One Possible Future Revealed

As we all know, too well, at this point in time there is no real guarantee as to where the A’s will play their home games in the not too distant future. We all have opinions, we handicap the race, we rationalize away opposing views, etc. So for this post, let’s all take our  “bookmaking” hats off and just envision what it would be like to sit in the stadium that has been rendered…

If it helps, just imagine it is at Jack London Square. We start with my favorite image…

Pictures Courtesy of probaseballforsanjose.com

Ignoring the question of “where,” two things seem to be on folks mind’s when thinking about this rendering of a new A’s stadium. Will it be a hitter, or pitcher, friendly stadium? And what the heck is that thing in Right Field?

Let’s start with the dimensions. From Left to Right, 309 LF Line, 375 LF Power Alley, 405 CF, 345 RF Alley, 300 RF Line (this number comes from a different picture). These dimensions, combined with the scarce foul ground, make me think it is safe to say that this park would be rather attractive to hitters. A few things we can’t really tell from the image above would be important in determining how friendly. Really, the most important thing we can’t necessarily tell is the height of the fences. Clearly, Left Field is lower than the rest. If I were to guess I would say that Center and Right Fields (minus the thing in Right Field) are 12-15 feet high. If these dimensions are really what will be in play, I hope it is 15 feet, or higher. Otherwise, there are gonna be A LOT of fly balls in the right field gap, that wouldn’t normally hit a warning track anywhere else, that are landing a few rows deep. Even then, those fly balls will probably be doubles instead of fly outs. I’m not sure how I feel about that.

After years of watching “Coliseum regulated offensive production” it might be nice to see some guys hit 50 HR’s on occasion. I mean, imagine if Eric Chavez played his pre-2006 career in this stadium. Holy cow he would have been a monster. Jason Giambi in 2000 could have over 50 HR’s in this place. The downside? Barry Zito wouldn’t have won a Cy Young. Well, this is all clearly meandering false revisionist history that can’t really be proven. But wait! Another picture:

That Thing in Right Field is kind of awkward. There. I said it. But it also has freaking huge potential. Looking at this image, three things jump out at me. The yellow line running up the brick portion of the wall. The concept of mini/convertible suites. The unfinished look to the architecture.

I may be legally blind, but even I can see that the distance to the corner appears to read “300.” The yellow line, about 45 feet in from the foul line and coinciding with the Crawford Box like seats in Right Center, that runs up the thing and kind of disappears about half way up drips with possibility. I imagine the HR line would run along the top of the brick line, it looks to be about 25 feet high, and allows for fans to sit just about in the field of play. 300 feet seems a bit short, no? Without a doubt it appears to be something below 310 feet, so it will require MLB approval. But this short distance offers opportunity in the form of premium seating.

The Thing in Right Field appears to be made up of suites. In the original Fremont design, the park had customizable minisuites. These appear to be the same concept, small configurable suites. The lower level, those covered with brick and in play, could easily be a larger version of the Virgin America Loft (pictures start on slide 6 in the link) over at AT&T Park. Everything above the line would be suites, customizable for groups from 4 to 16. It reminds me of many football stadiums I have been too, with the row of suites all on one side of the field, in a stacked formation.

The last thing, of course, is the stark look to The Thing in Right Field. It leaves a lot to the imagination. Don’t get me wrong, if it looks exactly like this drawing, it will be good as is, with it’s stark, modern feel. But imagine something like the Coliseum in Rome, with it’s arched breezeways. It could fit. Spanish-Mission Style rectangular windows. They fit. I like the blank slate.

I hope no matter where a stadium ends up, it has The Thing in Right Field. Just, maybe, 320 feet from home plate. Let’s look at another angle:

This is just a cool shot. The two things I really like are the building along the Left Field line and the Upper Deck in Left.

The Upper Deck in Left reminds me of my favorite old school park, Tiger Stadium. When the A’s used to go to Detroit, in the the pre Comerica Park days, I would run home from school to be home in time to turn on KAIL TV 53 and see if anyone could hit one into the Upper Deck. I would love to sit in a real Upper Deck in the middle of the outfield. Of course, these days I wouldn’t really have reason to wonder if anyone (in Green and Gold, anyway), would hit one into the Upper Deck. But maybe someday Chris Carter?

