SJ ballpark EIR to slip to January

Over at the SJ/SV Business Journal, Katherine Conrad reports that flawed traffic projections in the original 2006 environmental impact report will force a revisiting of that subject. Key to this is traffic on the stretch of 280 between 10th/11th streets and Guadalupe Pkwy (CA-87), an area that frequently sees congestion on Sharks game nights.

Dennis Korabiak, the city’s program manager for transportation, said the city had planned to release an addendum to the 2006 environmental report on the stadium in November. Now, however, the city must do a “focused” report using the new and correct information. The size of the stadium being considered now is considerably smaller — 32,000 seats compared to the earlier 45,000 seats — which could could mean a wash in terms of the potential difference between the flawed traffic impact estimate and what a new report will show.

The original EIR had its critics, chiefly Marc Morris of the Shasta/Hanchett Neighborhood Association. Morris felt the methodology was flawed and didn't include a large enough survey around the site, especially of surface streets. Given that 280 is the main artery downtown and especially for fans coming from outside San Jose, the best practice might be to capture data from 101/680 all the way to 880/Valley Fair, plus data from W San Carlos, Park, and Julian.

I'm curious to hear what the other traffic critic, HP Pavilion management, thinks of this. They've been rather silent so far.

Revising the report will mean it won't be released until January. That means two things. First, don't expect much news emanating from San Jose until then. Second, ballpark news on this site might be originating from Oakland.

FWIW, I'm trying to make the next Good Neighbor meeting on Thursday, in part to see how much coverage this issue gets.

LA stadium bill passes, your move teams

The barn door is officially open. Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB X3 81 today, allowing Ed Roski's stadium project to sidestep environmental laws by negating a citizen-initiated legal challenge. While the process is often tedious and wasteful, the idea of legislating a legal maneuver for a single, entirely local project doesn't sit well with me. It's emblematic of what's wrong with the state.

Majestic Realty veep John Semcken has been making the rounds with numerous media outlets in the leadup to bill passage. In doing so, he's revealed bits and pieces of Roski's demands for what a team needs to provide in order to move to the Industry stadium.

During an interview with ESPN 710 (mp3) in LA, Semcken noted that Roski would be okay with 40% of the team and non-controlling interest, which was surprising to me. Roski currently owns minority, non-controlling shares of both the Kings and Lakers, and he built Staples Center. You could infer the successful precedent as saying that he's comfortable with a particular business model, and he's fine with duplicating it. But like any incredibly rich man, Roski must have an ego. So you'd figure he'd be interested in a controlling interest in the crown jewel franchise. That he apparently doesn't is a sign of his willingness to get 'er done. It could also be interpreted as an unwillingness to put up a ton of cash for a team.

Other tidbits from the interview (which I haven't noticed in the regular media coverage):

• A team's move to LA is being pitched as an overall revenue generator for the league, much like an A's move from Oakland to San Jose. Supposedly, this new revenue would more than offset a TV revenue loss. The NFL has spent $14 million "studying" SoCal.
  
• Six teams are on the potential candidate list: Jaguars, Bills, Rams, Vikings, Chargers, and Raiders. The 49ers are off the list for the time being because they're going through the development process in Santa Clara. Only the Rams are outwardly for sale, as most of you who follow this stuff closely already know.
  
• The stadium will have two home locker rooms and two visitor locker rooms. Just in case.
  

Should one of the non-California teams move, it could set in motion an odd set of realignment moves which will probably make several owners unhappy.

• Jaguars: Strangely, this might create little upheaval. The Jags could conceivably stay in the AFC South while the AFC West stays intact. They'd be the only team in their division on the West Coast, but at least none of their rivals would be on the East Coast (I won't get into Indiana's completely schizophrenic time zone mess). Kansas City and the Jags could switch places as an alternative.
  
• Bills: This would probably create some kind of domino effect in which multiple teams moved to different divisions. It would make the most sense for the Bills to move to the AFC West, pushing the Chiefs to the AFC South. Indianapolis, which is north of AFC North team Cincinnati, would join them in the division. The Jags would join Florida big brother Miami in the AFC East.
• Rams: Easily the most frictionless option. The Rams already have history in LA and they have spent their entire post-merger existence in the NFC West.
  
• Vikings: Moving the Vikes out of what Chris Berman affectionately calls the "NFC Norris Division" seems downright blasphemous. Could they stay there? I suppose so, since Tampa Bay was long the long distance, warm weather outsider in the old NFC Central for over two decades. It would make more sense to move the Vikes to the NFC West and the Rams to the NFC North, however.

As for the Chargers and Raiders, they've been written about plenty already. Let the mating dance begin.

If a Redwood falls in the forest...

Reader Mike Headley (a.k.a. LoneStranger) was one of the privileged 6,341 to see the inaugural home game for the UFL's California Redwoods franchise at AT&T Park. Below are his observations of the experience and my feedback (in italics). Enjoy.

Hey ML,

I went to the California Redwoods vs NY Sentinels UFL game at AT&T Park on Saturday, so I was doing a little reading up on the four teams. I noticed that the Florida Tuskers were owned by the Tampa Bay Rays. Could this be a way for them to get more muscle behind their new stadium plans? It would give them more guaranteed home dates, though admittedly just four-six more. The other issue this would bring up, if they do intend the Tuskers to play in the new stadium, is how that would change the design of the stadium. I find it a little weird that a baseball team would want to build a two-sport complex, but perhaps with the lower attendance rates than the NFL, the number of seats up against the field isn’t an issue. The field at AT&T ran along the 3B line and the end zone was right up against the outfield wall. I’m not sure how close it got to the dugouts on the other side. There was nothing on the opposite side of the field, except the fireworks mortars. The main TV camera was on a movable platform between the seats and the field. I didn’t see the game on TV, but I bet it didn’t look good showing the emptiness on the other side of the field. Or maybe it looked better than showing the empty stands.

