Marine Layer’s Cisco Field Analysis

When the first images of the new Cisco Field @ Diridon came out, I decided to sit back and watch the reaction. Same thing went for the official images, released through Baseball San Jose. My initial thoughts haven’t changed: it’s quite radical. Now, I haven’t talked to anyone at 360 Architecture, Baseball San Jose, or A’s ownership about the images, so my thoughts are not influenced by anything or anyone. With that out of the way, let me explain what I mean by radical.

Let’s start off with where the field is placed within the site. First up, here’s what I drew up a couple of years ago.


In my sketch, the RF wall hugs the Autumn Parkway contour. The aesthetic effect of that is that fans are confronted with a large wall when walking along Autumn. Additionally, the field is pushed up further north to have more “back of the house” space. By doing this, I effectively put a cap on the number of seats. That isn’t necessarily the case with this new drawing.

Assuming that the remaining land acquisitions go as scheduled, including a small land swap with PG&E, the field is likely to be situated as you see below, give or take 20 feet north or south (north is up). That orients the field pretty close to true northeast. Prevailing winds tend to come from the northwest, so they should move from the left field foul pole to its counterpart in right on a regular basis. At times, the winds will shift to NNW or WNW. However, the winds in San Jose tend to not be particularly strong, generally topping out at 10-15 mph. Oakland and San Francisco are generally more prone to onshore and offshore movements.

Now for the new 360 layout:


The way that Autumn Street/Parkway is contoured, it removes almost all of the RF corner from what would normally constitute a grandstand. And we can’t do an analysis without discussing those field dimensions, with the very short porch in right and a shallow corner in left. Neither of those dimensions are entirely necessary. You can see that there is some space to lengthen both of those out, and I figure that some version of Cisco Field has more “standard” dimensions in place.

Of course, standard dimensions aren’t possible in right if that “thing” is there. What is that thing, anyway? Well, I’ve searched far and wide for some context. It’s not an arcade as in San Francisco, as it doesn’t have arches. Instead, to me it’s, for lack of a better term, a contemporary take on a classic colonnade. To wit:

In classical architecture, a colonnade denotes a long sequence of columns joined by their entablature, often free-standing, or part of a building.

Normally, we think of colonnades as freestanding, such as those used at old LA Forum and Soldier Field. In this case, they house multiple levels of what appear to be minisuites. That’s the first radical step I noticed from the Fremont plan. At Pacific Commons, the minisuites were only 15 rows from the field along the infield. Now they’re part of the colonnades. I suspect the team reached out to potential minisuite holders to see what effect this would have on their interest. If the idea survived this long, the effect must have been minimal.

Depending on what the treatment for the colonnades is, they could become the signature element of the ballpark. There’s no other eye candy in the outfield besides the video/scoreboard, which lines up flush with the top of the colonnades and the roof. I don’t expect to see a neoclassical look, as in the two examples cited previously. Instead, it will probably be more modern and perhaps subdued.

Several sections of outfield seats jut out from the colonnade, creating the crazy 345-foot dimension in right-center. Either they really needed to get those seats in there, or it’s an affectation of sorts. Frankly, it’s unnecessary. The best thing to do would be to take off a few sections, chop off several rows of those seats and turn it into a family or picnic area. The resulting right-center length would be 360 feet or more.

Over in the LF corner, the line could be further extended, eating into more seats and creating a higher wall as a result. I don’t really have a problem with it. Every team should have a righty dead pull hitter who hits frozen ropes down the line. If they get an extra 10 HR that way, so be it.



After my 2008 trip to the East Coast and the more recent trip to the Midwest, I came away with one absolute must-have: a majestic plaza for fans to enter the ballpark. AT&T Park has this behind the plate, but the ballpark itself turns its back to the plaza so there’s a sense of separation from the action. At Nationals Park and Target Field, the plaza is integrated into the outfield (Nats Park in left-center, Target Field in right), making the journey to the park all the more momentous. There’s something viscerally stimulating about seeing the grandstand and the field get larger with each step. It’s a reminder of what we had prior to Mount Davis, when the BART bridge walk brought a certain level of excitement. The plaza is large enough (nearly an acre) to hold the family-oriented entertainment options.

