Raiders Coliseum: The impact

Back in October, a new plan for the Coliseum complex was unveiled, and it had no traces of the old multipurpose bowl. The feasibility study released then was careful not to show a specific opening date or year for the Raiders’ new stadium. Instead, a 48-month project timeline was given, with 15 months for EIR preparation and 30 months for construction. Although sharing a Santa Clara stadium with the 49ers remains an option, it’s clear that team CEO Amy Trask prefers to have the Raiders in their own digs.

To understand what the impact of the new stadium would be on the Coliseum complex, I did a quick-and-dirty Photoshop overlay to see how the current and future pieces fit together. First, the new plan as drawn up for the Raiders:

Now the overlay:

The overlay isn’t exact, but it’s close. The big reveal is that the footprints of the new stadium and the old Coliseum overlap slightly. That indicates that some part of the Coliseum would have to be torn down in order to complete the stadium. A precedent for this already exists in Cincinnati, where the outfield chunk of old Riverfront Stadium was removed to make way for Great American Ball Park. The yellow stripe running through the area is the easement for underground sewer interceptor, which can’t have permanent structures on it. While it appears that part of the new stadium sits on the easement, the stadium could be constructed in such a way that the interceptor would remain accessible. (If you’re asking why the A’s haven’t asked about doing something like this at the Coliseum, stop right there. They have asked.)

Assuming that the Raiders can get all of its ducks in a row (a big if), it’s possible that construction could start as early as mid-2012. Which means, of course, that the existing Coliseum would be affected. Significant portions of the original structure might have to be torn down. Hemmed in by the old stadium and the interceptor easement, the new stadium designers will have to be clever to design it in such a way that minimizes such impact. Since there’s no final site plan or stadium design, there’s plenty of time to sort all of this out.

The biggest issue is the timeline. The plans call for a severe reduction of available parking during and even after construction. Most of the old Coliseum would be replaced by a large public plaza leading to the BART bridge. For the A’s and Raiders’ 2012 and 2013 seasons, I’m guessing that parking would be reduced by 3,000 spaces or more, roughly 30% of the complex’s available spaces. A parking garage and additional surface parking obtained by buying nearby properties would help make up the shortfall, but most of those spaces wouldn’t be ready right away. Cutting into chunks of the Coliseum would probably remove parts of the upper deck that the A’s don’t use right now. On the other hand, the Raiders need those seats. Chances are that if part of the old stadium has to come down, the Raiders would play in a reduced capacity stadium for those two years (the Tennessee Titans played at Memphis’ Liberty Bowl and 40,000-seat Vanderbilt Stadium while what is now LP Field was being built). The iceplant between Gates B and C might have to go.

If construction couldn’t start until 2013 or later, the impacts to the A’s and Raiders could be fewer. The A’s should hopefully have something going somewhere, with the need to endure the transition lasting only one season. The Raiders could play at the Coliseum throughout the entire construction period. The Warriors? They’re screwed.

26 Responses to Raiders Coliseum: The impact

  1. Oakland Sí says:

    I thought the expense of building a parking garage was one reason why it wasn’t considered feasible to build a ballpark on part of the existing parking lot?

  2. Marine Layer says:

    @OaklandSi – That would apply is there were three permanent venues, that’s not the case here.

  3. tony d. says:

    If the Warriors are “screwed” over this, there’s always HP Pavilion to fall back on. Being a huge Raiders fan, I gotta ask: is this really going to happen?

  4. Marine Layer says:

    @Tony D. – The W’s will lose some of the parking that they don’t use much anyway. Not that big a deal. Realistic? No idea.

  5. Jeffrey says:

    As a 49er fan… I kind of hope the Coliseum plan happens. I am resigned to the fact that the A’s won’t be playing there regardless. It’d be nice to see the joint get a face lift (tummy tuck, liposuction, rhinoplasty and everything else) and be able to visit it once in a while. An NFL stadium should really have two tenants, there is no need for 2 of them in the same metro area.
    .

  6. jk-usa says:

    Cal’s Stadium will be renovated by the 2012 season, so the Raiders can maybe play there. They did once back in 1973 because of an A’s scheduling conflict. The Raiders ended the Dolphins’ 18-game winning streak with a 12-7 victory on four field goals by 45-year-old George Blanda on September 23, 1973. Man, those were the days!!!