As far as the Redwoods game went, it was fun. I’ve only ever been to one other football game (49ers vs Cin a couple years ago) and we had sat in the top deck. This game we sat in the lower area near the left field foul pole. While there were only a pitiful 6341 people in attendance (almost half of the next-highest game) it was neat to be able to get close to the field. I’ll probably go to another game in November. Their problem with attendance is probably fixed with better marketing. It seems like no one knows that they even exist. If it doesn’t get better, I wonder if they’d toy with the idea of playing some of their home games in San Jose, perhaps Spartan Stadium. The league wants to expand into Los Angeles next year, so I get the impression that the Redwoods will remain the Northern California franchise.

The Tuskers are meant to play their home games at the old Citrus Bowl in Orlando. They are splitting their home games between Orlando and Tampa. Tropicana Field has occasionally held bowl games so it sort of makes sense. I doubt that scheduling 2 or 3 games per season at the Trop will have any effect on future stadium talks. Having multiple homes is purely about exposure. The field orientation you describe is exactly the same as the one they use for the Emerald Bowl and the one season of the XFL. It sounds like you're saying that they aren't laying down the temporary stands in right field that they usually have for the bowl game. I'll have to check out one of the games later in the season.

I like that they're keeping costs low. They have a broadcast deal with Versus, a network that's always looking for new sports properties. They're even streaming the games live, which is refreshing. If they follow the pre-expansionist Arena Football League business model, they could keep costs manageable and stay afloat for a few years at least. Though I'm not so sure about having a fall schedule. There's just too much competition with ESPN broadcasting major college matchups on Thursday. And locally, there's a good reason why only 6,341 was the reported attendance. With two NFL teams and two major college teams in the Bay Area, we have more football here than any other market in the country. NY has no major [college] team. Chicago has bottom-feeding Northwestern, Notre Dame nearly 100 miles away, and Illinois even further away.

Yes, you are correct; the temporary bleachers were not put up. I agree, the lower cost of the games is what will help them survive. It was evident on Saturday. They didn’t open up the place until an hour before kickoff, the concession stands were only open on the 3B side and even then the non-essentials were closed. There were definitely less usher/security staff on hand. No one had any tickets checked by an usher that I saw. I get the feeling that the NFL is waiting to see how the whole thing goes down. If it fails, there is no financial loss for them. If it ends up successful, they’ve got a ‘minor league proving ground’ that they can either buy into or otherwise sign a deal with to get guys some playing time.

With the recently announced Arena Football 1 league being arranged with the original Arena League's ethos, UFL has a small opening from which it can gain a decent-sized niche audience. My guess is that the Redwoods were charged a minimal 4 or 6-hour facility rental fee for the game, which explains why the gates only opened an hour early.

What do you think? As poor as the initial attendance was, it's not like the NFL and NBA didn't have humble beginnings. Both leagues had to do their share of barnstorming and audience cultivation. Can UFL work?

HSR routing effects on Diridon

The California High Speed Rail Authority has been workshopping route details all over the state. Especially sensitive are the Atherton/Menlo Park/Palo Alto areas and the area immediately to the south of Diridon Station, where numerous alternatives exist. In the picture below, you'll see a mix of working class residential and industrial buildings near the station. Further south is the well-heeled neighborhood of Willow Glen, and while the train wouldn't run through Willow Glen its residents are more than a bit concerned about HSR.

Unlike in the Peninsula, which the existing Caltrain corridor is the only available route, several route options exist south Diridon Station. CHSRA wants to use the most cost-effective route possible since they want to stretch the $10 billion in state bonds and whatever federal stimulus money comes their way, but every option has a cost/benefit component in both the short and long term.

The least expensive route is probably the green/white line above labeled SR87/I-280. It's an S-curve that would run in an aerial along the two area freeways. However, the S-curve makes it also the slowest option, and could adversely impact many of the express trains that would pass through San Jose without stopping at Diridon. The route also runs through the original Orchard Supply Hardware location's parking lot. Along with the other Caltrain-aligned routes, it would likely take some amount of land from the ballpark site. FWIW, that land wouldn't be for the ballpark anyway, it'd be used for parking.

The "Downtown Aerial/Tunnel" option is misleading because running an aerial isn't really an option. An aerial would require billions of dollars of eminent domain proceedings and would kill any chance of developing the six blocks between the ballpark site and the arena. A tunnel would be an enormous engineering challenge, since it would bore under both the existing light rail tunnel and the planned BART subway, plus a creek and a river. In either case, the route would have minimal impact on the ballpark site, clipping the northeast corner at worst.

However CHSRA and Diridon area residents proceed, it's good to know that the ballpark can be built without having to worry about the final route's impact.

A's TV ratings down in 2009

The move to CSN California may be good for the A's long-term financial security, but they sure have taken a major hit on TV to do it according to Sports Business Journal. Having moved from CSN Bay Area to the sister network, the A's posted a paltry 0.82 rating locally for the season, a drop from 1.72 in 2008. The Giants, having been in playoff contention until the last week of the season, scored major gains of 25,000 households, or roughly one full ratings point.