The third deck is the other major radical move. Notice how the seats in the first two decks are not defined or articulated, appearing to be benches. Obviously they’re not a bunch of bleacher planks, but the third deck has the same large yellow chairs with side tables next to each seat, just like the minisuites. This appears to be the club level. If so, that’s a marked departure from the club levels we’ve come to expect from most venues. There’s no expansive, separate concourse. There’s scant room for a bar. It’s not indoors. It’s not entirely behind the plate. Instead, it’s three rows of seats, served up with tables and drink rails. This is where I expect Cisco to make its mark. I expect each seat will have video and in-seat concessions ordering, making every seat in the club have diamond level-like wait service. There remains the possibility for a club restaurant down the LF line, and a perhaps another gathering area behind the plate. The seats themselves are at the same height and distance the Coliseum’s suites are, except with more baseball-friendly sightlines. The club will also have the benefit of a roof over the seats, whether it’s the mesh roof from the Pacific Commons version or something different. In moving in this direction, they’re trying to create distinct, separate markets and price points for premium seating that don’t exist elsewhere in the Bay Area, or even in baseball. At the same time, they’re doing what the Red Sox did at Fenway – put the premium stuff at the top of the stadium. It’ll be interesting to see how this pays off.


The field is sunken, just how I’d prefer it. One of the issues associated with building close to the bay (China Basin, Candlestick, Coliseum, any JLS site) is that to avoid the water table or keep from drainage issues, any stadium pretty much has to have its field at sea level or higher. Diridon is around 90 feet above sea level. There’s still the water table to deal with, but that’s largely an engineering issue that shouldn’t be a problem as long as digging doesn’t go too deep (in the area, the floor of HP Pavilion is also below street level).

The bullpens are sunken below the field and placed at CF. Makes sense to me. It explains why the fence is slightly taller at CF, as opposed to LF. Hell, the Giants should’ve put their bullpens there – oops, they forgot about the pens when designing the place.

The LF corner is where it gets weird. I count 4 different seating angles. First, there’s the normal grandstand. Then there’s a brief 2 sections that run 60 degrees against the grandstand. Slightly beneath that is the start of the outfield section, which follows the outfield wall. Finally, those seats straighten out and run parallel with San Fernando Street. A building in the LF corner houses party suites, and perhaps the aforementioned club restaurant.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the two-deck grandstand would be the shortest in the majors by far. On the 3B side, the grandstand doesn’t go beyond 240-250 feet at best. On the 1B side, Autumn causes a tapering effect that puts the topmost upper deck or club seat just barely beyond the edge of the infield. To compensate, surely there will be more rows of seats in both decks, though it’s not clear how many.

More impressions:

  • The colonnade creates one more aesthetic positive: a net in RF won’t be needed. I figure the height of the roof will be 90 feet in the outfield, making it like a Tiger Stadium/Comiskey Park situation – if someone can get it out of there, he earned it.
  • One thing that’s missing is a view as you exit Diridon Station. I would’ve liked to have seen that. Will transit users have a gate there? Will they go to the main plaza? Or will they use that notch in left-center that lines up with Montgomery Street?
  • I’m still not sure how much of an impact columns in the grandstand will have on views. Columns in the grandstand appear to be recessed into the concourse, not in the seating bowl.
  • With the PG&E substation change, a new access road has to be established. That will probably come from Park Avenue, running by parking lots and/or garages.
  • The tight grandstand all the way around should seal in noise well.
  • 75-degree angle in the grandstand refers to the angle between the first and third base sides. Often in new ballparks, the initial angle is 85 or 90 degrees, with a kink on one or both sides to pull the seating bowl further in. The most severe example may have been old Yankee Stadium, which had a 55-degree angle. Foul territory down the lines was almost non-existent, but the implementation caused the distance from the plate to the backstop to be extraordinarily long (72 feet).
  • The Eric Byrnes sighting. It’s probably nothing, in that they used the first image they had lying around. Or it could be a sign that this thing has been in the oven for a while.

