Comments on: Coliseum Authority, MLB, A’s considering up to 5-year extension

By: letsgoas

letsgoas — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 04:34:19 +0000

why would you build a football stadium at howard terminal over a baseball one? i still firmly believe the a’s will go to sj when it’s all said and done but lets say they built a park in oakland, the only place the a’s org themselves probably with new ownership and mlb would want to build a new baseball only park would be in downtown/waterfront of oakland, not in the middle of industrial nowhere which is where the coliseum is now. it’d def be the other way around. a’s/baseball park at the ht site and any raiders/football stadium built at the current coliseum location.

By: eb

eb — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:42:42 +0000

@Jeffery A waterfront park doesn’t equal a clone of At&t. Are all downtown parks clones of each other? What about Camden and Petco, both are built alongside warehouses? Each park has its charms and is built in its city’s image. A water view with Oakland characteristics, i.e cranes, architecture, building material, seating, a giant vintage Mother’s cookie in the background ( I don’t know), is the best possible way to differentiate from At&t, but still offer that park’s biggest selling point, water. A skyline (Oak or SJ), hills, big brick facades, have been done to death, don’t showcase the fact Oakland is a port city (it’s biggest feature), the Bay Area’s biggest focal point (the bay)and, in my opinion is just a much better visual option. I’m sure we just disagree on what would be a better draw to bring people in.
p.s. I am sick and tired of Detroit.

By: berry

berry — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:18:48 +0000

@letsgoas
U seem to be an Oakland fan like me. Hey I know this might be silly, but would Howard Terminal work for football??? Let’s the A’s have the coliseum…get together with MLB and figure out away to make it happen. But hey Howrard terminal stadium for the Raiders. Now that would be something that wil helboth the NFL and city of O. What u think…uless Howard terminal too small for football

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:57:38 +0000

Also, what in those two paragraphs describes how a stadium can be built? It describes the potential benefit to Oakland, but nothing about having restaurants and bars will pay for a stadium (unless there are bonds being issued against tax increment).

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:53:20 +0000

Eb and David, go to oaklandfans.com and look at the original concept for Howard Terminal. We have been told that the plan for Howard Terminal stadium orientation is the same as it was in 2001. Also, way to ignore the last sentence of the first paragraph.
.

By: Dirty

Dirty — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 08:07:39 +0000

@David “No one has even got a site through the initial process of evaluation. There are no official plans drawn by an Architect.”
.
Yeah, so that’s exactly the problem.
.
How patient are you willing to be? I mean, damn, I’m pretty patient but at some point there has to be some sort of plan from Oakland’s leadership. It’s not fair for them to have great fans like you who are so willing to protect and defend Oakland while they continue to bumble, play politics and leave EVERYONE in the dark. That’s not fair. To you, to me or anyone else in this mess.
.
I still think that however bad of a job you think Wolff has done (which I will not necessarily contest), the city of Oakland has done as comparatively bad. And if you want to compare them against the city of SJ (which has a legitimate site and a fair argument to host an MLB team – - regardless of it’s the A’s or some other team), they’ve done absolutely worst. Taking the A’s (to SJ) out of the equation, I wonder if you’d be willing to debate me there.
.
I respect your frustration (after all, at this point, it’s clear we’re all very frustrated), but I’m not so willing to spare Oakland its share of the blame. If the city of Oakland could show me something on the level of what SJ had done, perhaps I’d feel differently (I’m confident others on this board would share that sympathy). SJ did it, Oakland could have done it by now too.

By: letsgoas

letsgoas — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:02:40 +0000

the only place the raiders can go is back to la. we all know it’s likely the chargers will be one of those teams being brought to play in whatever new nfl stadium is built within the next 4-5 years. then you got a group of maybe three other teams in the raiders, jags, and rams. really don’t think the bills who also have issues with their situation in buf are a candidate to move cross country to la.
…
i don’t know what the current deal is with those teams and the lease they have with those other cities. if somehow the city of la and the nfl can get either the rams or jags to la, really the raiders are “stuck” in the bay area for as long as i can see as i doubt the raiders owners whoever they are will want to move anywhere else out of oakland other than back to la. then the question is whether they wanna stick it out as the second tenant at the niners new stadium in santa clara or stay at the coliseum as it is now for the next decade until a new stadium is built somewhere in oakland. really don’t believe the raiders or even the city of oakland would want to “renovate” the coliseum much and then build a new stadium. also don’t know if they wanna do as it’s been suggested many times already about keeping the mt davis portion of the stadium and then building a new other 1/2 western part of the venue. i don’t think the coliseum is that terrible for football as it is for baseball, it’s serviceable for maybe another half decade. there could be a handful of improvements made but the raiders i think eventually will want to play in a brand new state of the area football stadium eventually and not another “half ass” renovation as some felt the mid 90s conversion was ruining a quality baseball park into a mediocre at best venue for both sports.

By: berry

berry — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 04:54:04 +0000

@letsgoas

Hopefully letsgoas, hopefully the city of Oakland will have to face some type of PRESSURE, from the people or people within the city ranks, that might view the Raiders leaving too much of a blow for the city to take… so maybe just maybe Oakland will have a plan to keep… but ml touched on the “ballad of mark davis” topic… and preety much Mark has options… does he and Mama Davis wanna stay? yeah.. but they wont wait a long forever..

meanwhile.. Cmon A’s lets win game 2… at least the sf gnats lost : ) he he

By: Tony D.

Tony D. — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 03:52:40 +0000

@David,
Wolff responsible for poor attendance? C’mon man, you’re better than that! You’re starting to sound like some folks blaming good poll and jobs numbers on a vast liberal conspiracy. Completely ridiculous!

By: letsgoas

letsgoas — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 03:15:20 +0000

so you don’t think the raiders will be staying. out of all three east bay teams, they’re the most likely to stay unless they move back to la but i don’t think la wants anything to do with the raiders especially if they can bring in the chargers and bring back the rams.