The drop can be traced to two major factors, team performance (poor for most of the season) and channel availability. Lew Wolff pointed to the lucrative dealed ink with Comcast as a source of financial stability. Both parties must have known about a possible drop in viewership and Comcast more or less subsidized the move, as it wants to beef up CSNCA in order to push other non-Comcast cable operators like Charter to add it into their systems. Comcast would then get subscriber fees from a competitor. The cable giant has been on a content grab over the last several years, potentially culminating in an acquisition of NBC-Universal (at least one game theory expert thinks it's going to happen). Comcast already has stakes in 11 regional sports networks including the aforementioned CSNBA/CSNCA, plus Versus, The Golf Channel, and an equity share of MLB Network. A merger with NBCU would give Comcast unprecedented control over content availability. Never mind that NBC has languished in last place among the four major networks for years. Content is king, and with content Comcast gets major leverage.

So if you're thinking that the A's are but a mere pawn in a much larger game, well yes they are. Comcast is in a position to seriously challenge ESPN and its networks, which bring in the heftiest subscriber fees thanks to bundling. Team performance notwithstanding, the A's need Comcast to win its battles for greater carriage. For most of you, it'll be difficult to root for a company like Comcast that's so often anti-consumer. Just don't think about it for now, and dream about IPTV being the technology that, once mature, will bring down the ridiculously archaic barriers (such as blackouts) that we deal with now.

San Jose expresses interest in Sac Kings

In its quest to attract additional sports franchises to town, San Jose leaders revealed that they are pursuing a NBA team, probably the Sacramento Kings. They're far enough along to admit that they may soon have a MOU (memorandum of understanding) to guide future machinations, just as they've done regarding the A's.

As we all know, the Kings play in what has historically been a very good, loyal market for them. Only in recent years, with ARCO Arena aging noticeably and the talent level on the Kings dropping precipitously (Beno Udrih? Seriously?), has that support dropped. Political efforts to get an arena built anywhere in the area have largely failed, with the only real hope now being the Cal Expo project - which still has no developer willing to bankroll it and won't have one for years. As loud and intimate as ARCO is, it's hopelessly outdated compared to its newer peers and no amount of refurbishing is going to make up for the simple fact that it's not big enough anymore.

What would it take to bring the Kings from the Sacramento Valley to the Silicon Valley? Let's make a list.

• Territorial "rights" - Like the Giants grip on Santa Clara County, the Warriors have control over a 75-mile radius from Oakland, which San Jose obviously falls within. Sacramento does too - just barely - but the team was grandfathered in, making the current location a non-factor. While there is very little competition for customers between the two teams as they are currently situated, a San Jose relocation would immediately create significant competition between the two teams in the Bay Area market. It would be on San Jose and the Kings to somehow prove that a two-NBA team market could be successful. There are only two such markets in existence now: New York and Los Angeles. As large as they are, they have not proven to be great successes. The Nets play in the dated, uninspiring Meadowlands, and may prove successful if their incoming ownership can actually get the Brooklyn arena built. The Clippers are the poster child for owner negligence, making money for Donald Sterling but rarely selling out unless it's for the Lakers (who treat the two scheduled games as two extra home games).
  
• Improvements to HP Pavilion - In the past, I mentioned the improvement to Ford Center in Oklahoma City as a measuring stick. That may be overstating things a bit, as OKC chose to sort of "half-bake" the arena until a team committed. Once the Sonics made the announcement, OKC put in $121 million in luxury and technology improvements. That wouldn't be the case in San Jose, which has excellent club areas and plenty of suites that may only need a little spiffing up. Structurally, it's a different story. The lower seating bowl will need to be partly ripped out and rebuilt to properly accommodate basketball sight lines. LA's Staples Center, Portland's Rose Garden, and DC's Verizon Center all have dual-rise seating which makes the transition from hockey to basketball easy for staff and fans. With as many events as the arena puts on every year, this is an imperative. The deal would also have to include some number of so-called "bunker suites," groups of courtside seats with quick access to no-view suites under the lower bowl. Additionally, some of the newer arenas have also included small club lounges at event level. All of those things take up space and I'm not even including new locker rooms and other team facilities for the Kings. HP Pavilion has a very tight footprint, I don't know where where all of that stuff will go. My guess is that should they try to get all of these items addressed, it would take $100 million - all of it public funds, which would bring on a referendum. We're talking David Stern, folks. He twisted the knife in Seattle, he made demands of OKC, he'll look for a pound of flesh in SJ too.
  
• New practice facility - The Kings have been using a $9.1 million practice facility jointly with the WNBA Monarchs since 2000. A new one would have to be found somewhere in the Valley, though that shouldn't be too difficult. I suspect the Maloofs won't be happy moving into a typical Class A office building meant for a tech company - that's just not their style. Still, sites for a practice facility are plentiful especially in North San Jose. In fact, I think some other local sports team may have some extra undeveloped land that would work well for this purpose. Cost: $10 million.
  

So that's $110 million coming from somewhere plus whatever compensation for the Warriors has to be whipped up. I have concerns that this talk will conflate with dealings regarding the A's, making efforts to bring either team down more difficult. There's also the internal ownership question: How much are the Maloofs willing to sell of the team to make this happen? Surely they aren't looking to give away controlling interest. They love owning the team way too much even in lean times. On the flip side, there is one fringe benefit. The Monarchs would likely move to San Jose as well, and this area is a much better natural fit for a WNBA franchise given the legacy of support for women's hoops in the area (Stanford, SJ Lasers).

Taking the 50,000-foot view, it appears that any of the obstacles described above are equally likely to trip up any deal to bring the Kings to San Jose. At this point, whatever the chances are of bringing the A's south, the prospects for doing the same for the Kings have to be somewhat less promising.