All that said, one question remains: Do I like it? On a scale of 1 to 10, I’d give it a 7 right now. The field dimensions need to be addressed, which is not easy since the only person who has spent more time looking at the land besides 360 and the A’s is probably me, and enlarging the field is a real head-scratcher. I like the back-to-basics design. I’m not sold on how the premium seating all fits together, but I’m not a customer for those so it isn’t my concern. I’m also not clear on what the façade will be. Brick is more commonplace in the Diridon area than just about any other material, yet Lew Wolff has said in the past that the design will not be retro, which should rule out brick. Will it be some marrying of the two?

Most importantly, this will surely be the most intimate major league ballpark built in the last 90 years. Unlike the swept-back HOK/Populous designs which are meant to be essentially inoffensive, this one’s not going to win everyone over. Some will think it’s too small. Others will not like how it’s set up. I suspect that once people get in the seats – perhaps the first open house or walk through – opinions will change quickly. They’ll wonder why the seats at AT&T, which they once thought were the best, are so far away from the action. Skylines are good. Bayviews are nice. San Jose doesn’t have outstanding versions of either, which means the A’s are turning to the original selling point – baseball. I don’t see that as such a bad thing.

56 thoughts on “Marine Layer’s Cisco Field Analysis

  1. I don’t think that the yellow seats are club seats. Those seats wouldn’t sell for a premium because they’re too far away. I think those seats may be more like the top deck at Dodger Stadium. If, however, ML is correct, and the yellow seats ARE club seats, then that is the first design point that needs to be changed.

    I don’t care for the obstructed seating. Both Petco Park and Qwest Field use 55 foot cantilevers. There’s no need for the placement of columns in the seating bowl in a new stadium given existing stadium engineering technology.

    Otherwise, it looks lovely. I was hoping the design would allow for later expansion, but this design would make that idea problematic.

  2. @Pudgie – I thought it was a top deck too at first. Then I took a look at the high res home plate view and zoomed in. Check out those seats. See the lines in front of them? Drink rails. Only club seats have drink rails.

  3. agreed about getting rid of those seats in rf if it means it would allow the fences to be pushed back 20+ ft.

    maybe cut off all the seats to the rf of the scoreboard and replace it with some sort of deck area that juts out 10-12 ft where fans can stand and watch the game. sort of what bal has down the rf line above the scoreboard.

    looks like they would only be cutting of a few hundreds seats at the most if they were to take away some of the seating in rf but well worth it to make it not that joke of a rf distance even with a high wall there.

    i’d like to see the lf line pushed a bit back too, but rf imo is more of a priority.

  4. @ ML, Your last paragraph NAILED it. I agree 100 percent.

  5. I’m hoping that by the time MLB approves the design that those RF seats get removed all together. Remove the top half of the colonnade and put seats above that brick wall like Fenway. Place the mini suites in the grand stands like Fremont design. Those are the changes that I would hope for, otherwise as long as the dimensions aren’t embarrassing I like it. Intimate, enclosed, baseball. Perfect.

  6. R.M.,
    Are the seats on top of the Green Monster/Fenway club seats? Those have drink rails I believe (?).

    • @Tony D – AFAIK those seats can be sold individually or as a suite. They are not “club” seats as we normally define them, but they are assuredly a premium seating option.

  7. That center field entrance could be a lot like Utaw street entrance at Camden. That would be great. I’m not a suite typre of guy but I have used the ones in LF at the coliseum and they stink. Too far removed from the action and don’t feel like your at the game. These LF club seats would be the opposite. I think they will be a hit! Like jesse said, “as long as the dimensions aren’t embarrassing I like it. Intimate, enclosed, baseball. Perfect.”.

