New Site Photo Overviews

Just completed - three new site photo overviews. The finished overviews are:

1. OUSD (Oakland Unified School District) - This site was mentioned in Peggy Stinnett's column in the Oakland Tribune. She offers her take on a visit by Naoko Ezawa, who helped design Pac Bell (SBC) Park and represented developer KUD. KUD may very well be the Santa Monica firm hired by Lewis Wolff to visit and assess Oakland sites. Based on KUD's portfolio, much of their experience is in developing waterfront properties. I visited the OUSD site several weeks ago, and while it has positives (mass transit, location), there are definitely issues in its shape, size, and the lack of parking (you can see this from the aerial photo in the file). The lot is shaped like an inverted "J", and unless other surrounding blocks are acquired to round it out, it can't properly accommodate a ballpark's footprint. Also, putting it in a decidedly residential neighborhood may turn a ballpark there into Wrigley Jr.
   
2. Coliseum B-C Lot - This may or may not be the main option for building a ballpark. It's the least sexy option because it's the most difficult to foster other surrounding development, but it's also probably the cheapest to build because of zero land acquisition costs.
   
3. Diridon South - The main San Jose site is just a block from the train station and two blocks from the HP Pavilion. San Jose's Redevelopment Agency has been given the green light to acquire the site. Funds are a bit tight but it is expected that money to buy the site will come from the sale of other properties. There exists an issue with the PG&E substation on the west side of the site which probably won't be easily overcome or circumvented.
   

Next up: the Laney College Athletic Fields, and the Uptown and Howard Terminal sites.

Note to Lew: Buy a radio station

A small bit of news that flew under the radar last weekend was the announcement that Susquehanna, the parent company of KNBR (680 and 1050 AM), is putting their radio business up for sale. In the salad days of the late 90's KNBR and KTCT (1050, which later became co-branded as KNBR) were cash cows for Susquehanna. Lately they've become more of a liability to the parent company, as the 49ers' and Raiders' fortunes suffered, pulling away listeners and ratings. Susquehanna, based in York, PA, also owns the venerable KFOG and KSAN-The Bone rock stations in the Bay Area, and 20 more stations in 7 other markets.

It is unclear whether the stations will be sold as a group or as individual entities. Some, like KNBR-680, are the crown jewels and will fetch a pretty high price. 680 is one a handful of clear channel (not the company) stations throughout the country whose signal can be heard at night for hundreds of miles, in states as far as Utah and up and down the Pacific Coast. KNBR has had difficulty finding a good programming mix over the last few years for its lesser property (1050), sometimes going with edgier personalities such as Jim Rome and "J.T. The Brick." On the other hand, it would also simulcast some of its other shows, such as "The Razor and Mr. T." The morning drive-time slot has also been somewhat tricky, especially when KNBR brought a decidedly "morning-show" vibe to 680 in the "Not Just Sports Show," which was killed only last fall. The Raiders had been on 1050 for several years, but were not renewed last season and subsequently moved to KSFO-560. Most recently, KNBR announced a four-year deal with the San Francisco 49ers, who had seemingly been on KGO-810 forever, but were let go after KGO saw a ratings slide.

If 680 and 1050 were sold together, the buyer would be given a virtual monopoly on sportstalk radio in the Bay Area, but would also be saddled with having to program for two 50,000-watt stations, which can be expensive. Signing the 49ers when they did probably helped boost the asking price of KNBR, but it remains unclear how the sale would be handled. KNBR already has Giants baseball exclusively on 680 and Warriors basketball (which switches between the two stations). It's not unprecedented for a single station to carry three different teams, but that means that schedule conflicts could become a common occurrence.

This gives Lewis Wolff a potentially huge opportunity. As mentioned previously, the A's will be off KFRC-610 at the end of the 2005 season and their next radio home has not yet been determined. If Wolff were to buy KTCT-1050, he'd have a built-in sportstalk audience on a 50,000-watt station, along with immediate programming in the A's, who currently are relegated to vagabond replacement player status in local radio. Not only would the A's get more immediate exposure; they would also be able to do many of the same revenue-hiding tricks that only the big boys are able to get away with.

That's not to say that acquiring a station will be easy. Once any station goes on sale, literally hundreds of suitors line up for a shot. Existing behemoths such as Clear Channel (yes the company) and CBS/Infinity/Viacom have tons of cash to throw at any acquisitions. An open auction process could drive the price up for either or both stations. KNBR also has a 2% minority stake in the Giants, which further complicates things. Breaking the two stations apart and allowing them to compete would be good for the listening public and potentially reduce any conflict-of-interest issues. Buying KTCT would cost the Wolff/Fisher group millions of dollars, but it would guarantee the A's a stable home on local radio for years, if not decades to come. That can't help but raise the value of the franchise.

Comcast to O's & Nats: "Not so fast my friend"

You probably know by now some details about MLB's payoff to Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos over the Expos' move to DC. MLB allowed the O's to set up a new regional sports network (RSN) called Mid-Atlantic Sports Network. MASN is to be run by the O's, with Angelos having complete control over broadcasts of most O's and Nats home games. MLB has a stake in the venture that will grow annually, but the stake is capped at 33%. The Nats get a "market share" price for the rights to broadcast such games; estimates had the amount at $25 million.

That all sounds well and good for baseball (unless you're a Nats owner who wants a little more control over the situation), but it appears that baseball forgot to consult with a company that's normally a big player in such deals: Comcast. Comcast is the dominant cable operator in much of the country, and it considers the mid-Atlantic area its backyard (it's headquartered in Philadelphia). Comcast also runs regional sports networks throughout this area, and its position as both network (Comcast Sports Net) and distributor (Comcast Cable) gives it some unique power.

What happens when you don't consult Comcast on these things? It's America, so Comcast sued MLB, the O's, and MASN. In the meantime, Comcast is refusing to show Nats games that would normally appear on cable (those home games again). This hardball tactic has worked before when negotiating per-user fees for carrying the RSN, or even carrying it in the first place. The cable provider holds most of the cards in these battles, and they can wage the PR battle that normally hits the teams harder than the cable provider.

Comcast isn't happy about not being able to bid on the rights to carry the Nats. Since MASN is an O's venture, the O's would leave CSN once their contract was up in 2006, leaving CSN in the lurch. If it sounds familiar, you don't need to go far to find similar examples.

Comcast can go a number of ways with this. They could win the suit and have open bidding for the Nats. They could ask for a piece of MASN. They could also choose not to carry MASN at all, or carry it only on expanded basic cable instead of cheaper basic cable. This may also be simply a ploy to get a favorable deal to carry the RSN. But based on their recent expansion, I'm led to believe that they legitimately wanted a chance to broadcast the Nats. This may end up in the courts for quite a while since there's no obvious middle ground. The losers will be the fans, and the eventual Nats owner as well since broadcast rights fees factor into the Nats' final purchase price.

That's a long-winded rant just to get to how this affects the A's. It comes down to one suggestion for Lewis Wolff: Play nice with Comcast. CSN opened up shop in California last fall when they got the nod to carry Sacramento Kings games. They've positioned themselves as the Central Valley's RSN, and they're poised for a bigger advance throughout California. They are on digital cable throughout the Bay Area (channel 401 if you're interested). They don't have any of the Bay Area's major pro teams yet, but you can be sure that as each team's contracts expire, Comcast will swoop in for the kill. They have the built-in advantage over Fox Sports Net because of that distributor position. It could turn out good for viewers as it may cause a sort of bidding war, and FSN, which has a difficult time carrying 4 teams (Giants, A's, Warriors, Sharks), may step away a bit, allowing for better coverage for all teams. That is, unless you like hunting for FSN+.