What about Bobb?

Over at the East Bay Express, Robert Gammon reports that former Oakland City Administrator Robert Bobb will not seek the Oakland mayoral job, as he's looking to extend his gig as the emergency financial manager for the troubled Detroit Public Schools system. However, Bobb may not be as clearly off limits as he appears to be.

Bobb's carved out a little fiefdom for himself in Detroit, and an extension to his contract - which ends in March - may be what he needs to stay in Detroit. He and the DPS board have engaged in a power struggle for weeks over Bobb's hiring authority and seemingly absolute power. The two parties are expected to iron out their differences via a mediator next month.

That's not to say Bobb has only gained enemies. In August, he went door to door with Bill Cosby to promote Detroit schools and convince parents to bring their kids back to the public school system.

November's election may more fully determine Bobb's fate. He's pushing a bond measure called "Proposal S," which would provide construction bonds to rebuild Detroit's many aging schools. Today there was an interesting exchange between Bobb and the Detroit City Council:

But Councilwoman Joann Watson pressed Bobb, saying she was on a similar panel for the 1994 bond and members' input was "thrown out when they started to steal the money."

She said the state should be held accountable for today's deficit that accumulated during the state takeover, saying "they should be sent an invoice."

Councilwoman Barbara Rose Collins agreed, but said the city would be foolish not to pass the bond, dubbed Proposal S, because it is tied to federal stimulus money. She said Bobb needs to say whether he will stay on to oversee the construction bond.

"The community needs assurances you can finish what you started," she said.

"I will definitely be here until March 2," Bobb said.

Gone? Not so fast, my friends. We can connect the dots and see that if Proposal S passes and he can maintain his authority at DPS, he'll have little reason to leave. He has the backing of Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (who happens to be a Bay Area native). Then again, what if Proposal S doesn't pass? He's left himself a convenient out. He could easily get a new residence in Oakland early next year while continuing to do his DPS job, allowing him to beat the election filing deadline.

In other news... (End of 2009 season edition)

While the Yanks and visitors have set a team record for home runs hit in the Bronx, they have cooled off from their record-setting pace earlier in the season. As of this morning, New Yankee Stadium finished the season with 237 HR (2.93 HR/game). That's far from the 303 HR hit at Coors Field in 1999. The NY Daily News has some explanations for the dropoff, from wind changes to scared opposing pitchers going away from left-handed Yankee batters. Still, NYS hit a consistency record of sorts, being the first MLB stadium ever to have recorded at least 1 homer in 80 of 81 home dates. Attendance-wise, NYS was down 13 percent from its predecessor, averaging 45,918 per game (3.7 million for the season). New Yankee Stadium will also hold a FBS bowl game in 2010, featuring teams from the Big 12 and Big East (my extremely premature guess: West Virginia vs. Iowa State).

The Twins are only 6 months from the opening in Target Field. One of the finishing touches is a new HDTV screen deal with electronics retailer Best Buy, which happens to be a Minnesota-based company like Target. The deal will furnish the ballpark with 625 flat panel sets, including 400 of Best Buy's own Insignia brand. It's the first time in history I can think of such a deal occurring. Normally stadium operators partner directly with technology providers such as Sony, Panasonic, or Mitsubishi. In Target Field's case, much of the tech is being sourced locally or regionally. Scoreboards are being provided by heavyweight Daktronics, a firm only 4 hours away in Brookings, SD.

As speculated earlier, the Giants' AA franchise in Norwich, CT is moving to Richmond, VA. Why? Population. Richmond has a greater population base to draw from than Norwich, which is in a sort of no-man's land between the greater Hartford area (which has a team in New Britain) and Providence, RI (which has a AAA team in Pawtucket). Now Norwich is stuck with a fairly new (1995) stadium that's gone through $1 million in renovations over the past few years. The city's best chance to lure another team lies in hoping that some team in the short-season NY-Penn League has a wandering eye. You may recall that Richmond lost the AAA Braves to the Atlanta suburbs last year.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the passing of Tiger Stadium. After a lengthy legal battle to preserve and perhaps reuse parts the old girl, all that remained of her as of a week ago was this:

A few days after that picture (Detroit Free Press) was taken, that last section was also torn down. Goodbye, old friend.

A San Jose Manifesto

Since the Earthquakes stadium renderings were released, many on this blog and elsewhere have asked how the fates of the Quakes and A's are intertwined. They've asked if juggling two teams and two potential stadium deals - in the same city no less - makes things needlessly complicated. They've also asked if focusing on soccer even on a peripheral basis takes the focus off baseball. Such questions about motivation will persist for some time to come, and won't cease until shovels hit dirt.

That brings me back to Mayor Reed's ending quote from last week's press conference:

"I'd like to thank Lew Wolff and the A's. It's Lew's vision that makes it possible for us to build a ballpark in San Jose."

I was then, and remain now, thoroughly shocked. Not shocked about the quote, as I figured it was coming sooner or later. I am shocked that it elicited zero response in the comments. The past six months, there's been a lot of back-and-forth about what Wolff has been doing in San Jose, about what the nature of discussions are. I've heard outright denial that Wolff wants to move the A's to San Jose, that the MLB panel will somehow ride to Oakland's rescue, which given recent history is myopic to the extreme.

That quote above tells you everything you need to know. I shouldn't have to spell it out. It's Lew's vision that brought the Quakes back, that tantalizes Quakes fans in that he may finally cure their scarred, oft-broken, oft-ignored hearts (they're not fully healed yet). It's Lew's vision that may finally quell all of the talk of uncertainty regarding the A's and their future. It's Lew's vision that may cement his legacy in San Jose, in the Bay Area, in California.

