wolff has set the price that he's willing to pay for land - around 25 cents on the dollar. The question is, "Is this doable in Oakland?"
Dellums' speech apparently contained nothing about the local sports franchises, so it's hard to say where he's leaning. In the end, the A's future in Oakland may well depend upon whether or not Dellums believes Wolff/Fisher want to keep the team there. Hopefully, Dellums will recognize how much pride the team brings to the city, and that the team is worth the mayor-elect trying to "break his pick" to keep the team in Oakland.
Dellums' speech apparently contained nothing about the local sports franchises, so it's hard to say where he's leaning. In the end, the A's future in Oakland may well depend upon whether or not Dellums believes Wolff/Fisher want to keep the team there. Hopefully, Dellums will recognize how much pride the team brings to the city, and that the team is worth the mayor-elect trying to "break his pick" to keep the team in Oakland.
15 June 2006
OUSD site finds a developer
Oakland Unified School District is on its way back to being on its own feet, with labor issues put to bed and money that will come in from the sale of OUSD's 8.25-acre mini-campus near Lake Merritt. According to new reports, a partnership of East Coast firms Terramark and Urban America have put together the winning bid on the property. They intend to build a mixed-use development containing 1,000 housing units and commercial space. The district needs to pay off an emergency $100 million loan the state lent a few years ago, so it's likely much of the sale price will go towards that debt. The price of the land is expected to be between $55 million and $70 million.
OUSD had originally intended to share the space with the eventual developer, but it now appears that will not be the case. At the bottom of the district's memo (first link above) is a mention of moving into or building new facilities somewhere, including downtown Oakland. Unclear is the fate of the five (mostly small) schools residing on the campus, though the memo states that La Escuelita Elementary will be kept in the area.
Long-time readers may remember that over a year ago, I declared the OUSD site unsuitable for a ballpark due to its size and unusual "J" shape. So it's not as if there were some major opportunity to build a stadium on the OUSD site. The link is more tangential - it's less one prime site on which a decent-sized "village" concept could be built, even if it weren't co-located with a ballpark And if you're looking to get something like that done in Oakland, you'll need to assemble some decent, easy-to-acquire land to make it happen.
One other thing - thanks to those who have been responding with the latest news on the Oakland mayoral race. It looks like the final tally won't be out until the end of the week, and so far everything points to a runoff in November. That could reduce a key advantage Oakland would've had even though Dellums couldn't take office until January. Now he'll have to throw considerable resources into a fall campaign instead of lining up a transition staff well in advance. However, we should still remember that as important as this political jostling is, it doesn't supplant the two most important factors: Is there a good site? and Who pays for it? Everything else, including transportation concerns, pales next to those questions.
OUSD had originally intended to share the space with the eventual developer, but it now appears that will not be the case. At the bottom of the district's memo (first link above) is a mention of moving into or building new facilities somewhere, including downtown Oakland. Unclear is the fate of the five (mostly small) schools residing on the campus, though the memo states that La Escuelita Elementary will be kept in the area.
Long-time readers may remember that over a year ago, I declared the OUSD site unsuitable for a ballpark due to its size and unusual "J" shape. So it's not as if there were some major opportunity to build a stadium on the OUSD site. The link is more tangential - it's less one prime site on which a decent-sized "village" concept could be built, even if it weren't co-located with a ballpark And if you're looking to get something like that done in Oakland, you'll need to assemble some decent, easy-to-acquire land to make it happen.
One other thing - thanks to those who have been responding with the latest news on the Oakland mayoral race. It looks like the final tally won't be out until the end of the week, and so far everything points to a runoff in November. That could reduce a key advantage Oakland would've had even though Dellums couldn't take office until January. Now he'll have to throw considerable resources into a fall campaign instead of lining up a transition staff well in advance. However, we should still remember that as important as this political jostling is, it doesn't supplant the two most important factors: Is there a good site? and Who pays for it? Everything else, including transportation concerns, pales next to those questions.
08 June 2006
The New Landscape
While the A's ballpark future was not resolved coming out of Tuesday's primary, changes occurred that surely will affect future efforts by cities to attract the A's. At the end of the day, the lesson to be repeated ad nauseum was: Don't pin your hopes on an election.
- As expected, Ron Dellums was elected mayor of Oakland with a majority, thereby avoiding a runoff. While he won't take office until January, don't be surprised to hear rumblings about his well-heeled supporters and associates working on big-ticket projects. Dellums has friends in both city and county government. What's not known is how nice Dellums will play with State Senator Don Perata's minions. Current mayor Jerry Brown always had an uneasy alliance of convenience with Perata that at times strained under both pols' visible agendas. That, and the reality of dealing with dirty, day-to-day business as a mayor in Oakland, will prove whether Dellums' vision for Oakland can translate into real action. As an outsider, I'd like to believe Dellums could really foster the city's growth, but he's going to have to make some very tough decisions about issues like police staffing and presence, affordable housing, big box retail, redevelopment of industrial areas, and the changing demographics of the city. In other words, I'm glad I don't have that job.