  8. ML, I actually like your ballpark orientation better than the “official” one. I might even put the right field corner at the corner of Autumn St. and Park Avenue (or at least as close to it as possible) in order to maximize the view of the skyline and to maximize development opportunities between Cisco Field and the HP Pavilion.

  9. ML, in the two diagrams above, what do the shaded white areas represent? Do those represent the 14 acres? Why can’t they slide the ballpark over closer to the train tracks in order to lenghten the RF line?

    • Yes. The darker area is the slightly modified PG&E substation. The field can’t be moved further west because of space requirements. Grandstand = 110′ of seating rows, 40′ of concourse, 30′ or more of concessions and back of the house. It adds up.

  10. ML,

    Are the properties on the East side of Autumn slated for purchase by the city?

  11. @Bay Area A’s – Not right now.

  12. One thing i think would be awesome would be to use that weird looking area in LF down the line where it hits the Colonade or Lemonade or whatever you call it, and turn it into a Fun Zone, as well with an entrance into the building. I mean, all the way up to the Field, not rows back. Let people stand there and watch the action with their back to the Fun Zone.

    And by Fun Zone, I don’t mean like a small crappy kids area. I mean a FUN Zone. A place for Adults AND Kids. Batting Cages for Adults, a Mini-Field for Kids, Speed Guns for people to test their throws, coaches to show you the Baseball Basics, Cisco showing off their tech in a Baseball way, and perhaps even a couple guys calling the game for the crowd in different manners than on the broadcast (perhaps in a more Baseball Educational way, like showing how the players are positioning and what the players are doing with an emphasis on ‘teaching the Little Leaguers, the High School Students, the College Players and the Casual Fan!’ than purely keeping up with the game, as well as the ability for the guys and crowed to actively cheer in the section unlike the TV/Radio Announcers.

    How about a Wall of TV’s acting as the Out of Town Scoreboard there too, with the Real Out of Town Scoreboard placed somewhere else, either like they do as TV’s on the wall, or perhaps as flip-style cards that can be set to be anything but not done by hand.

    I would still like the scoreboard to be bigger, though.

  13. Are the press and luxury boxes beneathe the 2nd deck overhang? Also, will the 2nd deck not have entrance tunnels? In that case, it looks like the Gold level and 2nd deck will share a concourse. This 2010 Cisco Field is growing on me, but they’ll need to do something about those field dimensions.

  14. I like the shared concourse for the sole reason that entrance tunnels and stairways at the bottom of sections always wind up obstructing many of the seats in the first few rows (with the extra railings). Dodger Stadium does that right in that all four levels enter from the top of each section.

    While they’re at it, they could raise the roof and create a separate club concourse at the top of the stadium that could double as an enclosed area from which club seaters could watch the game (a la the club concourse in SF).

  15. @Briggs – Suites are below the second deck. Broadcasters may be as well. Writing press are up top. It looks like the club seats will have their own mini concourse. It’s unclear what will be on that mini concourse.

  16. ML,

    Did you say you are going to walk the Diridon guided tour on the 30th?

  17. FYI everyone, I’ll pass on the walking tour, but know the area fairly well, having taken a few train trips through there and events at HP Pavilion over the years. I’ve walked and driven around all the proposed Oakland sites and am just as excited as having a ballpark dropped in those sites as you guys of having a SJ park dropped in at Diridon.

  18. i thought the broadcasters were gonna be above the 2nd deck and below the 3rd deck of gold seats in that grey area. sort of what other “two deck” parks like pnc and wrigley have.

    do most parks separate the location of the tv/radio guys from one level to another with the other media/writers?

    • @letsgoas – That space doesn’t look large enough to handle both broadcast and written press, plus team needs. It’s not a double deck structure, and it isn’t wide enough to cover everything.

  19. ML,

    Any idea as to what will be covered on the walking tour? I’m planning on attending, but if it’s just going to be a pep rally sort of deal, I think I’ll pass.

    • @fc – BBSJ is organizing it and I haven’t talked to them about it. So I’m as in the dark about it as you.