However, this is California after all. We don't impress easily. One way or another, we force our sports teams to earn our praise and patronage (except for the Warriors I suppose). When it comes to stadium building, everyone here is a full-on bandwagoner. We're skeptical to the nth degree, and rightfully so. As a result, we collectively aren't easily swayed by nice sketches and renderings. Pols know better than to propose any publicly-financed facilities, no matter how nice they look in ads or how well they're pitched in interviews. We innovate here. We propel the world. We want results because expect no less of ourselves. It's how we survive. It's how we thrive.

It's with that mindset that I have to concur with Center Line Soccer's Jay Hipps, who argues that despite the crappy economy and limp sponsorship numbers, the Quakes should plow ahead and build their stadium. I'll take it a step further though. Not only do I think that it's necessary for the Quakes, I also think it's imperative for the A's.

We talk here endlessly about attendance, population densities, and transit availability. All that stuff makes for nice presentation slides and lengthy reports, but it's mostly academic. The thing that really matters is, as always, political will. Political will and political capital go hand-in-hand. Wolff can reach out to non-profits to get little boosts here and there, as he did in Fremont. All of those efforts combined don't hold a candle to the value of getting the Quakes stadium built. Just as with San Jose Arena (publicly built), the actual building and opening of a new facility creates a veritable supernova of political capital.

With political capital comes momentum, which will come in handy during an election cycle. Momentum doesn't just come from great ideas. Momentum comes from the execution of great ideas. An inexpensive soccer-specific stadium is a great idea, even if it's value engineered to death. It's the responsible way to move forward, and can show the citizens of San Jose that someone around here can get things done responsibly. That's important because so many aren't familiar with Wolff's development history from 30 years ago. Half the people that live in the Valley are transplants. Some are from the Midwest and East Coast, others are from across a border or an ocean. They may be completely on board with a ballpark, but they want to want to see that train moving. They may need to feel that it will leave the station without them.

Wolff talks a lot about the pain that comes with the process, about how it's an industry unto itself. The process isn't as much the killer as the inertia the process creates. If ownership thinks the numbers can work given time, then inertia is the real enemy here. That's not to discount the steady, methodical groundwork that's been laid over the last several years. It's simply no longer the time to be methodical. It's time to be decisive. It's time to break that inertia. It's time to build. In fact, to paraphrase Ernie Banks, "Let's build two."

SJ makes Redev cuts, Ballpark funds safe

Long awaited but expected cuts hit San Jose as it decided to lay off 24 people of its 109-person Redevelopment Agency staff. The cuts are part of the state's raid on redevelopment funds, San Jose's take was $88 million ($62 million this year, $13 million next year, $13 million from last year).

However, there is some good news:

The state raid will not derail some of the agency's highest-profile efforts, Mavrogenes said. Land acquisitions for a proposed ballpark near the Diridon train station to lure Major League Baseball's A's is to come from land sale proceeds, a separate money pot that Mavrogenes said will not be affected by the state's move.

And the agency is contractually obligated to follow through on other pending projects, including the downtown "urban market" at San Pedro Square.

But projects still in development are likely to be delayed indefinitely, most notably the $350 million expansion of the aging McEnery Convention Center.

City has been using the practice of "land banking" for decades now, making its Redevelopment Agency one of the largest in the country. Land banking is used for development opportunities, many of them controversial. Results have been mixed at best. For every Adobe headquarters or San Jose Arena, there's the failed Tropicana Shopping Center project or the Pavilion downtown shopping mall (not related to the arena). As the Diridon area transforms, SJRA is getting ready to buy up most if not all of the land in the area for the transformation.

Diridon: The Vision

Earlier today I had a chance to speak with Andrew Watkins, a candidate for the Master’s of Architecture in Urban Design at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design. During the spring, he worked on HUGSD's contribution in shaping the future of the Diridon Station area. He even posted his team's renderings on his own web site, renderings that eventually made it to the Skyscraper City forum. Before reading on, head over to Watkins' site project page to look at the images.

I asked about the process used during the study. Watkins said that students partnered up, with each time coming up with their own unique vision for the area. The coming high speed rail project serves as the main impetus, with additional emphasis on natural features in the area such as Guadalupe River and Los Gatos Creek, public spaces, housing and retail, and of course, the ballpark.

Here's some of the Q&A:

• Were the students given individual pieces and the whole stitched together, or was it a competitive vision situation? Groups of 2 created each concept. Each team had their own concept. HSR was main impetus... There was no filtering on concepts.
  
• Would you say this more of an exercise master planning exercise than in architecture? We're all architecture students, but yes, I'd say this was more about master planning.
• How much of a focus was there on connecting with downtown proper? Everyone was cognizant of the downtown area. At the same time there weren't any proposals that altered (existing) structure.
• Was there a frequent exchange of info with City/Redev? They were good about answering questions, especially the first month. We also made a site visit to San Jose.
• I particularly liked the bi-level circulation plan. How did that come about? It was necessitated by multilevel infrastructure. BART's underground, HSR and trains above ground, buses at ground level. There's a need to make connections with all four levels. We don't want to have a bunch of hidden ramps and stairs.
  

It's Watkins' hope that all of the submissions will be published soon. Apparently the City's budget woes have forced that to be delayed somewhat. As City has another Good Neighbor meeting tomorrow night (PDF), it wouldn't hurt to have these drawings and renderings available to help citizens better visualize the possibilities in the area (no, I don't expect that to happen until some months from now).