- In San Jose, the ballpark effort was dealt an enormous blow with county voters' rejection of the overly broad Measure A. That's not to say that BART-to-San Jose would have been some great problem solver (the difference between opening day at a ballpark and the BART launch would have been several years), but it would have at least provided some relief along the 880 corridor. BART proponents now have to seriously think about either pulling back the cost of the $4.7 billion project or even scrapping it completely. There's talk of limiting BART to only Milpitas or Santa Clara, which could cut the extension's cost in half or more. However, that would limit the project's scope, reduce ridership projections, and force VTA to come up with a completely new justification for the extension. I'd be more optimistic about SJ's chances if the High Speed Rail initiative had any momentum behind it, but it's headed for a November election with scant support while competing with the governor's and legislature's other bond initiatives.
- Fremont will be affected if BART-to-San Jose is either dropped or delayed. A note on the WSX extension page has the service starting to run in 2012 or 2013, which could be within a year or two of a ballpark opening. If the WSX extension doesn't happen and the ballpark does, there will be a real infrastructural issue for Fremont's government and citizens to consider. There is no direct, one-road route between the Pacific Commons site and Fremont BART, and the main arteries running in the area (Stevenson Blvd, Mowry Ave, Fremont Blvd, Paseo Padre Pkwy) could be severely impacted by increased bus traffic - that is, if fans choose to transfer between the BART station and Pacific Commons using a bus. For now, let's dismiss a rail or trolley-based option due to cost. How much will infrastructure such as transportation and increased police cost in the end? How big of a price is Fremont willing to pay to get on the map?
07 June 2006
Primary returns
So far, we're seeing resounding defeats for initiatives and candidates for the pro-San Jose and pro-Fremont groups, while Oakland appears to have a definitive winner (which may or may not portend well for future ballpark efforts):
- Oakland mayoral race (99% of precincts reporting): Dellums - 50.2%, De La Fuente - 33%, Nadel - 13%.
This race has been changing overnight. Dellums started out in the lead, but had 44% of the vote - well below the simple majority needed to avoid a runoff. Now, with virtually all but the absentee vote counted, Dellums may avoid the runoff after all. Rumors have swirled around a group close to Dellums working up a proposal for the A's to consider should Dellums win the primary in this manner. How far is Dellums willing to go to keep the A's? On the flipside, does he believe the A's want to stay? - San Jose mayoral race (100% of precincts reporting): Reed - 28.3%, Chavez - 23.5%, Pandori - 17.9%, Cortese - 16.4%, Mulcahy - 10.8%.
Reed is known as the fiscally responsible Democrat and should not be expected to support any kind of major subsidy to a sports franchise. He has supported the ballpark study and the Diridon South site acquisition, but he won't blindly support a bad ballpark deal. Chavez is considered more friendly towards the prospects of the A's and Quakes, though with "sunshine" reform being proposed, she shouldn't be expected to rubber stamp a bad deal either, mystery of the Quakes subsidy in December notwithstanding. - Santa Clara County Measure A [1/2-cent general sales tax increase for health care facilities, transportation including BART] (99% of precincts reporting): Yes - 42.3%, No - 57.7%.
Without the sales tax hike, BART extensions to both Warm Springs/South Fremont and San Jose would be doomed for the forseeable future, especially since the projects did not previously qualify for federal matching funds. Without BART to either Warm Springs or San Jose, arguments in favor of ballpark proposals in those areas would become significantly weaker.
05 June 2006
Those hidden ballpark costs
If you've ever been to a major sporting event in the Bay Area in the last several years, you'll have noticed in most cases a sizable police presence. This is true regardless of the size or reputation of the venue. Police and traffic control are costs either borne by teams, municipalities, or a combination of both.
It's also not a surprise that like many other cities in California, Fremont is in a serious budget crunch. In Chris De Benedetti's recent article, Fremont City Manager has flatly stated that the city is in no position to fund additional infrastructure for a ballpark/ballpark village. So who would pay for this infrastructure if the deal were to go through? Don't discount the idea that in bringing the A's in, city leaders are pushing Fremont residents to rethink current infrastructure-caused service blows, such as the burglar alarm policy.
One more thing - Tuesday's election day! It could be potentially very important for the A's future.
It's also not a surprise that like many other cities in California, Fremont is in a serious budget crunch. In Chris De Benedetti's recent article, Fremont City Manager has flatly stated that the city is in no position to fund additional infrastructure for a ballpark/ballpark village. So who would pay for this infrastructure if the deal were to go through? Don't discount the idea that in bringing the A's in, city leaders are pushing Fremont residents to rethink current infrastructure-caused service blows, such as the burglar alarm policy.
One more thing - Tuesday's election day! It could be potentially very important for the A's future.
01 June 2006
Hope runs academic in San Jose
To my surprise, last night's San Jose Ballpark Economic Study session was not the eye-rolling extravaganza that I had expected. The city has, in fact, clearly decided to work with a consulting firm that isn't usually involved with sports franchises or the sports industry. That firm, bae, specializes in infill-type development such as TOD (transit-oriented development) and military base reuse (they've worked on both Alameda NAS and the Oakland Army Base).
The refreshing thing about the methodology that will be used is that the public isn't going to hear grandiose proclamations about "5,000 jobs" or economic revitalization because, in fact, we all know better. Focus will be largely on displacement of existing businesses, effects on surrounding neighborhoods, opportunity costs - topics that can't be easily summed up in a short press release. Ironically, the city's decision to move towards a spin-free study is symptomatic of the flagging fortunes of the Baseball-in-San Jose effort - if things were moving along more positively, the city might have had more motivation to push for a "positive" study instead of a "neutral" one.