      @letsgoas – There’s an intent to keep the view from home plate through centerfield unobstructed, so I doubt you’ll see anything high up. The way the seating and scoreboard are arranged, there appears to be enough room for the normal television camera placement.

  20. yeah it isn’t a true double deck park, even though that 3rd deck of gold/yellow seats i don’t know i’d call it a “true 3rd deck”. lol

    maybe a bit minor details but i do hope if/when this park gets built that the camera angle they used during the game in cf is not directly behind the pitcher like we’ve seen with parks like stl/min. maybe i’m just used to the view being a bit off with the camera being placed to the left of straight away cf. in fact i think the coliseum was the first place that put the camera behind the pitcher in mt davis, believe it was espn game back earlier in the 2000s when the a’s were actually on sunday night baseball, and teams soon afterwards did that and just in recent years teams went to that angle full time during tv broadcasts.

    also maybe a bit minor but hopefully the camera behind home plate isn’t place up too high ala what the Nats park has, think they’re the only park that does that it just looks funny to me when the ball is in play those first few secs after they switch the camera view.

    again trivial maybe to bring that up when we still don’t know when this park is gonna get built but things i’ve just been wondering about with a new park for the a’s.

  21. The more I think about this plan, the less I like it.
    1. Club seats should be in a mezzanine/middle area, not at the top of the stadium. Even if the A’s/360 wanted to go with a modified two-deck design, they should either 1) do what the Pirates did (place the club section at the front of the upper deck) or 2) do what the Tigers did (place the club seats at the back of the lower level).
    2. If you’re going to have only 32,000 seats, very few of those seats (about 2,000) should be in the outfield. The Cisco Diridon design puts too many seats in the outfield and doesn’t have enough seats in the grandstand between the foul poles.
    3. The cost of obstructing the view to the East does not justify the benefits. In other words, the revenue (and novelty?) that would be generated from the colonnade minisuites does not justify blocking the view of the San Jose skyline.
    4. I believe that this photo ( is misleading because there needs to be facilities on the minisuite levels to provide concessions/bars, restrooms, kitchens, etc. You can’t have 15 minisuites without appropriate services. Those facilities would then obstruct the view to the East (i.e., the minisuites could not possibly be as “transparent” as is suggested by the rendering).
    5. Placing the bullpens in the Hitter’s Eye probably violates some sort of MLB field configuration rule . . . as well as common sense.

    • @Pudgie
      1. I agree with this, at least the PNC approach.
      2. Don’t agree with this. This fair/foul approach is far too black-and-white. What’s better, an outfield seat that is properly angled towards the diamond or a seat down the line that’s higher up with a worse angle?
      3. Can you quantify this in even the most general way?
      4. I expect those facilities to be provided at the RF corner and behind the scoreboard.
      5. If there are high enough walls to conceal the pitchers, why should this be a problem?

  22. @ML
    I guess it depends on how much one values the San Jose skyline. Personally, I think it’s impressive enough to serve as “eye candy.”

    What I would suggest is that the multi-story structure in right field does more harm than good, especially if:
    1) the plan already provides for a multi-story structure in the left field corner
    2) if a structure in right obscures the only valuable part of the view.
    In regards to the outfield/infield debate, think of it this way: the proposed plan provides for perhaps 22,000-24,000 seats in the main grandstand, not much more than the number of grandstand seats in L.A.’s Wrigley Field. Is that adequate for a major league ballpark (where grandstand seats usually sell for more than outfield/bleacher seats)?
    ML, can you discern if the plan provides for a realignment of Autumn? Some of very early proposals suggested that the city would purchase the properties on the east side of Autumn and slightly shift Autumn to the east, which would provide more space for the ballpark:

    (thanks to

    • @Pudgie
      1. Not sure why having a structure in LF matters other than your argument against outfield seats. There’s no one way to skin a cat.
      2. The people who will be affected by this obstruction are in the lower deck (sorry) and on the field (and they shouldn’t be looking out there). People in the suites, club seats, upper deck – they’ll have a fantastic view of the skyline. At some point I’ll try to do a Google Earth placement to test this. Let’s just say that there will be no shortage of camera angles of the skyline.