Comcast will be the ultimate roadblock for the A's if Wolff were interested in setting up his own RSN. Comcast could use the same tactics they used with YES/Yankees, or even drive an RSN out of business, as they did in Minnesota.

Coliseum South photo overview

I've posted the PDF for the next photo site overview, this time for Coliseum South. For some conjecture on how I think development might go, click here. Next up is the Coliseum Parking Lot overview, though it will have fewer pictures. Enjoy.

Estuary Photo Overview

After the A's unusual 1-0 win over The O.C., I drove out to the Estuary to finish taking pictures of the site. For those that are curious about what the Estuary site is, I've compiled the pictures into a PDF presentation with captions and descriptions. For now, I've refrained from adding much of the information in my previous Estuary posts, but at some point I'll put it into a complete site analysis.

I intend to give all of the likely candidate sites this same treatment. The sites I will cover are:

1. Estuary (Oak-to-9th)
   
2. Oakland Coliseum South (Hegenberger/HomeBase)
   
3. Oakland Coliseum Parking Lot (B & C lot)
4. Oakland Uptown (Telegraph/San Pablo & 18th/20th St)
5. Oakland Howard Terminal (west of Jack London Square)
   
6. San Jose Diridon South
7. San Jose Reed & Graham Plant
   
8. Fremont Warm Springs
9. other sites as they are publicized

Here's the link for the Estuary presentation. You'll need Adobe Acrobat or another PDF viewer to open the file.


Pointers or suggestions are appreciated.

Diridon South update - KRON

KRON-4 profiled the Diridon South site on their 5 p.m. newscast earlier this evening. There is a news story and a video clip on that same page.

Important in the story is the following:

But the head of the redevelopment agency says that's simply not true because the money to purchase the 14-acre site is coming from the sale of several properties already owned by the city.

"In the last year, we have spent $20 million on neighborhoods, Mavrogenes said. "We have another $34 million this year and another $20 million next year, so this will not affect that at all."

I'm somewhat skeptical of this, but I suppose it's possible.

San Jose pursues ballpark site, other neighborhoods left out in the cold?

Barry Witt of the Merc writes that on Tuesday, San Jose mayor Ron Gonzales and the City Council held a closed-door session to approve the Redevelopment Agency's pursuit of the 13.9-acre Diridon South site, which has 10 separate property owners. This has leaders in other San Jose neighborhoods worried that funds used to purchase the properties, valued at $20-40 million, will be diverted from their projects.

Where does this money come from, you ask? SJRA has a large pool of money available to them tax increment funds, loans, and other sources. Most of this is reserved for other projects, but there's always some unreserved portion remaining. The unreserved portion usually gets allocated as well, but sometimes it's left to accrue interest.

The kicker is that analysts projected a $25 million operating surplus for SJRA in its five-year plan (2004-05 to 2008-09). A proposal had that surplus go into a Priority Future Projects list, on which such projects could be acted upon in the first two years of a revised budget, but it could just as easily be used for a ballpark site, since SJRA doesn't require any major discussions or hearings to change how unreserved funds are spent.

The mayor and city council argue that SJRA's budget will be big enough to handle all consituents' concerns, but if the price tag on Diridon South escalates to near the $40 million mark, SJRA might have a tough time figuring out where the rest of the money comes from. It's not expected that any funds would be diverted or extra loans taken out to secure the site, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

The other question to ask is "Why doesn't SJRA send this money back into the general fund to offset the budget shortfall?" A good question that has a very simple answer - they don't have to.

Brief comment about attendance

I didn't attend the night-after-Opening Night game for the first time in 4 years to attend the BART hearing. I listened to the game on the radio on the way home, but I didn't get an idea of how sparse the crowd was until I caught the rest of game later on TV. For those that don't know, here's the attendance of Tuesday night's game:

10,106

I realize that it was chilly, and many spent some good money on Opening Night, but that's still rather pathetic. The Brewers had a similar dropoff from Monday to Tuesday, and they're in a brand new, albeit lacking, stadium. The argument about attendance is not so much about seasonal attendance, it's about the wild fluctuations from game to game and the anemic revenue streams derived from the gate. Wednesday will be the first of many BART Double Play Wednesdays with $2 tickets and $1 hot dogs. It's a certainty that many stayed home Tuesday night to take advantage of Wednesday's promotion. It's good to have promotions for families and casual fans, but the A's are getting peanuts compared to other teams. And as long as large swaths of seats are shown empty on game telecasts, the media will continue to hammer the point.

What effect Warm Springs?

Why all the fuss about Warm Springs? Well, if you remember the HOK study, Fremont was considered as a potential site. In fact, it came in third behind the Uptown site and the Coliseum site. With the Warm Springs extension slated to come online around 2010, it may become a viable site if an Oakland site can't be worked out. Below is a picture of the area, with the ballpark site area in green:



The large road running down from left to right is I-880.

The Warm Springs Specific Plan (choose #4 for the Existing Conditions report) involves all manner of different development uses. The land right now is vacant, and is owned by many different parties, including GM, as part of the property is within the NUMMI plant. There is only a brief mention of a ballpark with no details.

A ballpark could be built here if the land was successfullly acquired for the ballpark effort. MLB has said that a Fremont site wouldn't violate the Giants' territorial rights because Warm Springs is just north of the Alameda-Santa Clara County border. It's plenty spacious and there would probably be few homeowner NIMBY issues because there aren't any homeowners there.

That's not to say it's without downsides. History of recent ballpark construction indicates that suburban sites are less successful in spurring development than urban sites. Because of the Bay Area's never relenting real estate market, it's not likely that a ballpark would become a white elephant, but it would still be difficult to convince voters of a ballpark's economic benefits over a bunch of housing or retail on the site, especially if much of it is taken up by parking as is shown in the HOK study. There's also the issue of traffic leading to the ballpark. If the intention is to get more Santa Clara County fans, the net effect would be 3,000 extra cars clogging up one of the Bay Area's most congested interchanges just south of the site, I-880 & Hwy 237. Extending BART all the way south to Milpitas and San Jose would help, but getting that built is another story. Lastly, if any money was required of Fremont, it would be difficult to come by, since they're making some serious cuts including the highly controversial "burglar alarm" police response cut.

BART to Warm Springs - not a ballpark item

I attended the BART public hearing on the Warm Springs extension earlier tonight. The proceedings were mostly civil, except for when David Schonnbrunn of Transdef, who was the only opponent of the plan. Schonnbrunn criticized the plan for being wasteful and not smart-growth oriented. While I agreed with some of his points, I felt that I had to speak up to defend the plan, even though I was only there to observe and had no intention to speak.

My comments had to do with the fact that I live in San Jose and work in Fremont. This makes for a usually stress-free reverse commute, but during afternoons it isn't always pleasant. I would take public transit regularly to work, but public transit takes as many as 3 different transfers to get from door to door. Add to that some thoroughfares that are not bike-friendly, and it makes for a serious deterrent to going green. One of my quotes, which was played on the KTVU's 10 PM newscast, went like this (I'm paraphrasing myself):

I work in the Warm Springs area. The place is woefully underserved, and to make things worse, it's difficult to transfer from Santa Clara County's VTA to AC Transit (Alameda County). I would say that at least 1/4 of the workforce at my employer comes from Santa Clara County, and many of them would seriously consider using transit if it were easier. If I could take a single bus from downtown San Jose to Warm Springs, I could bike the rest of the way and abandon my car at home everyday. In fact, if the extension were already in place, I would already be doing this. The best part is that I would be encouraged to use BART more, but even if I didn't, the indirect benefit would be positive because it would motivate AC and VTA to better synchronize their service offerings. (AC runs many hub-based routes from BART stations, whereas VTA runs more point-to-point routes.)