Crowd turnout at the meeting was also a good indicator of the city's direction. The prospects of a soccer stadium were repeatedly brought up, despite the fact that no soccer booster groups such as SSV were present. Inquiries came up frequently enough that it appears the effects of a soccer stadium (which has a different business model) could take up a decent portion of the document. (The study's being paid for, might as well cover all contingencies, right?) For those readers out there that are soccer partisans, be forewarned: the neighborhood associations are smart and resourceful. Approaching a stadium proposal in the wrong manner (without vetting it through the NA's) is one sure step towards failure. That said, in the past SSV has been much better than the city at outreach efforts in the neighborhoods.
The hope here is that when the study is finally published (with proper amounts of feedback framing the discussion), we may finally have a locally produced and focused document that can't be written off as a simple propaganda piece. It could prove beneficial for future discussions about stadia and neighborhoods.
The refreshing thing about the methodology that will be used is that the public isn't going to hear grandiose proclamations about "5,000 jobs" or economic revitalization because, in fact, we all know better. Focus will be largely on displacement of existing businesses, effects on surrounding neighborhoods, opportunity costs - topics that can't be easily summed up in a short press release. Ironically, the city's decision to move towards a spin-free study is symptomatic of the flagging fortunes of the Baseball-in-San Jose effort - if things were moving along more positively, the city might have had more motivation to push for a "positive" study instead of a "neutral" one.
Crowd turnout at the meeting was also a good indicator of the city's direction. The prospects of a soccer stadium were repeatedly brought up, despite the fact that no soccer booster groups such as SSV were present. Inquiries came up frequently enough that it appears the effects of a soccer stadium (which has a different business model) could take up a decent portion of the document. (The study's being paid for, might as well cover all contingencies, right?) For those readers out there that are soccer partisans, be forewarned: the neighborhood associations are smart and resourceful. Approaching a stadium proposal in the wrong manner (without vetting it through the NA's) is one sure step towards failure. That said, in the past SSV has been much better than the city at outreach efforts in the neighborhoods.
The hope here is that when the study is finally published (with proper amounts of feedback framing the discussion), we may finally have a locally produced and focused document that can't be written off as a simple propaganda piece. It could prove beneficial for future discussions about stadia and neighborhoods.
31 May 2006
Meeting notices for Oakland, San Jose
"Choose or Lose" is having an organizing meeting Wednesday at 5:30. It will be held at the Uptown Bar & Nightclub in Oakland. The purpose is to nail down the date for the group's first tailgate rally and other upcoming events. Unfortunately, I won't be there because...
... I'll be attending San Jose's Ballpark Economic Study, which runs from 6-8 p.m. Wednesday night. The session will be held at SJ City Hall, Council Wing, Room 120. Will it be truly academic or will it be an eye-rolling extravaganza? I'll report on it tomorrow.
... I'll be attending San Jose's Ballpark Economic Study, which runs from 6-8 p.m. Wednesday night. The session will be held at SJ City Hall, Council Wing, Room 120. Will it be truly academic or will it be an eye-rolling extravaganza? I'll report on it tomorrow.
25 May 2006
A familiar plan
Barry Witt's writeup of the A's-Quakes announcement has much more detail than the press release sent out by MLS on Wednesday. I've been looking for something more descriptive to indicate what Wolff and Co. were really aiming for, and the piece provides it.
A quote from the conference call, which was only open to the media:
Soccer Village
A soccer stadium could cost only one-fourth as much as a ballpark, so conceivably, fewer housing units would need to sold and less land would have to be acquired. Keep in mind that privately-funded stadia aren't set up to pay for themselves, so some other revenue stream would have to be secured to take care of the mortgage. The good news is that this kind of plan could be accomplished at just about any of the previously discussed San Jose sites, though other factors may come into play. These factors include parking requirements, mass transit availability, and NIMBY issues.
Wolff seemed to dismiss the idea of Fremont having both a ballpark and a SSS. While co-location has its advantages in terms of cost consolidation, there may not be enough land at Pacific Commons to accommodate all of the pieces needed to put the ballpark village plan in motion. For instance, Fremont has a residential zone type R-3-70, which allows for up to 70 residential units per acre. Typically, high-rise residential towers are required to achieve that density. Fremont residents may not protest much to 3-4 story buildings like the ones going up in the middle of town, but in a place mostly bereft of high-rises, such a development plan could face significant opposition due to it straying from the scope of existing development. The most glaring example of this is Oracle's HQ complex in Redwood Shores. If zoning restricts the density of housing development, the plan would be expected to have the residential component take up a much larger share than high-rises would.
I look forward to the concepts 360 architecture is drawing up for the soccer stadium. Will they be somewhat generic and not site-specific like the August concept, or will they already have a site in mind and base the concept on that site's constraints?