I imagine that building along the Left Field foul line, and then wrapping around behind the stadium, is an equivalent to the area outside Fenway Park on Yawkey Way. At least, it is envisioned as such, only bigger. With a High Speed Rail station somewhere nearby, it isn’t hard to see the vision: A transit hub/plaza/retail district that sits in between HP Pavillion and Cisco Field. It is a grand vision.

Is this vision be become reality? We all await your direction, Bud.

60 thoughts on “One Possible Future Revealed

  1. ML,

    I really am starting to like the asymetry and curve of the park. What do you think of the cut away of the building behind the LF grandstands? It seems to overlook montgomery.

  2. Personally really like the right field wall- sweeping curve to match the Parkway—modern day version of the “wall” in Fenway….open air—unique–the low profile of the ballpark is very cool also—like that there is not the imposing third deck—-on the building on the left field line–add more seats to the rooftop—looks like they have some but they could add even more—roof top party suite…..the “plaza” behind the centerfield wall I thought was outside of the ballpark–looks like it is fenced in though and part of the being inside–if it was outside they should put a huge flat screen on the back of the wall behind the bullpens facing out—something they had at the Fremont site that I liked—so fans/people hanging outside the ballpark could see what was going on–

    @Bay Area A’s–I believe what you are seeing is where the substation is located and rather than pay $25-$30M to move it they have choose to build around it—-

  3. i’ve said it a few times but i still like the fremont design, more simpler but with that curved in the RF, they probably couldn’t do anything but build a huge wall if the rf distance is really just over 300 ft. Sort of like Fenway with the green monster where it’s shoe horned into the design because of the site they built it on but i could see it being very similar to the the Crawford boxes in HOU where you get a lot of you could say “cheap hrs” not only down the rf line but just to rf in general. i do hope somehow they can push the walls back a little bit, like mentioned the rf line at least be 315-320 and RF be 360-365 which is the same distance currently in the power allies at the coliseum and like it’s been mentioned the walls thru out the park aren’t gonna be the standard 8-10 ft walls you see at most parks and that maybe decreases the chances of it being just too much of a ease to hit a hr towards rf.

    with clearer pics you def could see the bullpens are located beyond the cf wall. that’s something i wondered about the moment i saw the pics of the new park a couple of weekends back at bbsj but the images weren’t clear enough, well you can clearly see them now.

    lf line building probably will be very similar to what petco has with that western metal supply building where there’s gonna be a restaurants/bars located in those buildings and of course it wraps around most of the stadium other than RF where there’s probably gonna be a “party atmosphere” there with all those potential “suites”.

    def could see a a’s hof placed somewhere in one of those buildings that wraps around the park.

    hope more info is release least before that potential special election next spring. would like to know what the capacity of the park would be, hope it’s bigger than what fremont was supposed to be, think 36k-38k is just about right. it’ll be just under the capacities of pnc/target which i believe are the two smallest parks built in the past few decades so it won’t be that far away capacity wise from other parks built and it’ll still get that small intimate feel that the a’s want.

    sure hope a video will be released just as there was one for the fremont design.

  4. @ GoA’s
    The substation is west of the park correct? I’m looking at the north end of the park at what seems to be the intersection of montgomery and San Fernando. The building is 1 story/level shorter that the rest at this location giving an open view towards HP pavillion.

  5. csn just announced the ballpark and say 45k!!!!! capacity

  6. There is no way this ballpark shown is 45k—ATT is less than 45k and it has a third level–I’d say this is tops 35k–probably closer to 33k—

  7. link? did you see on tv?

    i went to their site and just saw a paragraph or two.

    i doubt that park the way it looks in those picks is any higher than 40K MAX.

  8. Saw it on tv. But my thoughts were 35k.

  9. yep saw it on csn too a few minutes ago on their midnight replay and morrison one of their on air guys who actually is an a’s fan, one of the few here locally on the station said 45k capacity although it’s probably in the 35k range.