I didn't stick around to see how much my comments resonated or to get interviewed by KTVU reporter Diane Guerazzi, but they did have enough affect that I caught a few smiles from the BART officials out of the corner of my eye, and there's the newsclip to boot. Even if BART doesn't come to San Jose as soon as Ron Gonzales wants it (or even never), the Warm Springs extension will help Valley travelers much just because it's closer. Having potentially one less transfer to make is a very big deal to public transit users.

My next post will cover the effect the Warm Springs extension could have on a new ballpark. The extension is due for a final decision in June.

News items galore

The AP article titled A's President Says Team May Build Own Stadium is a little misleading because the title could be easily misinterpreted. Take a look at the quote from A's President Michael Crowley:

"We're going to look at ourselves, take a look at the options, take a look at what can be done. And when we come up with something we feel comfortable with, then we'll talk to the city at that time."

There's nothing about how much the A's will pay (or conversely, what the city's share is). It's a given that regardless of the types funding sources, as long as the requirements are met, the A's will build it. That's Wolff's forte.

Also, a Merc editorial approves of San Jose's Diridon South site.

Wolff meets with Signature

Gwen Knapp writes about Wolff in her Opening Day column in the Chronicle. Several good nuggets were inside, including:

1. Wolff met with Signature Properties' Jim Ghielmetti on Monday. They may have been discussing Signature's multiple Oakland developments, especially the Estuary plan. (See one of my previous entries for a mock-up.)
2. Wolff stayed at his daughter's place in Los Gatos over the weekend. The daughter, Kari, has been a longtime A's fan. She helped put together a season-ticket package she could sell to friends and acquaintances, to get more of a following in the South Bay. 20 packages have been sold, and half were for full-season plans. Depending on whether you're exclusively an East Bay or South Bay supporter (or neither), you may interpret this differently.

It didn't appear that Knapp had any direct questions about the ballpark, which must have come as a relief to Wolff.

Opening Day notes

I was one of the 44,000-plus announced at the McAfee Coliseum last night. Kirk Sarloos's inability to get left-handed hitters out allowed me to look around and note some of the changes:

1. The improvements made to the Meyer Sound PA system are noticeable. Not that Roy Steele's voice could ever sound tinny or weak, but the enhancements made him sound clearer and boomier than ever.
   
2. The GM Friday night campaign should bring out a few new folks, though I am disappointed that they didn't have a Saturn Sky or Pontiac Solstice roadster up for grabs.
   
3. More signage. I saw a few more advertisers in more locations. The outfield wall is saturated with ads. The two big signs that hung above the stairs in left and right now have a trivision-type display that features A's Brand and Verizon Wireless. I also saw a new sign for E-Loan and a couple more new advertisers. It looks like the team has been more aggressive in the offseason looking for stadium sponsors.
   
4. The centerfield, plaza-level sign showing the names of previous A's greats is gone. There are two new signs on the plaza facade near the foul poles that show the years of the A's world championship teams.
5. The historical video montage shown before games has changed. It now has more contemporary music and ends with a vintage 70's-era Swingin' A's graphic.
6. The team has also produced a cheesy-looking "public service announcement" promoting proper fan behavior, also to be shown before every game.
   

KTVU interview with Lewis Wolff

Wolff was on Mornings on 2 Monday morning, interviewed by Ross McGowan. The archived video can be found here.

Here's a snippet from the interview:

McGowan: Considering that Oakland has no money, is this going to be privately financed?

Wolff: It (public funding) may not be in the traditional way in terms of issuing a bond issue or by guaranteeing seats and things like that, but there will be public participation. Just in the fact of getting entitlements and zoning, so there's value that cities can add without going broke.

I get the feeling that Wolff is going back to his old redevelopment roots, and the A's are the anchor of an ambitious development plan. Public financing for a ballpark without bonding or seat licenses? Pardon me for being skeptical, but I'm having a hard time seeing it. Then again, he may have something up his sleeve. That's why he's a billionaire and I'm just an observer.

Note: A small clip of the interview was shown during the 10 p.m. KTVU newcast as part of business editor Brian Banmiller's featured story. Banmiller also interview Councilman Ignacio de la Fuente, who reiterated his stance that Oakland doesn't have any public money to put up for a ballpark. He must be referring to Wolff's "traditional" methods as well.

More San Jose articles

Undaunted by the collapse of the Del Monte-KB Home deal, the SJ City Council is moving forward on talks to purchase much of the Diridon South site. Diridon South has several advantages over the Del Monte site, including existing parking and transit links and its proximity to downtown San Jose. The biggest issue in acquiring the site is the challenge of acquiring property from multiple landowners. This includes PG&E, which has a substation that may be difficult to relocate.

Below is an aerial photo of the Arena/Diridon area. The Arena is to the north. The Diridon South site where the ballpark would be situated is in green. Red indicates the existing transit links in the Caltrain/Amtrak/ACE station just north of the ballpark, the VTA bus transfer center north of the train station, and the light rail station to the east. The train station is also the site of a proposed BART extension, though it's looking more and more like BART is getting scaled back.



If you're interested in what a ballpark may look like on the Diridon South site, here's a link for a conceptual aerial plan (warning: it's a large file to download - 300 kB).

Disappointingly, the Wave Mag article that promised "the lowdown" on the San Jose plan two weeks ago contains little new or revealing information. The print version also has a bizarre Photoshop-job picture of a mis-sized Shea Stadium (Shea? How about a stadium that isn't a cookie-cutter?) southwest of downtown San Jose, in the suddenly riparian Gardner neighborhood.

Forbes 2005 MLB valuations + KFRC going bye-bye

As they have since 1998, Forbes has just published its yearly franchise values list. Not surprisingly, the Yanks and Red Sox are at the top of the list. An exploratory article accompanies the rankings.

The A's slipped in value $1 million to be worth an estimated $185 million, which is slightly higher than the Wolff/Fisher group's $180 million purchase price. Was this a hometown discount? We may never know.

The A's reportedly received $116 million in revenue in 2004, which when factoring in the $19 million revenue sharing payment they received, is probably correct. With revenue sharing, they pulled in a nearly $6 million profit. Without it, they'd run more than $13 million in the red, though it'd be more likely that they'd slash payroll enough to stay more-or-less in the black. It does make one wonder where the rest of the money goes. Every team claims $40 million or more every year in player development and other non-payroll operations-related costs, but it's not as if the A's draft players that demand huge signing bonuses. They don't have any stadium debt, and rarely do they venture into the expensive non-draftee foreign markets (Japan, Cuba). Perhaps there's a directive from the commish that teams who get large revenue sharing payments cannot extend their payroll as a result. That would make sense, but then what would the owners do with the extra cash? Well, it certainly does not suck to be them.

Then again, they may want to pocket that change, since KFRC will no longer broadcast A's games after this season. That makes one less high-power AM station available, thereby driving down the price of broadcast rights. On a related note, It's about time the A's and KNBR started getting along again. On and off for a few years, KNBR wouldn't broadcast A's highlights on radio because of a competitive situation between KNBR's parent, Susquehanna, and CBS/Infinity, which owned KFRC.