  7. Transic says:

    I keep thinking if this Coliseum plan actually happens it could make for a nice venue for World Cup soccer in 2022…oh, wait!

  8. Ed says:

    Not to hijack the thread, but California should have made its own bid for the World Cup and left the rest of the USA out of it.

  9. LoneStranger says:

    What order would they build the stadium and the village? Or simultaneously? I ask because both need extra space to store equipment, and that would mean less parking during construction. And who owns the lot across 880 and just south of the C lot?

  10. ST says:

    ML – How is this new Raiders stadium being financed? Will it require public funding as well?

  11. Dude says:

    ST: ML’s first link has details on funding possibilities: http://newballpark.org/2010/10/09/coliseum-sans-coliseum/

  12. Dan says:

    So the city would contribute approximately 100 million in public funding toward a football stadium but they won’t contribute a dime toward a baseball stadium?

  13. Marine Layer says:

    @Dan – They haven’t been asked, but it is the going rate.

  14. ST says:

    Thanks Dude – Curious, how would Oakland be able to finance both projects concurrently? And push came to shove, and only one stadium project was viable, which one would get the axe?

  15. Zonis says:

    You have to ask ST? Oakland will always gives the A’s the finger if the Raiders show even a hint of staying.

  16. jk-usa says:

    @Zonis–I agree that the city didn’t do many favors for the A’s during Elihu Harris and Jerry Brown’s tenures. But don’t forget that the city back in 1999 got the Dolich/Piccinini group together to buy the A’s but were shot down by MLB. That ticked the city off and things went downhill from there.when. But when Dellums came in he wanted to work with Wolff, but Wolff showed no interest and was gung ho into Fremont at that time. Now this city council and new mayor Quan coming in, they seem pretty damn serious on this VC site. I hope it’s not too little too late.

  17. Georob says:

    The new stadium can be moved a little up and over and they don’t have to do anything to the existing coliseum. I think they were trying to show off the nice plaza at a 90 degree angle between the BART ramp and the path to 66th street.

    And the Warriors would move to SJ because of temporary reduced parking in Oakland? Jeesh!

  18. David says:

    The Warriors have a lease that ends in 2017.

  19. jk-usa says:

    @Georob–if the parking is cut down 3k, you still have 7k left which should be enough for 18-20k fans. Any lost revenue, and I highly doubt it, for the 3k wouldn’t be as much as the smaller venue at the HP and slightly lower ticket prices to get season ticket holders to go down there again.

  20. Marine Layer says:

    @Georob – There is approximately a 750′x800′ space in the area the Raiders are looking to build, a.k.a. the B Lot. They could turn the stadium 45 degrees and make it fit, but they’ll lose integration with the new conference center that’s in the plan. The conference center is the big driver here.

  21. Tony D. says:

    Thanks Dude – Curious, how would Oakland be able to finance both projects concurrently? And push came to shove, and only one stadium project was viable, which one would get the axe?

    ST,
    Oakland apparently has money coming out of its A$$! New Raiders Coliseum plus Victory Court ballpark would come out to over $1 billion easy.

  22. Tony D. says:

    The new stadium can be moved a little up and over and they don’t have to do anything to the existing coliseum. I think they were trying to show off the nice plaza at a 90 degree angle between the BART ramp and the path to 66th street. And the Warriors would move to SJ because of temporary reduced parking in Oakland? Jeesh!

    Rob, Please! I know you hate San Jose, but it was R.M. in the thread that suggested the Warriors would be “screwed” by this, not me. I just gave an idea to address the W’s possible being screwed, that’s all. Jeesh +!!

  23. LoneStranger says:

    How about the proposed BART – Airport connector? Isn’t that supposed to run through this area too?

  24. Dude says:

    LS – that’s supposed to run down Hegenberger, so it would be in the middle of that retail area in the upper right corner; where all those trees are shown.

  25. dknight007 says:

    What the Raiders should do IF Oakland builds a new stadium at the current site is build a Raider HOF shrine and memorablia dome in the middle of where the current Coliseum exists.

    According to your new potential stadium site map, it looks as though the Bart walkway will lead right up to where the middle of the existing Coliseum is.

    The Raiders need to build a Raider HOF mecca or indoor facility there. It would be awesome!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>