Looking at the image at the top and other renderings, I'm somewhat reminded of Embarcadero Center in San Francisco. That too has bi-level circulation, with the complex spread over several blocks and traffic running through it. In this case, high-rise offices would be replaced by midrise housing, parking, and retail/commercial.

I didn't ask much about the ballpark, because information I had received elsewhere indicated that the group didn't receive much about a future ballpark other than already publicly available information. So the stuff you may have questions about - such as the parking garage on the fire training site or the missing power substation in the image above - aren't addressed. City has already acknowledged that the parking garage on the fire training site isn't necessary, and that the substation will likely be reconfigured instead of moved.

Questions or comments? Fire away.

LA NFL stadium opponents agree to settle

It looks like this...

... is a few steps closer to happening.

The AP is reporting that the City of Walnut, a neighbor of the possible new stadium site in Industry, has chosen to settle with billionaire Ed Roski and his development arm Majestic Realty instead of pursuing further legal action against the stadium. Terms were not disclosed.

Walnut City Council's 3-1 decision comes two weeks after legislation written to help the Chargers move to the LA Basin was shelved. With the latest legal hurdles cleared, the path is much clearer for some team to move. I won't rehash the candidates again, as last year's post is still relevant.

The Bolts have a head start on all other teams (including the Raiders). They've been actively expanding marketing throughout SoCal, even hiring Wasserman Media Group to help. WMG head Casey Wasserman (himself a former Arena League team owner) believes that LA should have a team, though it may be best situated in Downtown LA, not Industry.

Wasserman even said on a recent Bill Simmons podcast (thanks MP) that there's a fairly straightforward way for NFL to work in LA again, though it would presumably preclude a move by another team. In essence, the league would rally the owners together to build a new LA stadium under the guise of it being one of the rotating Super Bowl venues. Then the NFL would grant an expansion franchise and some piece of the stadium to the highest bidder, allowing the owners to recoup the development costs. If this sounds familiar, it is - it's the Cleveland Browns plan.

Of course, having an Ed Roski-led stadium effort goes against such a plan and falls in line with a much more traditional, and as of this moment more concrete, "lure-em" model. Whatever happens over the next year, it promises to be good theater. For now, vote on which franchise (if any) you think is most likely to move to LA given the opportunity.

Clarification on Kings/Sharks on CSNCA

When the Sharks-CSNCA carriage agreement was announced last week, I fired off an email to CSNCA to ask what would happen in case of scheduling conflicts. Here's the response:

Thank you for your email regarding the Kings and Sharks on Comcast SportsNet California. Your assumption about our telecasts in the Sacramento area are correct. When the Kings and Sharks games overlap we will move the sharks to the Plus Ch. If the Kings game concludes we will then join the Sharks in progress.

In the bay area the Sharks will appear on our main Ch. due to NBA blackout restrictions.

Thank you,

Richard Leeson
Director of Programming
Comcast SportsNet California

A similar arrangement will be needed in the spring when the A's season begins. We're a few months off from any schedule finalization there.

The Silly Stadium Sharing Situation

There seems to be a bit of confusion about Quakes' stadium story. A Merc article covering Saturday's dinner notes at the end the "long shot" possibility of the A's and Quakes sharing a stadium. It doesn't say where, when, or how, but it's a nice piece of FUD to let hang in the air.

From a practical standpoint, it could make some sense. After all, it should be cheaper to build one stadium instead of two, right? Except it isn't in this case. The tab for the Quakes' much simpler home is estimated to be one-tenth that of the A's ballpark. Come in that cheap, and the supposed efficiencies gained by consolidation are outweighed by other issues.

To illustrate this, I took my ballpark model and laid down a soccer field on top of it. Below is just the lower level. Capacity of the lower level alone is 17,000+.

As you can see, the field itself is a snug fit from corner to corner. A Mount Davis-like set of temporary seating sections (in yellow) would be used from time to time. As would be expected, those sections would tear up the grass like nobody's business. The worst part? The Quakes' season runs concurrent with the A's, so you'd see this all season long. The seats are necessary because if they weren't there all you'd have is a massive gap all the way to the wall, yet that area is a prime seating area for soccer.

In addition, seats down the baseball right field line are angled back towards the infield instead of along the sideline. Those seats would at best have suboptimal views, at worst have obstructed views. Soccer is unlike baseball in that there's no focal point for most of the game, as there is within the 60'6" between the pitching rubber and the plate. Action can occur anywhere on a soccer pitch, and in the case of a routine corner kick or throw-in, it can be generated from the edges. Soccer stadia are designed for all seats to have complete views of the field, a practice that is immediately violated when a regulation field is placed in a baseball stadium.

The upper deck (above) isn't so compromised, mostly because it's further removed from the action. In the previous image, the temporary yellow seats were there. Use of those seats would preclude the use of baseball bleacher seats. Still, the total stadium capacity would be over 31,000, which at this point is too big for MLS.

Going back to the field, think about the logistical problems. MLS teams typically play twice a week, 30 regular season matches per year plus various "friendlies." That translates to about 17 home dates. Assuming that home dates are bunched together and timed to miss A's homestands, there would still be at least eight switchovers per year. Let's say that somehow the $250,000 cost to do the same job at the Coliseum could be cut in half, it would still cost $1 million per year. Project that out for 25 years and index for inflation. And it would still leave the players from both sports hating the field. Practical? Hardly.