Rick Hurd's Q&A with Lewis Wolff

In the CoCo Times interview, Hurd inquires about Wolff's relationship with Selig:

CCT (Hurd): You mentioned at Friday's press conference that Mr. Selig approached you about buying into the A's. Would you have been as enthusiastic about it were it not for your friendship with him?
Wolff: Well, he helped me get involved because he knew me, and he knew Steve and Ken and what their situation was. What you have to remember is you can't really get involved in baseball unless the commissioner lets you. My friendship with him was not the big issue. The big issue was that with this particular team, the downside risk isn't that huge, but the upside potential is.

CCT: But it seems like without a ballpark solution, this franchise is stuck. Mr. Selig has expressed doubts in the past about whether this is a viable two-team market, and he's made his stance that the Giants own the territorial rights to Santa Clara County clear on numerous occasions. So how do you respond to those who might say your friendship with him and your choice to buy into the A's is a sign the franchise may be headed out of the Bay Area?
Wolff: Well, I've never heard him discuss the market, and the issue I think I made pretty clear at the press conference. We're going to focus on Oakland. We're not going to do what-ifs. If people want to focus on that, fine. There's 30 owners in this league, and I'm sure Bud is closer to a lot of them than he is to me. So I think that's a lot of hogwash really.

Then Hurd went further into the ballpark issue:

CCT: Clearly, finding a ballpark is the franchise's No. 1 issue. You've said you won't give daily updates, but for the record, can you tell us where you are in that process right now, and where you'd like to be a year from now?
Wolff: No. I want to be consistent on that statement, and I just don't think I need to do that. The real estate industry is the one area where I really know how to operate, and I just don't feel that's what I want to do. Otherwise, every real estate broker in the world will be lighting up my phone. I'm not trying to hide anything. It just wouldn't serve any purpose to comment on it at this time. That's not to say we won't have things to say as this process continues.

CCT: The ballpark aside, you talked Friday about "thinking outside the box" with regard to operating this team. What other ways are there to grow revenue given the franchise's current state?
Wolff: We're exploring those things. I'm going to have a series of discussions with (Crowley). We think that there are, but we're not sure. We're only into this three days.

CCT: In 1992, when Peter Magowan headed an ownership group that bought the Giants and kept them in San Francisco, his group faced many of the same problems the A's do now. How similar do you think your current situation is with their old one?
Wolff: I love the ballpark. I think times are different, and a lot of different things have changed since then. But they've been able to prove that a great ballpark in a downtown area does a lot for a community. At the same time, they tried to do it with 100 percent private money. That's very difficult, and I'm not sure you could get anything built today entirely on private money. But I was at that park on Opening Day a few years ago, and it was just wonderful. I think if we were able to do something like that in Oakland, it would have a very high impact.

CCT: What has changed?
Wolff: That's an entire discussion in itself. But the economic and political landscape are always changing.

Wolff's responses are carefully constructed as to not give the appearance of a commitment to any one idea (site, funding sources, timeline). The proposal(s) will come along soon enough. One refreshing thing I can see from Wolff's press conference and interviews is that he doesn't seem to be the type who will negotiate through the media. He's doing his necessary rounds with the media, then he'll go right back into silent mode. The quote confirming the lodge mentality of the commish and owners is unexpected, though not surprising.

Dave Newhouse interviews Lewis Wolff

Small details have emerged. Tidbits from the interview:

Q (Newhouse). Are you encouraged that a ballpark can be built in Oakland?

A (Wolff). I always feel that way, but the biggest issue is pinning down a site, and we're working on that right now.

Q. You mentioned last week that you would be looking at alternative sites: Would that include something along the estuary?

A. First of all, we don't know how many alternatives there are. What we can't do is look at a site we can't use because it might take 10 years to get there. The answer is I'm going to do everything I can to find a site.

Q. The Coliseum parking lot, which you're focused on, offers BART and highway access, but no aesthetic qualities. Would you agree?

A. You haven't seen what we plan to build there yet.

Q. What has been your relationship with Alameda County's Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to date?

A. They have been very supportive, and I would like to thank both the county and the city of Oakland. A lot has gone on since our (Friday) press conference, and they're just terrific. When I call, they've responded right away. I see no problem dealing with them.

Newhouse did his best to pry some steak from Wolff, but all he got was sizzle. That's what makes Wolff the consummate professional he is. He's good.

Q. With the close proximity of sports teams to one another in this country, would "territorial rights" stand up in court?

A. I'll never know because I'll never test it.

It's nice to see that Newhouse didn't lob the typical San Jose or Vegas/Portland question that would've gotten the typical response. Wolff's response, as expected, leaves the territorial rights battle squarely within the San Jose civic and booster groups, making it a real uphill climb for them.

San Jose, DC differences

Maury Brown of SABR's Business of Baseball committee and the Oregon Stadium Campaign wrote a brief op-ed in the Merc about the differences between the DC situation and the Santa Clara County situation. I agree with much of what he says in the piece, including the idea that San Jose proponents may have to go to court to get a remedy. There is one point I disagree with:

The other alternative would be taking MLB to court, in which case he would have solid footing, given San Jose being within Santa Clara County.

The "he" in the quote refers to Giants managing partner Peter Magowan, and the "footing" is a legal claim over the territory. I don't think this is necessarily the case. Brown implies that if it went to court and territorial rights were not to be challenged because of the anti-trust exemption, it would be an open-and-shut case. That would make sense if the A's were suing baseball, but I doubt that's how it's going to happen. If a party outside MLB such as a San Jose civic group were to sue the Giants/MLB over territorial rights (they'd be challenging the exemption), the Giants and MLB might have trouble explaining the following issues:

1. Why three of the pre-existing two-team markets have identical territory sharing agreements, while the Bay Area is an exception, with the territory divided inequitably (4.2 million in 6 counties for the Giants, 2.8 million in 2 counties for the A's).
   
2. Or the judge might ask why television rights are equitably shared, but stadium-building rights are not.
3. What compensation the A's received for the Giants moving closer to the A's when SBC Park was built, to a location that could better serve and attract East Bay fans. If you've ever been on a BART train filled with Giants fans from Concord or an Alameda special ballpark ferry to SBC, you know what I'm talking about. The 'Stick was not a public-transit friendly venue. In fact, I'm surprised Steve Schott never raised a stink about this at all - or maybe he did and we just don't know about it.
4. Then there's the issue regarding how the territorial rights were granted and retained in the first place. Some say they evaporated once the last ballot measure in Santa Clara County failed, Magowan says he bought the Giants based on having those rights. That makes sense now that Santa Clara County is the high-tech capital of the world, but when Magowan bought the Giants, Yahoo! was just a glimmer in two Stanford students eyes, and Google was only a number. The area was in the midst of the recession, and many here were worried about losing defense contractors who were shutting down daily, not thinking about an impending technological boom. Magowan would then argue that he wouldn't have built his privately-funded ballpark without those same rights, but then he'd have to actually show potential damages that would result from a San Jose ballpark. I don't think he really wants to do that, because A) He'd have to open up the books, and that would show how much revenue is being hidden because of the vested interest agreements between the Giants and KNBR and KTVU, B) If Giants fans knew how much was being hidden, it'd create a huge backlash (the cost-controlled $75 million payroll), and C) Bud Selig and MLB have no interest in actually showing anything truthful about how money flows into and throughout the league - in fact, history has shown that MLB has done everything it could to prevent litigation, including foolishly drawing up settlements.
   