  10. I have to say, I really dislike this design. It seems to have all the charms of a business park mixed with a minor league stadium. I feel like I could park in right field, then go to a marketing meeting in left field.

    That Thing in Right Field reminds me of the outfield at the ballpark at Arlington, minus what uniqueness that has. I mean, it’s just a stone wall. It looks like the side of an office building. Cisco Field is an appropriate name, because it would look at home on the Cisco campus.

    And I disagree on the “unfinished look.” I think it’s not minimal, just really boring. Lacking any charm, really. Seats, walkways, and not much else.

    I guess that makes it an appropriate successor to the coliseum, though. (Alternatively: I guess that makes it an appropriate ballpark for San Jose, though.)

    I like the small upper deck and the stacked seating in right field, though (just not in its current configuration.)

  11. Where are the flags?

  12. world title flags i guess could be in cf?

    beyond that cf wall in that little plaza could hold a lot of a’s history like putting up plaques or monuments of great a’s players of the past like so many teams copied from the NYY’s monument park. not to mention my thinking that that brick building beyond cf could hold the a’s hof. have that a’s history centralized in that one location of the park.

    retired #s, maybe on the facade of the 2nd deck in left field?

  13. This is the cutting edge park they’ve worked so hard on? I’m not sure I like this design. Lacks charm for sure. Does have a nice big scoreboard and that’s a good start. I hope if and when Oakland is picked, they’ll start from scratch, starting with new owners.

  14. Not sure how charm is defined—a coke bottle and a big glove—what is the charm in Fenway? Wrigley? For me charm=intimacy within the park as well as atmosphere around the park. This park and location have a ton of both—as does Fenway and Wrigley—fans are close to action—limited third deck—low profile–not a big monster structure—integrated buildings—unique structure in right field that is a modern day version of the green monster–and much more useful with the mini-suites built into it—time for BS to move and shovels to hit the ground–

  15. The most unique thing I see from a player’s perspective is sort of a super-Polo Grounds feature— when an opposing outfielder goes into the right-field well, fans will be able to spill their drinks on him from two directions. Overall, it isn’t as charming as the Fremont one but will do the job.

  16. Actually, it won’t be totally bland like those pics. They’ll be so much signage around that place, it will make your head spin. Gonna need it to pay for it and the insane out -of-control salaries for the players. Can’t forget Bud’s $14.5 mill a year stipend.

  17. These are just drawings. There’s no way to know if it’ll have “charm” until we set foot in the place. Both Fenway and Wrigley are pretty ugly in pictures, if you ask me. Personally, I think this design is the best one since the Uptown site. Love the sweeping curve of the Thing in right- that will (would) be the distinguishing feature that sets it apart from other parks. My only concerns: I know the SJ “skyline” ain’t all that, but it seems a shame to block it out completely, as the Thing appears to do. The footprint might dictate a short RF line, but why is LF only 309 ft? I see no reason why that couldn’t be lengthened 10 feet or so. I’m no climatologist, but isn’t the perfect weather of the South Bay likely to produce longer fly balls than you get in the Coli or SF? Maybe someone who knows more about that could comment. And my biggest discomfort: is it just me, or does that view down the right field line toward the Thing- where the seats end at the brick structure- kind of remind people of another Bay Area ballpark? Shorten up the brick wall a bit, put in oval arches rather than rectangular ones, and put a body of water beyond it in place of San Jose? I’m just sayin…..

  18. I have to say, I like these additional pictures we’ve been given. They’ve eliminated a few of the concerns I had about the place, like the thing in right and the foul territory (or what I had perceived as a lack there of). I think it’s got alot of charm just in those pictures as a much lower ballpark with the only small third deck and that deck being in A’s gold. I just hope it gets built. The A’s deserve something this nice to play in.