A quote from the conference call, which was only open to the media:
"We think we have a concept of financing that's a little bit hybrid between public financing and private financing,'' Wolff said in a conference call.If that sounds familiar, that's because Wolff has used similar verbiage to explain what the A's want for a ballpark site. That means a site with space for a stadium and ancillary development opportunities, preferably at a discounted rate. In Fremont, that means getting light industrial land and turning it around for a profit by virtue of building housing there. That's not a given in San Jose, so "land" might have a more traditional definition than what's happening in Fremont. A deal could have a cheap ground lease for city-owned stadium land, along with the A's having rights to develop surrounding land for residential and commercial uses. And you know what that means:"If a community or a jurisdiction or a joint-powers group could provide us with a path to a site, with whatever infrastructure and approvals are necessary, that's probably the most contribution we think we need in order to get the soccer venue done.''
Soccer Village
A soccer stadium could cost only one-fourth as much as a ballpark, so conceivably, fewer housing units would need to sold and less land would have to be acquired. Keep in mind that privately-funded stadia aren't set up to pay for themselves, so some other revenue stream would have to be secured to take care of the mortgage. The good news is that this kind of plan could be accomplished at just about any of the previously discussed San Jose sites, though other factors may come into play. These factors include parking requirements, mass transit availability, and NIMBY issues.
Wolff seemed to dismiss the idea of Fremont having both a ballpark and a SSS. While co-location has its advantages in terms of cost consolidation, there may not be enough land at Pacific Commons to accommodate all of the pieces needed to put the ballpark village plan in motion. For instance, Fremont has a residential zone type R-3-70, which allows for up to 70 residential units per acre. Typically, high-rise residential towers are required to achieve that density. Fremont residents may not protest much to 3-4 story buildings like the ones going up in the middle of town, but in a place mostly bereft of high-rises, such a development plan could face significant opposition due to it straying from the scope of existing development. The most glaring example of this is Oracle's HQ complex in Redwood Shores. If zoning restricts the density of housing development, the plan would be expected to have the residential component take up a much larger share than high-rises would.
I look forward to the concepts 360 architecture is drawing up for the soccer stadium. Will they be somewhat generic and not site-specific like the August concept, or will they already have a site in mind and base the concept on that site's constraints?
24 May 2006
Choose or Lose event wrap-up
A late work-related appointment forced me to arrive late to the "Choose or Lose" event earlier tonight. Organizer Robert Limon assured me that I didn't miss anything. Two mayoral candidates were present: Nancy Nadel and Arnie Fields. Also on hand was OUSD board candidate Chris Dobbins, a teacher who started the Green Stampede Homework Club tutoring program. I counted 40-50 attendees, not bad for a nearly impromptu event.
Nadel had the most time at the dais, repeatedly fielding questions about City Hall's perceived inaction in keeping the A's. One-by-one, A's supporters pointed to the team's legacy and how the A's are woven into the fabric of the community. Nadel painted herself as "realistic," replying that the council was looking for either a site that could accomodate both a ballpark and ballpark village housing, or separate sites for each. She also warned finding a site was not easy because of the city's "built up" nature and the reluctance to use eminent domain. Near the end of her time on stage, she gave a rather ominous statement (paraphrased) to the keep-the-A's-in-Oakland crowd, "If you polled Oakland residents, you'd find that you'd be in the minority." This caused a bit a grumbling in the gallery, which gets me wondering - what if Oakland residents were polled? What would the results be?
Arnie Fields was next, proudly wearing an A's cap. He supported keeping the A's at the current Coliseum, with development around it spurred by a shuttle that operated between the BART station and the plaza between the stadium and arena. The shuttle would have its own guideway that would run parallel to the existing BART pedestrian bridge. Golf carts or similar vehicles would operate on this guideway, and it would be run by a community group, ideally including local youths. Fields would also support a waterfront (JLS) ballpark plan.
Two videotaped statements were made by Ron Dellums and Ignacio De La Fuente. Dellums repeated the "Don't break your pick" quote attributed to Lew Wolff in a previous conversation. He felt that the door an opportunity to keep the A's was "open, but not wide open." IDLF slyly said he's optimistic that the A's and Oakland can get a deal done "if the A's are sincere." Now that's a qualifier if I've ever heard one.
The best ideas seemed to come after the event officially ended, when Limon, several of the bleacher drummers, and other attendees had a little pow-wow to discuss future actions. Another rally-type event is tentatively scheduled for sometime in late June. Ways to raise the movement's media profile were discussed. The group piled on Nadel. I mentioned the ill-fated Broadway Auto Row proposal. The group's sense of frustration with local government was palpable. The good thing about all of this is that there is a movement afoot, and that it doesn't merely consist of putting up banners. It looks like pressure will be applied to pols and local media, though it will take some resourcefulness to come up with concrete plans and proposals. The bittersweet irony of the rally's location came to me as I left for the BART station. Across Telegraph Avenue sits the old Uptown site, once considered the great hope for an urban ballpark in Oakland.
Nadel had the most time at the dais, repeatedly fielding questions about City Hall's perceived inaction in keeping the A's. One-by-one, A's supporters pointed to the team's legacy and how the A's are woven into the fabric of the community. Nadel painted herself as "realistic," replying that the council was looking for either a site that could accomodate both a ballpark and ballpark village housing, or separate sites for each. She also warned finding a site was not easy because of the city's "built up" nature and the reluctance to use eminent domain. Near the end of her time on stage, she gave a rather ominous statement (paraphrased) to the keep-the-A's-in-Oakland crowd, "If you polled Oakland residents, you'd find that you'd be in the minority." This caused a bit a grumbling in the gallery, which gets me wondering - what if Oakland residents were polled? What would the results be?