The problem with all this legal posturing and wrangling is that it's expensive, and it takes a long time. Would a party that challenged the exemption try to tackle just the anomalous situation that affects the Bay Area (and by extension, Baltimore-Washington), or the entire exemption? Who'd foot the bill, and would that group see it through? No one's going to become this era's Clarence Darrow from challenging the exemption. Still, attracting interest locally might work, since San Jose will always be stuck with its inferiority complex when comparing itself to its cosmopolitan neighbor.

Push for a waterfront ballpark

Chip Johnson of the Chronicle writes in his column that building on...

the Coliseum parking lot -- would be the most expedient, but perhaps not the most desirable, choice of sites.

He notes that the Uptown site is due for groundbreaking later this month. The best site would be along the waterfront, anywhere from the Oakland Army Base to the Estuary. The Army Base does have some potential because it is city owned, but despite the waterfront feature, it's far from downtown and would require a BART station to be built there. All waterfront sites would also require environmental cleanup, which would cost in the tens of millions per site, and there's the issue that the City and Port may actually want to get some amount of money for these sites, since they have some value.

Ballpark plans in motion

In addition to the quotes from Friday's post, it looks as exploration is full steam ahead, according to an article in the Contra Costa Times. The focus is mostly on the Coliseum parking lot, though there's no distinction between the existing lot and the 8.65 acre gravel auxiliary lot adjacent to the south lots.

"Now, we have to look at what's under the site," Wolff said. "Tenants (the Raiders and Warriors) share this site and we have to talk to them. We have to address the parking issue.

"There are difficulties with any venue of this nature," he added. "You will find that to be the case in any place. Elsewhere in the country, you will run into issues such as these, too."

In addition, the city got some news on how far the plan is progressing:

Last week, De La Fuente received an indication -- via a letter from Wolff -- that some advancement already has been made.

"It was official notice to the (Coliseum Authority) that he has engaged an architectural firm in Los Angeles to start exploring the possibility of building a stadium in Oakland," De La Fuente said. "They're taking the lead on it, and I see that as a reason to be optimistic."

If they focus on the existing south lot, a ballpark could remove 4,000 spaces. Someone would have to build a lot of garage parking to make up for the loss. Those parking garages could cost $6-8 million to build, plus there's the fact that garages don't make for quality tailgating.

Friday Press Conference Notes

Quotes from Lewis Wolff at today's 11 AM press conference:

Regarding what would happen if a deal could not be struck with Oakland/Alameda County:

"I'm not going to get into 'what if' at all.. We need to put blinders on and look at where we're at today."

When asked if he was "optimistic" about the effort:

"I wouldn't use the word optimistic. I believe we can implement if we can balance the issues here."

About other sites:

"I think there's a possibility that there's more than one site... We're going to start looking at other sites starting next month."

Regarding how long it will take to put it together:

"It's going to take the bulk of the next 12 months. We may get lucky."

About the financing gap, around $250-300 million:

"There may be other ways to finance this than the (strategy) 'How many luxury suites can you sell?' ... If I recall, (this area) is not so hot on seat licensing."

When asked if the San Jose Redevelopment Agency was wasting their time in buying a site for a ballpark:

"You're going to have to talk to them about that."

LA Times article on ownership change

Most of the same information, but two new tidbits came up in the article:

Commissioner Bud Selig said he had no trouble with Wolff's wanting a deal done by season's end — "They've had enough conversations," Selig said — but added that Wolff should not look elsewhere.

"I want him to concentrate on getting something done in Oakland," Selig said.

... and...

Wolff said he could limit a ballpark to 35,000 seats, to minimize construction costs and maximize demand for tickets. He said the A's could not afford all of what is estimated to be a $400-million bill but would pay 25% and would consider involvement in real estate development — surrounding the park and elsewhere in Oakland — that could help the city and county recoup investment costs.

The first comment indicates that Wolff is sticking with the 6-month planning deadline. Oakland/Alameda County voters have to decide on a new ballpark, even if it's entirely privately funded. Since this year's election would be a special election, it's not likely to be on that ballot. Look for the issue to come up next March.

Limiting the ballpark capacity to 35,000 will create the inelastic demand the owners want, but reducing square footage will cut construction costs a lot. It costs roughly $300 per square foot to build a ballpark, and cutting 100-200,000 s.f. or more would lower the cost $30-60 million. In today's era of large club areas and concourses, it's hard to know where the cuts would occur. Pittsburgh was able to control costs significantly by keeping the design limited to two decks.

NBC11 report on San Jose/Oakland

On the late NBC11 newscast, it was reported that the Del Monte Cannery site in San Jose is no longer available, due to San Jose pulling out of negotiations with KB Home on a land swap. Early next week, San Jose's planning commission is due to make a recommendation on KB Home's planned residential community at the cannery, based on a completed environmental impact report. The decision was deferred in early March because the commission felt the need to review new financial documents submitted by KB Home.

That would leave the Diridon South station as the only truly viable ballpark site in San Jose (and the best in my opinion). Much of the other alternative, the FMC site, is already being acquired by the San Jose Airport so it's almost out of the picture.

During the same news report, the Coliseum site was mentioned, but only the old parking lot option, which may not be in play. Oakland City Councilman Ignacio de la Fuente was interviewed, and while he repeated his stance that Oakland and Alameda County don't have $400 million to spend, he did mention that there may be a couple of other sites in Oakland that could be under consideration. A smile curled up from his lips as he finished his statement. The reporter, Christie Smith, said that the Uptown site was not available (I tend to agree with this).

That would leave the Coliseum South site as option #1, and the Estuary as option #2, since Howard Terminal is being used in its entirety by Matson (more on that in a future post).

HOK chosen for DC ballpark

Stadium architectural giant HOK Sport out of Kansas City was selected by the DC Commission to design the Nationals' new ballpark. HOK's winning bid came in at $18.4 million, $4 million less than the next lowest competitor who was not named. That $4 million is quite important, as the revised cost estimate released today by DC CFO Natwar Gandhi just $3.6 million less than the cap set for the part of the project associated with land acquisition and preparation.

HOK has designed 10 out of the last 14 new ballparks. While it made its name with Camden Yards in Baltimore (1992) and SBC Park in San Francisco (2000), HOK also designed the somewhat ill-conceived US Cellular Field in Chicago (1991) and Great American Ball Park in Cincinnati (2003). Their experience is not limited to baseball, however. They've designed arenas like Atlanta's Philips Arena and football stadiums such as Reliant Stadium in Houston.

Over the last few years, HOK has been the recipient of some backlash as it appeared that all of its baseball projects had too many similarities. Among those criticisms:

1. Overall themes too "retro" with brick facades, quirky dimensions
2. Upper decks cantilevered too far back to eliminate need for support columns
3. "Mallification" of concourses, often with gimmicky design elements

I happen to think that these criticisms are largely unfair. Architects design for clients. That's not that difficult for the architect when he's dealing with a single, unified voice, such as a corporation or homeowner. With a stadium, there's no single client. Usually the client has numerous public voices (mayor, city council, community group) and private (team, season ticket base) to deal with. This often forces the architect to compromise or move more towards building a consensus on design issues. What may have started as a clean, unified theme can turn into a disjointed hodgepodge quickly. When you consider how all of the ballparks came into being in the 90's, it's not surprising that they may seem overly retro. That's what most everyone wanted. Of all four major sports, only baseball has a the ability evoke such nostalgic notions. Only in baseball can the venue be so integrated with its environment. Add to that the fact the retro trend started in response to backlash against the numerous multipurpose facilities built in previous decades, and there can be a tendency towards overexposure.