  19. I love it. It’s unique, it’s new, it’s not over done with coke-bottle type foolishness. I agree that there is huge potential with those suites in right. A few things I noticed. 1) That HR line in right and those windows “in play” are a little too gimmicky for me – I think a big “brick monster” would be cool – with a huge painted-on ad like you see on the sides of old brick buildings. A big time brick monster sponser would make up for the loss of suite reveneue. 2) That notch in right where the seats meet the wall is pretty severe. 3) It looks like there would be several obstructed view seats in the last upper deck section on the 3B line where the seats meet the building.

  20. Who or what organization released this rendering? I’m curious about the timing. I’m also curious that no one – save Comcast Sports Net – mentioned this during the news hour.

    I’ll take the “old” Coliseum – before Mt. Davis – anyday over most stadiums. It had charm, great weather, etc.

    Jim Z

  21. I wonder how preliminary these renderings are. For the sake of public presentation, it would’ve been nice to dress the ballpark up a bit (Retired #’s, championships, etc.) but no biggie.

    Things I don’t like (yet)

    1. The overall structure is very enclosed. San Jose has a pleasant skyline and backdrop.

    2. The Crawford Box-style section in RF/CF seems like they’re compromising a fair playing field for the sake fitting more seats in the place.

    3. The 2nd and 3rd tier seats in LF feel a bit pushed back. I’d like them to hug the field a bit more.

    Things I like:

    1. The level of 3rd tier gold seating. Nice touch. I’ve always though it’d be nice if the Giants gave AT&T’s 2nd/Club level orange seats. It’d add their team colors to the place and be a nice nod to Candlestick.

    2. The RF structure. I don’t like that much exposed brick, but the possibilities for decoration are very nice. Also, high bounces off the RF wall would keep the RFer and CFer very busy and plays exciting.

    3. The curved boomerang or 60’s/70’s shape to the main grandstands is nice. The neo-retro look is so commonplace now that ballparks aren’t that much unique than when Busch, Three Rivers, Riverfront, the Vet, Fulton County were around. I like how the grandstand cuts off up the LF line.

    4. The curved RF wall. HOK/Populous seems to love those straight lines and defined angles. That’s nice. I do too. But everything in moderation. Dodger Stadium, Wrigley Field and Yankee Stadium all have curved walls. Those are iconic ballparks. The curved wall with this Cisco Field serves a purpose and offsets the aesthetic in a positive way.

    So, overall I think it’s a great start. Maybe it’s the low-profile, but I see Comiskey Park with hints of Tiger Stadium and Shibe Park.

  22. 68, here’s the source.

    You’ll note Lew is holding them in his hands. Also I want his carpet.

  23. @ Dan

    A purple A’s polo? I’m not aware of any official gear like that, but it seems like a very odd thing to have custom ordered.

  24. I think it’s navy blue actually. And I’ve seen similar shirts. You can A’s polos like that in all sorts of colors, gray, navy, pink, green…

    But the carpet, that had to be custom ordered.

  25. The pro-Oakland guys aren’t big fans of the SJ renders. I’m shocked…

  26. Could someone clarify; Cisco Field (2006) would be designed by HOK/Populous and the SJ Cisco Field (2010) will be designed by 360?

  27. No. Cisco Field has always been designed by 360. Populous is not involved in the A’s new ballpark at all.

  28. The only other MLB ballpark 360 appears to have worked on is Safeco Field, though that was over a decade ago. Unless they’ve retained most of that group, this will be a new team working on Cisco Field (SJ). I’m hoping they bring a lot of fresh ideas to the table.

  29. I like the park design, but something has got to be done about those dimensions. Especially down the left field line where there appears to be more wiggle room. It doesn’t matter how nice the stadium is if baseballs are flying out of the park at such a rate that the place becomes a laughing stock. The Polo grounds did have short porches down the line, but center field was over 500 feet away.

  30. Are those luxury boxes just under the second deck, running from around first base up the third base line?I agree with Mark, they should remove the windows on the brick wall in the RF corner and replace them with a painted ad. I don’t like the look of those windows. Also, I’m sure umpires will love it when a fan reaches out and catches a ball which is right on that vertical yellow line. Was it a HR, or was the ball still in play?