Arnie Fields was next, proudly wearing an A's cap. He supported keeping the A's at the current Coliseum, with development around it spurred by a shuttle that operated between the BART station and the plaza between the stadium and arena. The shuttle would have its own guideway that would run parallel to the existing BART pedestrian bridge. Golf carts or similar vehicles would operate on this guideway, and it would be run by a community group, ideally including local youths. Fields would also support a waterfront (JLS) ballpark plan.
Two videotaped statements were made by Ron Dellums and Ignacio De La Fuente. Dellums repeated the "Don't break your pick" quote attributed to Lew Wolff in a previous conversation. He felt that the door an opportunity to keep the A's was "open, but not wide open." IDLF slyly said he's optimistic that the A's and Oakland can get a deal done "if the A's are sincere." Now that's a qualifier if I've ever heard one.
The best ideas seemed to come after the event officially ended, when Limon, several of the bleacher drummers, and other attendees had a little pow-wow to discuss future actions. Another rally-type event is tentatively scheduled for sometime in late June. Ways to raise the movement's media profile were discussed. The group piled on Nadel. I mentioned the ill-fated Broadway Auto Row proposal. The group's sense of frustration with local government was palpable. The good thing about all of this is that there is a movement afoot, and that it doesn't merely consist of putting up banners. It looks like pressure will be applied to pols and local media, though it will take some resourcefulness to come up with concrete plans and proposals. The bittersweet irony of the rally's location came to me as I left for the BART station. Across Telegraph Avenue sits the old Uptown site, once considered the great hope for an urban ballpark in Oakland.
23 May 2006
A's-Quakes announcement on Wednesday
Updated: The Merc's Dylan Hernandez wrote an article on the MLS-A's deal. The A's bought a three year option on the Quakes, contingent upon a new SSS (soccer-specific stadium). MLS prefers that the team start playing when a new stadium is ready, which probably wouldn't be until 2008-09 at the earliest. Long-suffering Quakes fans would obviously prefer a 2007 launch.
A small blurb in Mychael Urban's beat article for MLB.com and a report from Matchnight.com both point to an announcement on Wednesday in which the A's involvement in Earthquakes v 3.0 will be made official. Details are scarce, which leads to some potentially wild speculation about the respective futures of both the Quakes and the A's. Some possibilities (none of which are confirmed):
A conference call held by MLS commissioner Don Garber is scheduled for Wednesday at 12:30 p.m. PDT.
A small blurb in Mychael Urban's beat article for MLB.com and a report from Matchnight.com both point to an announcement on Wednesday in which the A's involvement in Earthquakes v 3.0 will be made official. Details are scarce, which leads to some potentially wild speculation about the respective futures of both the Quakes and the A's. Some possibilities (none of which are confirmed):
- Quakes play at Spartan Stadium starting in 2007 (under new management for the next couple of years), until Spartan is either replaced or revamped (with the A's help).
- Quakes play at a new Fremont stadium near the A's future Fremont ballpark.
- Quakes and A's share a stadium (unlikely due to demands by both MLS and MLB).
- Quakes play at a new stadium at the Diridon South site.
- Quakes play at a new stadium in Santa Clara, either at Mission College or near Great America.
- Quakes play at a new stadium in the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds.
- Quakes play in Oakland?
A conference call held by MLS commissioner Don Garber is scheduled for Wednesday at 12:30 p.m. PDT.
Feeling Minnesota
A good amount of incoming e-mail about the Twins' new ballpark plan prompted me to write something about it. Until yesterday, I hadn't found anything interesting about the "circa-1996" type of financing plan:
I figured the roof would be one of those "oh well, can't do anything about it now" signs of resignation, but it looks like the ballpark site's proximity to HERC may end up being a sort of double-edged sword. The site happens to be downwind from HERC. That prompted a smell study to understand if exhaust emanating during the summer months would cause problems. While the results of the study appeared to indicate that smell shouldn't be a problem, proof will come when games are actually played there. This bears a similarity to Fremont's Pacific Commons, where the ballpark is situated a couple of miles east (downwind) of the local garbage dump. I've eaten lunch around Pacific Commons many times and haven't smelled the dump myself, but I admittedly don't have a very sensitive nose.
- The Twins' share is $130 million, one-quarter of the current estimated cost.
- A Hennepin County sales tax hike of 0.15% will fund the remainder.
- The ballpark will be located in the "Warehouse District," across I-394 from Target Center and next to HERC, the local garbage burning plant.
- Other development is expected occur around the ballpark in a village concept called "Twinsville."
- The $522 million total does not include a retractable roof. Such a roof could cost upwards of $100 million extra.
I figured the roof would be one of those "oh well, can't do anything about it now" signs of resignation, but it looks like the ballpark site's proximity to HERC may end up being a sort of double-edged sword. The site happens to be downwind from HERC. That prompted a smell study to understand if exhaust emanating during the summer months would cause problems. While the results of the study appeared to indicate that smell shouldn't be a problem, proof will come when games are actually played there. This bears a similarity to Fremont's Pacific Commons, where the ballpark is situated a couple of miles east (downwind) of the local garbage dump. I've eaten lunch around Pacific Commons many times and haven't smelled the dump myself, but I admittedly don't have a very sensitive nose.