HOK Sport has demonstrated its forward-thinking with many non-baseball projects, many of which were cool, modern glass-and-steel designs. Among these are FedEx Field, Gillette Stadium, and Toyota Center. The parent company, HOK, is considered one of the top architectural firms in the world, and has done airports, high-rises, hospitals, and government buildings. HOK Sport Senior Principal Earl Santee, who is also working on the new St. Louis Cardinals' Busch Stadium, calls the DC ballpark a challenge to make something that's "part monument, part ballpark." With the opportunity to take the retro shackles off, DC should expect good things from HOK.

Lewis Wolff profile

There's also a Chronicle article about Lewis Wolff's background and real estate experience.

The vote yesterday was unanimous, in favor of the Wolff/Fisher group.

John Fisher profile

Good article in the Chronicle about John Fisher, the new majority owner. An excerpt:

The deal went through, and the Fishers became part of a large group of businessmen who owned the Giants.

Harmon Burns, a mutual fund executive, later bought out most of the Fisher family's stake.

John Fisher kept a small stake in the team so he could continue to monitor its financials, his dad recalls. Fisher, 43, recently sold the stake so he could buy the A's.

This time, it seems to be just John Fisher investing in the team.

Fisher may have stuck around long enough to gather knowledge about how Peter Magowan and Co. structured the private financing deal that paved the way for SBC Park. If so, that knowledge would be immeasurable. Whether those lessons could be similarly applied in Oakland is anyone's guess at this point.

MLB, O's reach deal

The seemingly endless negotiations between MLB and O's owner Peter Angelos have finally been completed. From the looks of things, here's the deal:

1. The two teams will form a "joint venture" or rather a regional cable sports network that will broadcast both teams' games.
   
2. This network will be owned and operated by the O's, with backing from MLB.
3. The O's will pay the Nats "fair market value" for yearly broadcast rights, which may be worth $25 million per year.
   
4. Angelos and his group will be guaranteed a minimum price of $365 million should they decide to sell the O's.

A Baltimore Sun article also had this note regarding the Expos move to DC:

Angelos bitterly opposed that move, but said he might be persuaded to go along if his franchise was compensated for expected losses in revenue -- about $30 million.

I'm not clear on what this $30 million figure is. Is it a lump sum or an annual loss? This may have something to do with the speculated annual guaranteed revenue the O's were supposed to get as part of the settlement, somewhere in the neighborhood of $130 million a year. If it's in there, it's the most controversial piece of the whole deal because it strikes at the heart of the revenue sharing agreement. There are already major loopholes that have been opened in the agreement over the last several years, namely the ability to write off stadium construction costs as "operating expenses." This only shrinks the revenue sharing pie further.

There are serious ramifications for MLB. Notice how the Red Sox announced all of the changes that are planned for Fenway Park? It's not just John Henry feeling wistful about the old ballyard, it's that they can write off those improvements agaisnt future revenue sharing contributions. The Yanks are offering to fund half of a new Bronx stadium that will cost around $800 million. Once it's built, they'll spend the next 40 years writing off the costs. The new Busch Stadium is also going to be half-funded by the Cardinals. The new bleachers at Wrigley Field? A write-off for the Cubs. The ongoing improvements to Dodger Stadium? Same story.

Since all of those teams named above pay into the system, the ability to withhold a portion of that yearly payment while also receiving huge benefits along the way (tax write-offs, good local PR, increased franchise value) is huge.

On the other side of the ledger, have-not teams like the Twins, A's, Devil Rays, and Marlins would split an ever smaller revenue sharing funds pool. The idea behind this is that it should motivate the have-nots to more aggressively pursue new ballparks, since they'll get the same write-off benefits the haves get. Eventually I think MLB will move further in this direction, choosing to share a limited amount every year until every team either has a new ballpark or becomes a contraction candidate.

Press Conference on Friday

Lewis Wolff will be formally introduced as the new managing partner of the A's on Friday. Ballpark plan unveiling then? Maybe, maybe not.

I won't be there due to my day job, but I hope the media brings up some good questions, not just the same-old, same-old stuff (moving, territorial rights, Billy Beane's extension). Some examples of good questions:

1. Steve Schott made a $100 million pledge towards a new Oakland ballpark while you were in the VP of venue development position. Now that you are the majority partner, has that stance from ownership changed at all? If so, how much?
   
2. Do you have a generally agreeable figure for the amount of public investment required for a new ballpark? If so, can you shed some light on what that figure is?
   
3. You have mentioned that the Coliseum is probably the easiest site to develop, but other Oakland sites are being explored. Is the Estuary/Oak-to-9th site one of these? If there are others, what are they?
4. Gensler and HOK have been mentioned as firms that may be involved in the project. Can you clarify which architect(s) you are working with?
5. What will the design process be like? How much will the public be involved? (HOK tends to be very focus group-based)
   
6. Are you leaning towards a specific theme or type of construction when designing the ballpark?
   
7. Is the ownership group pursuing alternatives to the current media situation, such as operating a radio station, switching cable channels from FSN to Comcast, etc.?

If you have other examples, please post them in comments.

New Brewers owner thinking retail

In what could be a harbinger of things to come for Oakland, new Milwaukee Brewers owner Mark Attanasio is exploring opportunities to develop land around Miller Park. He even has thought about the issue of preserving the large parking lot there for tailgaters:

Attanasio said he already has been taught about the tradition of tailgating in Milwaukee and the importance of convenient parking at Miller Park.

"I am confident we could come up with a mix that would work," he said. "I look at this as an opportunity to make this an even better place to visit."

Like the Coliseum, Miller Park has over 10,000 parking spaces and is conveniently near an interstate freeway. The new structure replaced the aging but venerable Milwaukee County Stadium, which for decades was a multipurpose facility that had little character.

That's where the parallels end. Miller Park, unlike the Coliseum complex, is a single-attraction venue with little development, especially residential, immediately around it. The Coliseum complex has both the stadium and arena, which offer entertainment all year-round. Miller Park only has the baseball season. The Coliseum also has BART and AC Transit serving it. Milwaukee not only does not have any kind of rail transit system like BART or light rail, but the buses that serve Miller Park only run during baseball games.

Although the city of Milwaukee is open to development ideas, it would appear that luring retail to the area is not a slam-dunk. Even with the differences in comparison to the Oakland situation, Miller Park could become a good case study for any future Coliseum-area development, especially if Milwaukee and the Brewers pursue the construction of a hotel on-site.

Sale goes through

From ESPN and MLB.com.

Vote at 2 PM

They'll need at least 3/4 of the owners to vote yes. All indications are that there will be little-to-no resistance.

There's another angle I hadn't considered until now for John Fisher. Fisher does not have any official ties to the Gap, but he did have a share of the Giants while SBC Park was being built, and he still manages money for the Fisher family, much of which is still on the Gap's board. Could there be some sort of quid pro quo involving his being the majority partner? For instance, Fisher may have been brought in to prop up the bid, and in return, the Gap or one of its subsidiaries would get a good deal on exclusive advertising rights in the ballpark. The Gap used to have prominence in the 'Stick, where the outfield fence had Gap signs in the power alleys (yes, the pun was intended). With SBC, the right field facade is one large Old Navy advertisement. Would all Oakland stadium personnel wear Gap khakis or Banana Republic chinos? Would fans see Old Navy commercials on the big scoreboard display in between innings?

Fisher is pretty much guaranteed to make good money on his investment once a ballpark is completed and the franchise's value rises as a result, at which point he could sell some or all of his share (with MLB approval). Or perhaps Fisher is aggressive in nature, looking to push for a better position within local media (TV, radio, cable) for the team.