  31. The pro SJ guys love this park. I’m shocked.
    I do love that carpet Wolff has in his office. I bet he cringes every day when he sees the name Oakland on it though. If he doesn’t want it, I’ll take it.

    • The pro SJ guys love this park. I’m shocked.I do love that carpet Wolff has in his office. I bet he cringes every day when he sees the name Oakland on it though. If he doesn’t want it, I’ll take it.

      Just for the record jk-usa, this “pro SJ guy” loved the HOK designs for the Uptown ballpark way back in the day. That would have been awesome. But alas, we all know how hard Oakland worked to make that a reality (sarcasm).

  32. I like the design (although not the location). This would be right up there among the top new stadiums.

    I’m fine with the RF line being 300, but if that’s the case, the power alley has to be average (say, 370-375) or greater to compensate. Seems you could make a RF power alley of 370 or so by taking out the seats there and just having “The Thing” be the wall until CF.

    The simple main grandstand (no “neighborhoods”, gaps, or weird angles), the double deck in left (except that the 2nd could overhang the first a little more in my book), the gold seats, and “The Thing” are all great in my book. Seems like this looks a lot like the A’s’ ancestral home, Shibe Park.

  33. I think Lew Wolff should follow Kevin the ballman’s lead and start sending foul balls to Selig.

  34. in regards to the warmer weather effecting the play? look no further than the three games in sf these past few days. how runs have been scored? how many hrs have been hit? all in 80-95 degree weather. at&t and the coliseum as we all know play a lot smaller than usual when games are being played in hot weather which you’re gonna get more of when you move out of the marine layer here in oakland/sf to down south in the south bay in sj.

    so yes i do think that playing games down in sj especially in the summer will make it an offensive friendly yard, never mind the smaller dimensions and like it’s been said, hope these are just the first preliminary sketches. i can live with a 300-310 ft down the right field line because of the “brick wall” but no reason why the lf line has to be as some have guesses, 310 ft also. rf i posted earlier, hopefully too it isn’t 345, push it back to at least over 360+ please! i’ve always been one who supported in having a pitcher’s park built and if it’s too hard to hit hrs, then pull the fences in and you can then add some seats. very similar to what det and the chisox did with their parks when they were deemed to big.

    as far as those openings or windows in the rf “thing”, wondered about that in the previous thread and somebody posted that they’d most likely be closed off like those “arches” in sf where people can watch the games for free. now if those things are really gonna be party suites, i don’t know how fans are gonna like to have a gate blocking their view of the field.

  35. in regards to the warmer weather effecting the play? look no further than the three games in sf these past few days. how runs have been scored? how many hrs have been hit? all in 80-95 degree weather. at&t and the coliseum as we all know play a lot smaller than usual when games are being played in hot weather which you’re gonna get more of when you move out of the marine layer here in oakland/sf to down south in the south bay in sj.

    so yes i do think that playing games down in sj especially in the summer will make it an offensive friendly yard, never mind the smaller dimensions and like it’s been said, hope these are just the first preliminary sketches. i can live with a 300-310 ft down the right field line because of the “brick wall” but no reason why the lf line has to be as some have guesses, 310 ft also. rf i posted earlier, hopefully too it isn’t 345, push it back to at least over 360+ please! i’ve always been one who supported in having a pitcher’s park built and if it’s too hard to hit hrs, then pull the fences in and you can then add some seats. very similar to what det and the chisox did with their parks when they were deemed to big.

    as far as those openings or windows in the rf “thing”, wondered about that in the previous thread and somebody posted that they’d most likely be closed off like those “arches” in sf where people can watch the games for free. now if those things are really gonna be party suites, i don’t know how fans are gonna like to have a gate blocking their view of the field.

