Comments on: Port gives Howard Terminal thumbs up, warns of hurdles

By: Tony D.

Tony D. — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 19:19:07 +0000

Conniption fits? Whatever you say Rob. Good to see you posting by the way (sarcasm)…

By: Georob

Georob — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 03:41:57 +0000

Well, if Tony’s having conniption fits, then there must be something to this.

By: ru155

ru155 — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:11:19 +0000

@TW, yeah, it’s still funny, bro. I’ve gone from the pro-Oakland, to SJ-only, to wtf-plan. Why take all this time and not tell Wolff to scrap his SJ dreams? I don’t know. Maybe Selig has tried to wrangle owners but has fallen short; he wouldn’t put it to a vote until he knew he had enough owners lined up. Maybe Selig holds a secret grudge against Wolff from their college days when Wolff swiped the hottie Selig was trying to get with, and now he’s just making him squirm.
Yes, Oakland city gov is crap: slow, illogical and corrupt. But until MLB makes a decision, nothing is certain.

By: Bryan Grunwald

Bryan Grunwald — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:43:46 +0000

@ML and SS–AT&T Park was built on contaminated soil. They had to remediate the site to dig down for below grade for the turf and bullpens. Then they installed pier/pile and grade beam foundation that supported a one foot thick concrete deck. They also replaced the sea wall. Piles were needed due to poor soils. Poor soils are also present at the SJ and Coliseum site. Also infrastructure has to be trenched and this can’t happen in a contaminated site. In addition there are not the parking assets nearby to support the ballpark at Howard Terminal, these would have to be built. BART is to far away. And a live railroad separates the Howard Terminal from access requiring expensive grade separated bridges.
–
If you need free land, I still recommend building the ballpark over the depressed section of I-980 between 14th and 18th. The site would be supported on a pier and beam foundation with 60′ spans. No contamination but you would have relocate two ramps at a cost of $20-30M. Near BART and plenty of existing parking assets.

By: Marine Layer

Marine Layer — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:13:01 +0000

@stanley stanson – A ballpark has a massive footprint. Usually the construction involves a complete grading of the site with lots of earthmoving. What methods are you suggesting will be used to avoid large-scale disruption of the cap? Are they going to truck in tons of dirt and lay that over the cap? That will only make the structure taller and prone to a different type of scrutiny, greater visual impacts. In any case, I’ve never heard of a stadium project that was done in that manner.

By: stanley stanson

stanley stanson — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:57:52 +0000

ML, I’ve talked to developers who have built in these conditions. from what I hear, this is an issue but (a) not overwhelmingly expensive, (b) technically feasible, (c) somewhat routine as far a complex development is concerned, and (d) always working with and in compliance with the state agency (DTSC). You pierce the cap, you take precautions necessary to avoid exposure to workers, the public at large and the environment.

Of all the potential issues surrounding developing HT, this one shouldn’t stop it.

Jeffrey, yes, there will need to be significant infrastructure improvements.

Anon, no.

By: pjk

pjk — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:33:23 +0000

…Wolff won’t be forced to the bargaining table with Oakland. He’d sell for top dollar and then the next ownership group should be required to prove they can and will build in Oakland. None of this taking five years to look at it and then deciding it can’t be done.

By: TW

TW — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:14:10 +0000

Ru155, funny? Once again, the silence and the length of time means nothing certain, period. What is “funny” about applying logic? You, I, Tony, Steve, ML etc etc are free to imagine what the delay/lack of final decision means for discussion purposes. However, what we imagine and 5$ will get you a Venti Mocha Latte at Starbucks……that’s it. Bottom line, there are multiple plausible explanations as to why a decision has taken this long.
Now could the delay mean MLB is determined to find a SJ alternate/force a deal in Oakland? Sure, that is possible. But there also arguments against that being the reason. For instance if they want the A’s to stay out of SJ, what purpose does it serve to allow LW to stay on the SJ plan? Why not say no to SJ and force LW to the bargaining table with Oakland? Even better, after this long of not wanting SJ/wanting Oakland, why has it taken this long to simply decide a site? There isn’t a good explanation to take 4 years to simply find a site.
But in fairness to your belief, every imagined possibility also has reasons why it may not be the reason. So ultimately, instead of Oakland relying on SJ being a no go, why not outright win it? Get their asses in gear and come up with a winning proposal? Look to SJ, see what they did to get people looking their way, and do the same!
Here’s a question for you: What entity has moved WAY slower than the snail pace BS/MLB/BRC in deciding on an A’s ballpark? I’ll give you a hint (fill in the blank): O A K _ A N D

By: Burton

Burton — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 03:39:42 +0000

@ML – Thanks for clearing that up.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 03:36:33 +0000

Tony,

I absolutely agree on that.