Tomorrow: New ownership press conference

It looks like there will be a press conference with the new ownership group tomorrow. The MLB owners' conference call will probably happen early tomorrow morning. The vote itself is little more than a formality at this point. Jim Young returned to Oakland early to set it up.

"The stadium issue is going to be the major focus of this ownership group," Young said. "But that's no surprise there."

It would be interesting if the A's actually presented a ballpark proposal tomorrow. There's probably no better forum or time to do it than right before the season starts.

San Jose-Washington, DC comparison

David Pollak's article compares and contrasts the San Jose and DC situations. It does not explore the legal option, which based on the rhetoric I've heard from Magowan and San Jose supporters, may very well be the most likely scenario - but it would have to be undertaken by San Jose/Santa Clara County, not the A's.

The A's small market myth?

There's a good column about the A's and their claims of being a small-market team by virtue of their stadium situation. I agree the assessment that the A's have been holding the pursestrings too tightly, and that the small market claims are as much a sell job as they are fact. However, the writer didn't point out one big issue for the A's - the revenue sharing agreement. The A's are perennial recipients of a revenue sharing surplus, which should be fed back into the organization for player salaries. The problem with that is that the surplus is received well after the season ends. Other teams with large revenue streams get much of their money upfront in the form of suite leases, large season ticket rolls and locked-in ad agreements. The A's are stuck in a place where they'll get this surplus ($19 million this year), but they can't expect to receive that amount every year, and so they can't immediately invest it in new players. Because the amount of the surplus fluctuates from year to year, it's difficult for them to commit to free agents for long-term deals. What the A's have done (with the exception of 2004) was get players midseason, and many of those moves have enhanced Billy Beane's reputation, while giving the team that second half boost. Still, they should shell out some of the extra cash to keep a few of their franchise cornerstones instead of pocketing the cash.

There's also a little dishonesty about the Forbes figures. Since MLB is private, it's hard to tell how much revenue is being hidden by organizations who happen to also own the stadiums, concessionaires, radio/TV outlets, etc. The A's don't have that type of vested interest relationship, so their revenue figures are probably more accurate than the Giants or Yankees. Unless a team gets into major financial straits and gets audited as the Brewers did in 2004, we may never know how much any team truly makes.

Wave Magazine blurb on new ballpark initiative, San Jose

The Wave Magazine notes that the March 11 press conference was not merely a little get-together between Oakland and Alameda County officials and Lewis Wolff. It was also staged to announce Wolff's "personal involvement in an Alameda County ballot initiative that seeks a new (read: permanent) home for the A’s in Oaktown." This is the first time I've seen a mention of such an initiative, and while it's considered a given that a referendum will be required for any stadium in the Bay Area, I hadn't seen anything regarding the A's direct involvement until now. That leads me to believe that the process may be fairly advanced at this point, which it would have to be if they wanted to get something on the November ballot or even the midterm primary ballot in 2006.

The clock is definitely ticking. Even if an initiative passed, it's unlikely a new ballpark would open before opening day 2009. If the ownership group is directly involved, there will almost certainly be an ad campaign accompanying it, featuring current and/or former players. The Dallas Cowboys got Arlington, TX voters to pass their new stadium initiative due in large part to a $5 million campaign. Ads and public appearances featured former Cowboy greats such as Troy Aikman, Roger Staubach, and Daryl "Moose" Johnston. Stadium opponents spent only $40,000.

The irony is that some Alameda County voters may not be able to see any pro-stadium ads during A's games broadcast on KICU-36 because of poor reception.

The next issue of The Wave promises "the complete lowdown" on the San Jose effort.

More on A's sale

According to an article on MLB.com, the vote on the A's sale to Wolff & Co. will happen on Wednesday. Not much else new except for what appears to be a confirmation that Steve Schott will remain a limited partner in the new ownership group. There's also another quote from Selig regarding Santa Clara County territorial rights:

"We have a sport where you just can't have anarchy," Selig said. "You can't be changing territories. It's a territory that's owned by the San Francisco Giants and that will be respected. You just don't change those things and we won't."

I believe that places the ball in San Jose's court.

Estuary Plan

This post posits an alternative Oak-to-Ninth plan which incorporates several features in keeping with the EPP. Among the features:

1. Most of the Fifth Avenue Marina is developed for recreational purposes, including an expansion of Estuary Park on the other side of the channel, a new public marina on the southwest end, a meadow/public park, and parking.
2. Preservation of the Silveira property.
3. Potential other mixed use (commercial/industrial)
   
4. Conversion of Clinton Basin to a 70-slip floating home community much like those seen near Sausalito, in Alameda and in Seattle.
5. 1,000 new apartments and condominiums in a 13-acre village concept on the Ninth Ave section, with up to 100,000 square feet of commercial space.
   
6. 40,000-seat ballpark at the east end of the Ninth Ave Terminal, with a 1,200-car garage adjacent.
7. 300-room hotel overlooking the estuary.
8. Greenbelt/Park established along waterfront for both Fifth and Ninth sections.
9. An option to preserve most if not all of the Ninth Ave Terminal building.
   

Click on the photo below to view a larger version.



One of the interesting possibilities lies in the land between the Embarcadero and 880 (the yellow strip in the photo above). Formerly a rail right-of-way for Union Pacific, it's not used for anything right now. The track is still there except for portions paved over at intersections. Part of it will be used for the Caltrans Fifth Ave Interchange project, but much of it may be available for other uses. The strip could be converted into parking for about 250 cars. An alternative plan could have the track reused for a trolley that runs between Jack London Square and the ballpark. Such a trolley could help alleviate the parking problem that will occur on site by letting patrons park near JLS, then take the spur to the game. While a light rail or trolley project for Oakland has been discussed for some time, the presence of rail makes it more of a possibility to fast-track a LRT plan. Alameda has been discussing transit options including bus rapid transit and a tram.

Advantages:

• Nearly half of the area would used to establish new waterfront parks and recreational facilities.
• Small ballpark footprint is designed not to dominate landscape.
• Introduction of new types of housing (floating homes) and numerous units of affordable housing.
• Subsidies that may be needed to support affordable housing would be lower than those that may be required of Signature plan.
  
• Site is "owned" by City and Port, mitigating acquisition costs.
• Preservation of Silveira property and artist colony.
• Addition of a luxury or resort hotel, which currently doesn't exist in Oakland.
  
• Potential to introduce new mass transit options that serve the waterfront.
• Location is both close to downtown and highly visible from a major freeway.
  

Disadvantages

• Costly cleanup and preparation. The land is considered a brownfield, and cleanup is estimated at $16 million.
  
• Distance from existing BART (Lake Merritt Station) is 1.2 miles. That's a bit too long to walk. A new station could be built along 8th St near 8th Ave next to BART's maintenance facility, but construction of a station platform and the pedestrian overpass required to span the rail yard immediately to the south could be prohibitively high. The use of a shuttle bus to negotiate the remaining distance may be cumbersome.
  
• Limited parking - 1,200 spaces for ballpark in a single garage devoted to the ballpark. A parking district would also have to be created for residents.
  
• Infrastructure costs. The Embarcadero along this stretch is often only a two-lane road, and it would have to be widened to accommodate assumed increases in traffic. Controlling ballpark traffic so that it doesn't hamper residents of nearby neighborhoods would also have to be planned accordingly.
• Startup costs for trolley are high. Cost to build the roughly 1 mile segment would be $40-50 million, which may not be worth it considering the number of riders that might use it. Similar projects were developed in Memphis and Seattle, and both have very limited ridership.
• Housing advocates may want more units or more affordable units.
  