21 May 2006
"Choose or Lose" forum on Tuesday
Robert Limon, a local community organizer and documentarian, has put together a unique event incorporating a mayoral forum and an opportunity for advocates for keeping the team in Oakland to voice their opinions. More details are in the press release:
Oakland Mayoral Candidates “Choose or Lose” the A’s at unique forumI will definitely be there.
Public invited to meet the next Mayor of Oakland, and express their opinion for documentary film.
OAKLAND, CA - Choose or Lose the Oakland A’s is a new community project based on giving EVERY Oakland/East Bay community member a chance to voice their opinion whether they “choose or lose” the A's. Bottom line: The Oakland community needs an outlet to express their perspective to keep the A's in Oakland (or not). This project kicks off with a Mayoral Community Forum on Tuesday, May 23, from 5:30-7:30 PM at the Uptown Bar and Nightclub, 1928 Telegraph (at 19th), in downtown Oakland.
“My friends and I have been frustrated that it is the 11th hour and we are very close to losing the Oakland A's, and our voices are not being heard by our leaders. My opinion, I think having a world-class championship sports team in our community is a fantastic community resource and asset that benefits our business and property values. I want to see a common sense solution invented by the brilliant minds of Oakland citizens and leaders to facilitate and implement the construction of a new stadium in Oakland. Now it’s YOUR turn to express your opinion on the future of the A’s in Oakland”, says Robert Limon, a lifelong Oakland community member and A's fan.
“Twenty years ago the SF Giants were threatening to leave San Francisco. Imagine how life would be for the SF Bay Area if they had left. Imagine the embarcadero and all of the positive economic developments that would not be there today had the Giants left,” said Bob Fratti, owner of the Uptown and host of this Mayoral event.
Show up and hear for yourselves as the next Mayor of Oakland states, for the record, if they “choose or lose” the A’s, and what they WILL or WON’T DO. Community members will also have the opportunity to ask questions of the candidates and express their own perspective to keep the A's in Oakland (or not). The community can participate in a documentary film where they will have 30 seconds to say their “Choose or Lose” the A’s message. No matter how it turns out, we all will know that our voices were heard.
Please advertise and cover this Mayoral Forum and Community event. Any and all assistance will be greatly appreciated. The event will begin promptly at 5:30 and will run until 7:30 PM at the Uptown, 1928 Telegraph Ave downtown Oakland. For more information, contact Robert Limon at 510-501-5811 or chooseorloseoakland@yahoo.com.
19 May 2006
Brace yourself
From Chris Metinko's Contra Costa Times article:
The Coliseum complex's size is about 100 acres. On its borders are branches of a slough, commercial property that is soon to be developed, train tracks, and light industrial buildings. The Authority is already strained due to the staggering amount of debt raised to finance renovations to both the stadium and arena. It's extremely unlikely that the finance types from the City or County will approve additional debt.
At this point, the biggest chip they have is not in the form of a venue, it's the land surrounding those venues. Think of the complex as a candy bar with three pieces that can be broken off. As the Home Base (Coliseum South) property is developed and infill residential starts to encroach on the Coliseum, there will be pressure on the decision-makers to figure out a creative way to relieve the tax burden on County residents. The south parking lots could be the first to go as they're converted to some sort of mixed use village. The north lots would be next. In twenty years, the Coliseum could look vastly different from its current form.
For a recent example, check out Atlanta's Turner Field, where parking has almost disappeared due to development. Today's post on Anaheim highlighted how the city is trying to create a vibrant, "urban" entertainment center anchored by Angels Stadium and a new NFL stadium.
The issue here is what will the powers-that-be do with the land when the time comes? The leases for both the A's and Raiders end at about the same time, and both are looking for extensions just in case they can't get new digs ready in a few years. Say one-third of the land is redeveloped to help pay off the debt. Who gets the other slice? What would be built on it? The use of multilevel garages would no doubt negatively impact Raider Nation's habits. So would building a ballpark on the north lot. If the lots were kept as is to satisfy the Raiders' requirements, the A's would be shut out of the chance to build on the existing land, forcing a land deal elsewhere. And what of the Warriors? They can't be completely ignored in this, though their requirements are fewer than those of the A's and Raiders. The pols will have to choose, and it's not going to be pretty. I touched on this dilemma in February.
Why would the A's be the team to leave? It could be because the Authority doesn't have much invested in keeping the A's right now, whereas they have Mt. Davis and the Arena redo on the books. It could also be a matter of Wolff not really trying his hardest to keep the A's in Oakland. It could be that the Raiders and the Authority have some unannounced plans for the future of the Coliseum. Whatever the case, the A's have the easiest exit strategy of the three tenants in the complex, and it's clear that Wolff is taking advantage.
"I think there is something we are not being real about," Councilman Larry Reid said this morning at a meeting of the agency that runs the coliseum. "I think we need to plan and plan now for the A's leaving."Before the usual back-and-forth starts, let's focus on the Coliseum Authority. It's a joint powers board made up of individuals representing Oakland and Alameda County. Their scope is limited, as is their domain. While the individual board members can come to the table representing their specific City or County districts, they're really working for the Coliseum in this capacity. Reid is unique in that his district includes the Coliseum.