Quakes fans now have something to dream about

At the Soccer Silicon Valley Foundation's second annual dinner, Lew Wolff and the Quakes revealed new conceptual images and a fly-in video of the future stadium. If you haven't been following this, here's a quick refresher:

• Location: Airport West property between SJC and SCU, near Lowe's
  
• Size: 15,000 plus berm and plaza space to approach 20,000 total
• Design: Horseshoe soccer-specific stadium, oriented northeast-to-southwest
  
• Architect: 360 Architecture
• Roof: Covers roughly half of seating area, with lights tucked underneath
  
• Video board: Two-sided, like Cisco Field concept
• Transit availability: Caltrain, future BART station
• Projected opening: ~2012
• Cost: $40-60 million
  

The design is distinctly European in flavor, as it trades in a top-mounted deck of luxury suites for three rows of premium (club) seats along the pitch/field. By all accounts, the field itself will be slightly sunken from ground level. A single concourse under the main seating serves all. The U-shape is meant to contain noise and if anything direct noise out towards the airport, which is a good idea.

It's possible that the main seating bowl will be all steel, which takes a page from Stanford Stadium. That should make the stadium less expensive to build and noisier to boot. Next up is the fly-in video.

Don't get used to having "Earthquakes" on the roof. Once a naming rights sponsor is secured, you'll see the sponsor's name there.


The big takeaway from this is that the Quakes finally have something tangible in the stadium realm to sell to fans and potential sponsors. It's been a long time coming, and hopefully getting the necessary funding won't be such an uphill battle anymore.

I'll end this post with video of Wolff at the event last night. He pretty much covered everything in this post.

Comcast moves Sharks to power play line

As expected, the Sharks have officially moved from CSN Bay Area to CSN California. The main reason given is that the Sharks will now have more room to air games and related programming without the congestion that was choking CSNBA the last several years. This is especially important from the HD delivery perspective, as the "Plus" channels meant to carry additional programming aren't in HD.

Beneath the surface, the real motivation by Comcast is to conjure enough demand to force the other cable systems (Charter, Suddenlink) to carry CSNCA throughout the rest of Northern and Central California. The Sharks are asking shocked and angry consumers to call their cable systems to request the channel. We've seen this movie before, and we know how it usually ends.

While two networks will have their schedules freed up, there remain a few chances for conflicts. I studied the recently released, tentative 2010 A's schedule, and compared it to the Kings' and Sharks' schedules. Here's what I found:

• 10/1/09 - Sharks @ Avs, Opening Night, 7 p.m. on Versus against A's @ M's, 7:10 p.m. on CSNCA. No conflict.
  
• 10/3/09 - A's-Angels @ 1:05, Sharks-Kings @ 7:30. No conflict.
• 4/6/10 - A's-M's TBD (7:05), Sharks-Flames @ 6:30, Spurs-Kings @ 7:00. Use of the Plus channel will be required.
• 4/8/10 - A's-M's TBD (12:35), Canucks-Sharks @ 7:30 on CSNCA-HD, Clippers-Kings @ 7:00. Probably no A's conflict.
• 4/10/10 - A's-Angels TBD, Coyotes-Sharks @ 7:30 on CSNCA-Plus, Mavs-Kings @ 7:00. If the Angels choose to make this one of their Saturday evening games, there will be a conflict. If it's a day game, it'll be blacked out because of Fox Saturday exclusivity.
  
• 4/12/10 - A's-M's TBD (7:05), Rockets-Kings @ 7:00. Use of the Plus channel will be required.
• 4/13/10 - A's-M's TBD (7:05), Kings-Lakers @ 7:30. Use of the Plus channel may be required if Kings game is not carried nationally.
  

Complicating things a bit is the fact that the Kings have not yet announced their broadcast schedule. It's possible that some games may be carried by their OTA affiliate, if they have one this season.

Subsidies and Realities

In light of the Merc article containing economist feedback on the economic impact report, there's been a small amount of blowback from San Jose and other media. While I haven't trumpeted or killed the report critically, I feel that it has enough realism and conservatism baked in to pass muster with the public.

During the City Council session yesterday, there were some comments about omissions in the report. Some of the unknowns:

• How much parking will be built on site and how much will it cost? Will the City foot some/all of the bill?
• What is the fiscal impact of sales of construction materials for the ballpark?
• No mention is made of land lease terms, or the cost of additional land acquisition.
  

It's been understood for some time that new infrastructure in the area, including parking, will be for the benefit of the transit hub and the downtown community as well as the ballpark and arena. Future demands are too great to have exclusivity, especially for a parking garage.

In the report, the alternative development plan involves a new corporate campus, or up to 1 million square feet of mostly office and some retail. The space is expected to be built out over two-plus decades, with the final space available in 2038. That's a major departure from a ballpark, which would be completely open in 2014. Height restrictions prevent buildings of 20 stories or more, so the chances of building anything as architecturally iconic as a ballpark are slim. You need not look further than the Adobe headquarters for proof:

The only thing memorable about the HOK-designed complex is the art installation on the north exterior, otherwise known as the San Jose Semaphore project.

Speaking of Adobe, they didn't exactly start out in San Jose. Originally a Mountain View-based company, Adobe was lured downtown with a $33 million subsidy and favorable lease terms. Most of the land in the picture above is owned by SJ Redevelopment, not Adobe. In hindsight, it's proven to be a good deal because as of this moment, Adobe is the only Fortune 1000 company located downtown. In the past few years, several companies have left, leaving a massive vacancy rate in their wake. Knight-Ridder was acquired by MediaNews, with the Bay Area papers absorbed by BANG. Power producer Calpine emerged from bankruptcy and promptly moved to Houston. Even new deals were sunk, as City tried for years to bring middleware maker BEA down from the northside, only to have Oracle acquire them after the deal was consummated. The target building, Sobrato Tower, remains vacant as City tries to find a tenant yet again. Finally, Adobe bought the old San Jose Water Company site, but there's no telling if/when anything will be built there.