Conclusion
The Estuary presents a unique opportunity to create a mixed development that benefits many different groups and gives the A's a distinctive home. However, there are numerous hidden costs associated with development, and it is unclear who would pick up the tab.

Estuary Site Overview

The Oak-to-Ninth Estuary area is a unique site. It's one of the last undeveloped, urbanized waterfront areas on the West Coast. Because of its development potential, civic and community leaders have been keen to make sure it doesn't become overly privatized or densely developed. In 1999, the City of Oakland and the Port of Oakland put together a set of development guidelines called the Estuary Policy Plan. The EPP isn't overly specific about what should be built on the 60 acres the area covers, but it does insist on the creation of open spaces with recreational uses.

Signature Properties has the exclusive option to build on the Oak-to-Ninth site. Its plan calls for 3,100 apartments and condominiums, along with commercial uses and parking. Slightly less than half of the acreage will be devoted to open space. There are concerns about the plan and whether it provides the most benefit for Oakland residents. That and a completed environmental impact report are factors in delaying any possible groundbreaking for perhaps a year.

In the HOK study, two options were presented for a ballpark development. The West plan put the ballpark on the smaller 5th Ave Terminal/Marina site. This would've caused conflict with property owner J.W. Silveira, who owns the only privately-held parcel in the area and has a thriving artist colony on it. Silveira is already suing Oakland because of a lack of disclosure, and it's possible the same sort of thing would happen with a ballpark on his property.

The East plan put the ballpark on the large 9th Ave Terminal site, where it would've run into fewer ownership issues since it's owned entirely by the Port. Instead, it would've run afoul of community interests, would would've noted the more than 3,000+ parking spaces and wondered if someone was trying to pass them for open space. There's also the issue of the 9th Ave Terminal building, which preservationists claim has some historic value and should be preserved. The plan calls for the building to be restored and converted, which wouldn't be a bad thing considering the success of SF's Ferry Building conversion.

Unfortunately, it appears that the City and Port have settled on Signature's proposal. If they hadn't, they probably would've updated the EPP, which definitely needs revision considering the economic changes the Bay Area has gone through. It's possible that major changes to the plan (which could come from community actions, the Silveira case, or the next District 2 councilmember's support) could occur. If Signature were forced to pare down its development by 10-15 percent or make a large number of units fit under affordable housing guidelines, they may very well scrap the deal. The next post shows a compromise alternative plan that could satisfy the majority of interests.

Coliseum Site

So far, only the Coliseum has been mentioned as a potential ballpark site. This may change based on economic conditions or property availability. Wolff has said other sites within the city are being considered, but did not elaborate.

Site Overview: Unlike the use discussed in the HOK study, the site being considered is not the Coliseum's existing north parking lot. Instead, it is the gravel lot immediately south of the south parking lot, and potentially site adjacent to it. The size of the combined properties is around 25-26 acres. The ballpark's footprint would take up about 1/2 of the site. The rest would be used for mixed development uses and parking.



Advantages: Existing infrastructure. Land may be easily acquired, and once funded, development could occur without too much red tape. Among the plusses for the site:

1. 10,000+ parking spaces already available. 6,000 adjacent to ballpark in the south lot. Another 4,000 in the north lot on the other side of the Coliseum complex. Small amounts of parking may be available on the project site, but those spaces may be reserved for residents and shoppers.
2. Proximity to BART. Close, though it's about twice as far a walk as the distance on the BART bridge from the station to the outfield plaza.
3. View of Oakland hills returns.
   
4. Little-to-no expected impact on other Coliseum/Arena events during construction. This is important because proponents will want to minimize friction from Raiders owner Al Davis as much as possible.
   
5. Little impact on other neighborhood businesses during construction.
6. Alignment along planned Airport People Mover route (Hegenberger).
7. Low cost of land acquisition and preparation.
8. No restrictions on ballpark shape, size, or field orientation.
   
9. Minimal new infrastructure required.
   

Disadvantages: East Oakland location is not exactly prime real estate.

1. Project may have difficulty attracting name retailers and restaurants.
2. May pull limited redevelopment resources from other neighborhoods or projects that have more pressing economic needs.
3. If project has a large public financing component to be paid using a TIF-based structure, there is a greater risk of revenue shortfalls because of site's location in a less highly-prized market. This may in turn affect bonding efforts.
4. Electrical transmission towers that run through site will need to be moved. Cost is unknown.
   
5. Other Oakland sites may have better views, development opportunities, or integration with urban surroundings.

Conclusion: While the Coliseum may be the best option due to its few conflicts and built-in infrastructure, it is also the least sexy/interesting site in the bunch, and is not without risks.

The Red Sox new home is... their old home?

Looks like John Henry, Tom Werner, and company have come to their senses and are going to keep the Red Sox at Fenway for the forseeable future. Thankfully they didn't go forward with the Fenway 2: Electric Boogaloo stadium concept pushed by previous owner John Harrington. They were able to get extra seats added in any remaining free space in the park and get permission from the city of Boston to close down Yawkey Way outside the park during games for added "concourse" space. This is certainly a welcome change from the trend of building new ballparks, but it's an anomaly, not the reversal of the trend.

So you're probably wondering, can the A's and the JPA do something like that at the Coliseum? The answer to that, sadly, is no. Or at least not as long as the Raiders stay there. The Coliseum was built as a multi-purpose facility, and while it was considered at one point one of the best venues in baseball (circa 1989) and it remains a decent, underrated venue, there's no retrofit that would really benefit the stadium at this point. The JPA has already added most of the amenities new stadiums have, such as luxury suites and club sections. Certain things such as the circular seating bowl won't get fixed without basically tearing it down and rebuilding it. Plus there's still the issue of Mt. Davis, the eastside seating section that seems to always threaten to engulf the outfield. It has 3 decks of suites and the vertigo-inducing upper deck is not a pleasurable baseball experience. I tend to be in agreement with many longtime fans in the idea that if all of the 1995 refurbishment except for Mt. Davis were built, the Coliseum would be more than passable for decades to come. It would have put it on par at least with the improvements made to Busch Stadium or Angel Stadium.

When the Haas family owned the team, they helped renovate the stadium to get it to ideal state it was in during the Bash Brothers era. Field dimensions were stabilized. The concourses got splashes of color, and the stadium itself received a more baseball-tinged identity. While the 1995 refurbishment gave the stadium the forest green seats and updated scoreboards, most of the baseball identity was stripped away. What replaced it were bizarre outfield dimensions, no more views of ice plant or the Oakland hills in the background, and a guarantee that the six weeks of the season or more would be played on chewed up, elephant-trodden sod and dirt.

Now here we are in 2005. What will the new ownership group propose? A now out-of-style retro facade, or a modern or even futuristic one? Restrained field layout or everything-but-the-kitchen sink? Distinctive or hodgepodge generic? My next post will cover those issues and others as I review my own Coliseum South proposal.

San Jose editorials

There's a brief editorial in today's Merc about how, er, pathetic the Gonzales/Stone trip to Phoenix appeared, especially after the pictures came out. Gonzales is no Oscar Goodman, though it must be said that Goodman hasn't gotten MLB running into Sin City's arms.

Former San Jose mayor Tom McEnery gets a little more detailed about the current mayor's effort on his blog, which has an interesting note about Santa Clara County's territorial rights.

Goodman appears ready to strike if the Marlins don't get the $60 million requested from the state of Florida to finish funding for their new Orange Bowl ballpark. Portland is also ready to make a run if it doesn't work out for the Marlins in Miami.