  36. @Tony–I haven’t followed this site until a few months ago, so i’m not aware that the SJ guys liked Uptown or not. I did read that Jeffrey liked it. That would of been one of the coolest areas for a ballpark to be built . The area has gotten so much better with a great restaurant and night club scene. And the Fox Theater is beyond awesome. SF tore their Fox Theater down in the 60’s. I saw a documentary on it at the Paramount in Oak about 15 years ago. Painful to see a beautiful building bulldozed like that. Oakland has done well to keep a lot of their historic old building away from the wrecking ball, but did drop the ball on Uptown and the A’s. I still feel Schottmann wasn’t into it and would go the SB in a split sec if given a choice, like LW is right now. Okay, so the big ballpark village plan can’t be done in Oak, but how bout the ballpark only plan at Victory Ct. or JLS North?

  37. jk- Why can’t you just enjoy renders of a ballpark instead of crapping on it because it’s supposed to be in SJ? Bitter much?

  38. @LS–the renderings are okay. Not bad, better than the existing Coli. You know I’ve had it with these carpetbaggers for the last 15 years. It’s no coincidence that LW is ranked one of the worst owners in MLB and all of sports year after year.

  39. I actually like the RF wall. It needs to be dressed up a bit though. (Maybe some retired numbers, flags, etc.)…However I don’t like the LF and I don’t like the fact that there aren’t any LF bleachers, it leaves the park with barely any bleachers at all…If it were up to me I would remove that entire LF section, add those seats to make the decks larger behind homeplate, and replace it with a LF bleacher section. That would make more space for a view (SJ skyline, Oakland hills, waterfront, etc.)…it would also create more space for a nice standing room adjustment…I also like how the upper deck is yellow, its like a little A’s cherry on top…But I would actually prefer the outside look of the Fremont renderings, especially the entrance behind the jumbo screen…All in all, not a bad park, but I would prefer the Fremont park instead, it just seemed way more creative and electrifying…I mean look at this park!…its still the best rendering to date in my opinion.

  40. Well, I guess I’m the counter point to LeAndre. I love the LF seats. Reserved OF seating, a balcony and a verada? Awesome!

  41. anybody else see that white fence that closes off the park beyond RF to CF to the streets?

    gotta believe there is a better way of putting a barrier there to close off that open area behind CF to the general public. least put a real wall there and not some gate and if it has to be a gate, make it like what cle beyond LF and bal near the warehouse.

  42. @LeAndre–the Fremont ballpark pics were very nice. Only problem is it was in Fremont.

  43. Of all the stadium renderings I have seen, I would rank them like so:

    1. These- the more I look the more I like. This vision for San Jose is pretty ridiculously cool and there is much potential. If you can’t admit that without taking pot shots about it not being in Oakland, well… Grow up.

    2. Uptown Oakland- Robert Bobb was a visionary. Too bad no one else in Oakland City Hall, or in the A’s front office, could see the vision for how awesome it was. That area of Oakland would be light years better than it is now (and it is much improved) if that ballpark had happened. What I liked best was that it offered a true alternative to AT&T Park. A more urban area, not on the water, etc. The current “plan” in Oakland seems to be “copy AT&T Park and we will somehow bleed a bunch of casual fans away from our cosmo neighbor across the bay.” Which I think is dubious at best.

    3. Fremont- The best part for me was the center field area and the two sided video board. Oh, and it reminded me of Wrigley.

    4. Coliseum North- The whole triangle thing as a seating section in Left Field was not really up my alley. Plus the vision for the rest of the village wasn’t as cool as the one in Fremont. Granted, that was because it was on about a third of the footprint.

    I am looking forward to maybe getting to do another post like this with some vision for Victory Court.

  44. Does anybody else see Ebbets field in that first picture?

  45. I like it, except for the LF corner (302 feet – really?) and RCF (345 feet, really?). The prevailing winds in the late afternoon/early evening are typically out of the west to northwest, which, if my bearings are correct, would be across from LF to RF. Putting a short porch in the downwind direction of the prevailing winds seems to be less than smart to me (I am ignoring any effects of the building on the air flow patterns).

    One thing to note is the name of the street that fronts Diridon Station a block away from the field. Get it built, and sign Trevor to a long-term contract, Billy.

  46. 1-already have made my feelings known on the sj design.