To better illustrate downtown's plight, here's a map showing where the city's six Fortune 1000 companies reside in blue, along with a red/black square denoting the ballpark site's location:

These companies have little incentive to move. They have full control over their parking, are just as close if not closer to where their employees live as downtown, and for the most part don't need downtown amenities, such as they are. It also doesn't hurt that for the companies that have large, long-held real estate portfolios, they also have Prop 13 on their side. It wasn't that long ago that much of north and south San Jose was cheap farmland, ready to shape however the developer saw fit.

Faced with this un-downtown-like reality, it's no wonder why SJRA projects all the way to 2038 for office space. Downtown will always have smaller businesses, law firms, and media companies there. There's nothing wrong with pursuing more large corporations, but city fathers should also understand that there are other ways to enhance downtown. A ballpark is Exhibit A in doing just that.

To that end, they're focusing on this hub concept, for both transit and entertainment. Retail went with Santana Row and a series of expansions to Valley Fair, so the best things left are transit (coming with BART and HSR) and entertainment (sports, arts). As mixed up and broad as their vision for downtown has been for the last 20 years, it's good to see it coalesce around a more focused set of objectives.

Mayor(s) Press Conference

Mayor Chuck Reed introduces former mayor Susan Hammer, who speaks in support. Next up, County Assessor Larry Stone.
City Council meeting is next and will take up the economic impact report.

SVLG head Carl Guardino announced that SVLG officially supports the move.

Reed's last quote:

"I'd like to thank Lew Wolff and the A's. It's Lew's vision that makes it possible for us to build a ballpark in San Jose."

Mark Purdy is headed inside to talk to some of the featured speakers.

1:45 - Council hearing Econ impact report now.

2:25 - Council unanimously approved report.

Mayor Reed Press Conference Tuesday @ 1 pm

For those who are wondering where all the South Bay community leaders are regarding the San Jose ballpark project, they'll be at City Hall tomorrow at 1 p.m. for Mayor Chuck Reed's press conference. Reed will undoubtedly tout the revenue and growth potential cited by the week-old economic impact report. Here's the press release:

Mayor Reed to Discuss Economic Benefits of a Proposed Major League Ballpark in San Jose

Event:
This Tuesday, Mayor Reed will host a press conference to discuss the findings of an Economic Impact Analysis for a Proposed Major League Ballpark, and highlight the estimated General Fund tax revenue and job generation benefits that the City and other local agencies stand to gain. Key baseball supporters, business leaders and labor representatives will be available for interviews. Following the press conference, the San Jose City Council is expected to accept the economic impact report at the Council Meeting.

When:
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

Where:
San Jose City Hall, Wing Room 120
200 E. Santa Clara Street, San Jose, CA 95113

Who:
Mayor Chuck Reed
Former Mayor Susan Hammer, Pro Baseball San Jose
Larry Stone, Santa Clara County Assessor
Pat Dando, President & CEO, San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Neil Struthers, Chief Executive Officer, Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building Trades Council
Carl Guardino, President & CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Michael Mulcahy, business leader, Pro Baseball San Jose

Other prominent community leaders and supporters of Major League Baseball will also be in attendance.


Background:
In May, the San Jose City Council unanimously approved Negotiating Principles for a proposed Major League Ballpark in downtown San Jose. These included requirements that construction and operation of a stadium be privately financed, and that the proposed project have a positive impact on the City’s General Fund. An Economic Impact Report released earlier this month found that the proposed ballpark could annually generate $1.5 million for the City of San Jose, $1.5 million for the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, as well as $2 million for Santa Clara County and other local agencies. The report also estimated that a stadium would generate 350 new construction jobs (annually for three years) and 980 net new jobs as well.


Interviews:
Mayor Reed, event speakers and other civic leaders will be available for one-on-one interviews immediately following the event.

I think I'll be scheduling a late lunch to cover the event myself.

Liveblog from Visioning Workshop

Large group at San Jose's Parkside Hall B to discuss the Diridon Station & Ballpark plan. It's a workshop, which means that lots of reps from City, transit, and consultants are all over the place to answer questions. Updates will be posted here as they come.

1:20 pm - No real ballpark news. This was a community event to get area residents to provide feedback on how the surrounding area should be developed.

2:10 pm - The next workshop, which will be focused and land use and transit, is scheduled for sometime in late January. That will be important simply because it will introduce something that hasn't really been discussed (even during this workshop), phasing. Consider the timeline for all of the construction work being projected to this point:

• 2011-13 - Realignment of Montgomery/Autumn Streets to Autumn Parkway.
  
• 2011-14 - Ballpark is constructed, plus Caltrain electrification.
• 2015-20 - High speed rail, including expanded Diridon Station.
  
• 2020-25 - Downtown segment of BART extension.
  

That's a really lengthy development time, plenty to get different objectives accomplished but also difficult to understand the timing of various pieces. How long will much of the immediate area be gigantic holes in the ground? Does the city work on the greenscape first or parking infrastructure? Can they be done simultaneously? Of course, there's the lingering question of how much parking should go there, which didn't get addressed at the workshop. There will be plenty of battles about how much housing if any should be there, alternatives to a ballpark, public art, and ways to better connect the station area to downtown. Everyone's playing nice now, but several garden-variety development battles are promised - and that's even after the long-awaited ballpark EIR is certified.