The Coliseum complex's size is about 100 acres. On its borders are branches of a slough, commercial property that is soon to be developed, train tracks, and light industrial buildings. The Authority is already strained due to the staggering amount of debt raised to finance renovations to both the stadium and arena. It's extremely unlikely that the finance types from the City or County will approve additional debt.
At this point, the biggest chip they have is not in the form of a venue, it's the land surrounding those venues. Think of the complex as a candy bar with three pieces that can be broken off. As the Home Base (Coliseum South) property is developed and infill residential starts to encroach on the Coliseum, there will be pressure on the decision-makers to figure out a creative way to relieve the tax burden on County residents. The south parking lots could be the first to go as they're converted to some sort of mixed use village. The north lots would be next. In twenty years, the Coliseum could look vastly different from its current form.
For a recent example, check out Atlanta's Turner Field, where parking has almost disappeared due to development. Today's post on Anaheim highlighted how the city is trying to create a vibrant, "urban" entertainment center anchored by Angels Stadium and a new NFL stadium.
The issue here is what will the powers-that-be do with the land when the time comes? The leases for both the A's and Raiders end at about the same time, and both are looking for extensions just in case they can't get new digs ready in a few years. Say one-third of the land is redeveloped to help pay off the debt. Who gets the other slice? What would be built on it? The use of multilevel garages would no doubt negatively impact Raider Nation's habits. So would building a ballpark on the north lot. If the lots were kept as is to satisfy the Raiders' requirements, the A's would be shut out of the chance to build on the existing land, forcing a land deal elsewhere. And what of the Warriors? They can't be completely ignored in this, though their requirements are fewer than those of the A's and Raiders. The pols will have to choose, and it's not going to be pretty. I touched on this dilemma in February.
Why would the A's be the team to leave? It could be because the Authority doesn't have much invested in keeping the A's right now, whereas they have Mt. Davis and the Arena redo on the books. It could also be a matter of Wolff not really trying his hardest to keep the A's in Oakland. It could be that the Raiders and the Authority have some unannounced plans for the future of the Coliseum. Whatever the case, the A's have the easiest exit strategy of the three tenants in the complex, and it's clear that Wolff is taking advantage.
Anaheim ballpark housing drawing interest
An article in Thursday's Orange County Register describes the high demand for new condos being built near Angel Stadium in Anaheim. The first of these developments, Stadium Lofts, has 4,000 inquiries for its 390 units. It's aroused so much interest that Stadium Lofts switched from being an apartment (lease) complex to a condo (buy) complex.
For Anaheim, a city that has typified Southern California suburbia, the interest in this infill housing has to be encouraging. Many interested parties like the area's walking distance proximity to Angel Stadium. Developers caution that as more housing is built in the area, demand should drop, though that should be to market levels. Nearly 8000 units are planned for the Platinum Triangle area, some of which should open later this later.
One thing to note about these plans: One part of the A-Town project will have 2,681 units on just over 40 acres, many in high-rise towers. That's a good benchmark for the Fremont project, since housing and parking could end up duking it out for available space.
For Anaheim, a city that has typified Southern California suburbia, the interest in this infill housing has to be encouraging. Many interested parties like the area's walking distance proximity to Angel Stadium. Developers caution that as more housing is built in the area, demand should drop, though that should be to market levels. Nearly 8000 units are planned for the Platinum Triangle area, some of which should open later this later.
One thing to note about these plans: One part of the A-Town project will have 2,681 units on just over 40 acres, many in high-rise towers. That's a good benchmark for the Fremont project, since housing and parking could end up duking it out for available space.
18 May 2006
SJ's PG&E bill: $30.8 million
And so the price tag goes up on the Diridon South site acquisition. Not that it wasn't expected to expensive. But to put it in perspective, in Barry Witt's Merc article the city is spending $17.6 million on three acres. The PG&E substation site takes up only 1.25 acres. Unfortunately, it is a crucial 1.25 acres, since it provides extra width to fully accommodate a ballpark, even a smaller 35,000-seat design.
If the land were not acquired, the ballpark could be reconfigured with a short right field porch a la AT&T Park. The substation provides power to Willow Glen and portions of downtown, so it can't be eliminated. It would have to either be moved to the south end of the fire training center on the other side of Park Ave, or it would have to be reconfigured to run north-south along the railroad tracks that front the western border of the site. Due to restrictions in the types of equipment that have to be used and arranged, and the need for vehicular access, the reconfiguration can only go so far. Depending on what the available land would be, this may be the best option because at $21.6 million it's cheaper than the full relocation, and the land to the south would remain available for a park.
Regardless of how the PG&E substation is addressed, it would have to be the last acquisition to complete the site due to its substantial cost. Should the A's stay in Oakland or move to Fremont or elsewhere in the East Bay, the site would be made available for housing, based on the original Diridon/Arena plan. Soccer supporters had rallied to get the site considered for a new Earthquakes' stadium, but that would require a different EIR to be drafted.