    2-yep the uptown site was my favorite site in oakland, howard terminal was 2nd and if i remember right it was the fav or hoffman the “silent” owner of the a’s but we saw how that ended. although the howard terminal site would’ve cost a lot more to build because of relocation of the port materials. uptown is decent but it could’ve been a WHOLE lot better had a stadium been there and attracting tens of thousands of people to downtown oakland 81 times a year not including all the concerts and events that could’ve been held at a downtown park.

    3-fremont is my by far fav park design. like it because it’s very simple. did like the idea of the park behind the park area that would’ve had that double sided video screen. and yes the park wouldve had that wrigley feel to it with the buildings beyond the OF walls and the seats on top of those buildings too. pretty sure there would’ve been bars and restaurants surrounding the park also but i guess that’s what the a’s may try to do in sj also.

    4-imo this design was the worst. if people had issues with “the thing in rf” in sj’s design, what was the reaction to “that thing in cf” in the coliseum north design.

    it would’ve been nice to have tried to revitalize that area of the city, but no way would all of those businesses moved to get that project done, imo it was a rush design and don’t think wolff and company had any real thoughts this park/village idea was legit.

  47. OK, I didn’t notice until just now that the RF power alley was 345 ft! That’s just crazy!! Especially with the short RF line, that’s got to be 20-30 ft longer, at least. The old LA Wrigley Field, where the Angels played their first season back in the 60’s had 345 ft power alleys and they set the record for HRs hit at an MLB park that year. I think MLB made them move to Chavez Ravine the next year. In any case, hopefully these are preliminary and the artist was just putting up randow numbers, because the park looks great otherwise.

  48. @mainea’sguy–LA’s Wrigley Field. Wow, my dad was telling me about that place. He saw a few games before I was born out there. A lot of movies were filmed there he was saying. He’s a big fan of the old parks from wayyyy back in the 40’s and 50’s., growing up in Pittsburgh.

  49. Actually doctorK, I think the winds in the downtown area are similar to the airport. That means they’d be coming right off the bay and down the length of the airport which would be right out of left field and blowing across the first base line. Might explain the distances after all. It’ll be a bitch hitting into the wind.

  50. Just a thought…. Power is way down across the majors. This is the year of the pitcher. With Roids essentially a thing of the past, maybe BS would like to see more hitter friendly parks!?

  51. LA Wrigley was where they held the Home Run Derby shows that originally aired in the late ’50’s (I remember some of them being re-run on ESPN when I was a kid in the ’80’s).

  52. Jeffrey,

    Do you think the design will change if the power sub station is deemed movable? If these dimensions are true, then I believe seating would have to be sacrificed to make the field of play larger. Moving home plate south only makes for a shorter RF line.

  53. Jeffrey or R.M.,
    Noticed on the scoreboard the “ESPN Zone” signage. Will an EZ be incorporated into the ballpark? That would be nice! Perhaps in the future CSN California could set up shop at Cisco Field and “liberate” itself from CSN Bay Area.

  54. @TonyD–not sure about the future of the ESPN Zones. They closed 5 in June and 2 last year. Only 2 left. 1 in LA and one in Anaheim at Disney. I’ve been to that one and the original in Baltimore in the inner harbor, while attending an Orioles game in 2003.. That flagship one closed in June. Even the Vegas one closed. It’s the economy. Bad everywhere.

  55. My thoughts… as if they matter… I don’t think an ESPN Zone is really part of the plan, though I would say that the brick area with the windows in right field could easily be something like an ESPN Zone. If the windows were covered with chain link fencing/wire mesh, like the Virgin America suite at AT&T, I imagine it would be quite popular.
    .
    As far as a reconfigured power station/seating capacity changes, etc. I have no idea. I don’t think the power substation will be moved, it is pretty expensive to do.

  56. I think the idea behind putting the ESPN Zone sign up is not that they’d put one of those in there exactly, but that anything could be put in the park like what AT&T has with The Public House and Mijita. I think that would be awesome.

  57. Imagine the public house overlooking the playing field. It’s like the West Side Club only, waaaayyyyyy better.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s