If the land were not acquired, the ballpark could be reconfigured with a short right field porch a la AT&T Park. The substation provides power to Willow Glen and portions of downtown, so it can't be eliminated. It would have to either be moved to the south end of the fire training center on the other side of Park Ave, or it would have to be reconfigured to run north-south along the railroad tracks that front the western border of the site. Due to restrictions in the types of equipment that have to be used and arranged, and the need for vehicular access, the reconfiguration can only go so far. Depending on what the available land would be, this may be the best option because at $21.6 million it's cheaper than the full relocation, and the land to the south would remain available for a park.
Regardless of how the PG&E substation is addressed, it would have to be the last acquisition to complete the site due to its substantial cost. Should the A's stay in Oakland or move to Fremont or elsewhere in the East Bay, the site would be made available for housing, based on the original Diridon/Arena plan. Soccer supporters had rallied to get the site considered for a new Earthquakes' stadium, but that would require a different EIR to be drafted.
16 May 2006
Now I think I get it
Tonight's post comes from Section 241 (Plaza Reserved), in the upper tier. More noise measurements, though I'm certain the results are getting skewed by the suites that hang over these seats, creating some solid reverb. In any case, here are some results:
When I found that my seat had already been taken, I decided to move up a few rows and stretch out. Beneath me in the better seats were a few hundred folks, all in a large group. They all came early and got their oh-so-ironic Big Hurt jerseys, and they were quite an enthusiastic bunch. Many of them went back and forth from the East Side Club, where beer and food were available.
Then it dawned on me: group sales has to be a big reason for the third deck closure. In the past groups were relegated to the BBQ Plazas or Terraces (AN Day), the Skyview Terrace suites, luxury suites, or simply a bunch of seats that were in a contiguous set (Fremont Day). The advantage of these seats over the third deck is the rather lavish staging area immediately behind them, the East Side Club. ESC has been underutilized because of its location and the fact that the A's usually didn't sell those seats except when demand was high. For group sales, it makes a ton of sense because it provides amenities that aren't available anywhere else in the stadium, coupled with inexpensive seats. If you've gone to one of these company gigs, you know that the location doesn't really matter a whole lot - you're not trying to impress clients with a suite or club seats, you're trying to boost morale among your employees.
By closing the third deck, the A's could provide a fairly compelling option that fills a need that new stadia address automatically: the party deck. The group seemed to be having a good time (it doesn't hurt that the A's are up 12-2 going into the 8th inning). It will certainly help their marketing operations, since they'll have a decent gauge of how well they sell to small, medium, and large groups. Busch Stadium and Petco Park have capitalized on this by building in such accommodations. At Busch, the Cards elected to build fewer luxury suites and more party suties to cater to groups. At Petco, an entire floor of the Western Metal Supply building can be rented, or it can be split into two or three suites.
You may remember this rendering from a few months ago:
In both the LF and RF corners, below the luxury suites, are what have to be party suites. Why put those there? If you were here tonight, you'd see why: the upper tier of Field Level sections 101-103 and 131-133 are completely empty. Just as apartment buildings get converted to condos, it makes sense to convert these seats into a more sellable space. Such is the nature of a party suite or deck.
- Typical ambient noise without drums: 72 dB
- Typical ambient noise with drums: 75 dB
- Typical batter intro: 83 dB
- Melhuse grand slam: 102 dB
- Swisher 2-run bomb: 96 dB
When I found that my seat had already been taken, I decided to move up a few rows and stretch out. Beneath me in the better seats were a few hundred folks, all in a large group. They all came early and got their oh-so-ironic Big Hurt jerseys, and they were quite an enthusiastic bunch. Many of them went back and forth from the East Side Club, where beer and food were available.
Then it dawned on me: group sales has to be a big reason for the third deck closure. In the past groups were relegated to the BBQ Plazas or Terraces (AN Day), the Skyview Terrace suites, luxury suites, or simply a bunch of seats that were in a contiguous set (Fremont Day). The advantage of these seats over the third deck is the rather lavish staging area immediately behind them, the East Side Club. ESC has been underutilized because of its location and the fact that the A's usually didn't sell those seats except when demand was high. For group sales, it makes a ton of sense because it provides amenities that aren't available anywhere else in the stadium, coupled with inexpensive seats. If you've gone to one of these company gigs, you know that the location doesn't really matter a whole lot - you're not trying to impress clients with a suite or club seats, you're trying to boost morale among your employees.
By closing the third deck, the A's could provide a fairly compelling option that fills a need that new stadia address automatically: the party deck. The group seemed to be having a good time (it doesn't hurt that the A's are up 12-2 going into the 8th inning). It will certainly help their marketing operations, since they'll have a decent gauge of how well they sell to small, medium, and large groups. Busch Stadium and Petco Park have capitalized on this by building in such accommodations. At Busch, the Cards elected to build fewer luxury suites and more party suties to cater to groups. At Petco, an entire floor of the Western Metal Supply building can be rented, or it can be split into two or three suites.
You may remember this rendering from a few months ago:
In both the LF and RF corners, below the luxury suites, are what have to be party suites. Why put those there? If you were here tonight, you'd see why: the upper tier of Field Level sections 101-103 and 131-133 are completely empty. Just as apartment buildings get converted to condos, it makes sense to convert these seats into a more sellable space. Such is the nature of a party suite or deck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)