      The notion of bleacher seats is practically dead. Every new ballpark charges far too much for outfield seats, especially lower deck outfield. Expect those to cost over $20, with the upper outfield seats as the cheapies.

      Until I model it myself, I can’t say if it will be 22-24,000 seats, more or less. We don’t know how many rows in each deck there are.

      There is no plan to realign Autumn. It would be too expensive. The only parties interested in the land east of Autumn are private parties.

  23. Hey ML, I have a couple (or three) questions…

    1) given the proximity to San Jose airport, are we going to be subjected to Shea Stadium-like jet noise?

    2) I know that there are/will be many public transportation options, but what about those of us steeped in tailgating tradition? Will there be enough parking?

    3) re: The restaurant in The RF Thing: I think thats a cool idea, and (if it truely is a restaurant) the windows make perfect sense…but IS it a restaurant? Is that an educated guess on your part? Speculation? Inside knowledge? Also, will it only be open 81 times a year? Or year-round with entrences/exits both inside and outside the ballpark?


  24. re: San Jose skyline as “eye candy”…in and of itself, I see nothing special there, but up against the backdrop of the foothills/Mount Allison/Mount Lewis I think it looks pretty damn cool.

  25. @hecanfoos
    1. I’ve measured the plane noise, it’s not much of a problem. It’s all landing jets, which are less noisy than full power takeoffs. The area is also in a noise contour, in which the noise shouldn’t rise above 65 dB (except for street noise such as buses).
    2. There will be no room for tailgating there. Especially in the regular downtown lots/garages.
    3. That’s why there’s a question mark. I’m not absolutely sure it’s a restaurant, but it makes the most sense. What other reason would there be for those windows? BTW, the restaurant would be below the street. Like Cheers.

  26. The field dimensions are pretty extreme, but then again, these are just concept renderings. If the RF/CF (345′) power alley bleachers are removed, are there any other spots within the ballpark where these seats could be placed while still meeting the > 100′ height ordinance?

    Does anyone know what those circular kiosks are? There are 3 visible in the various pictures; two on the upper concourse directly behind home and left field, and another directly behind the scoreboard in center. Are these just concession kiosks?

  27. Briggs,
    I’m thinking they’re concession kiosks, or perhaps even full bars. There’s a round, outdoor bar at Downtown Disney in Anaheim that reminds me of those round “things.”

  28. The whole design doesn’t quite make sense to me. Start over, add 6k seats, so they’re not the smallest in MLB and make 4-5k seats available game day at an affordable price ($10-12)for walk-ups. I can see with such a small capacity, no affordable priced seats. Looking at $25-$200 a pop, but Silicon Valley is so rich, they can easily afford it.

  29. Jk-usa,
    I think the A’s are shooting for a season ticket base of 25-29k (you can include my family in that),
    With “walk ups” making up the rest. Interestingly, if you check league wide attendance in the papers,
    It appears that attendance is usually in the upper 20, lower 30k’s.

  30. Your absolutley right JK.. We ARE rich in silicon valley, and we CAN afford it. This is precisely why the A’s want to be here and want NOTHING to do wit “Da Town”. So move on and get over your pitty party. So pathetic.

  31. Probably stating the obvious here, but just a thought: The roofline of the seats in LF appear to be lower than the grandstand’s roofline. It could be possible to relocate the RIGHT-CENTER power alley seats (345′) by adding a few rows to the LF seating structure unless there’s an ordinance prohibiting it. This would expose a bit more of the colonnade and possibly allow for more suites or view openings. In either case, spots to view the action from the colonnade are essentially beach-front property. Chopping off those RF/CF seats looks like a win-win.

  32. @Larry E–There may be higher incomes in SV, but will they go to baseball games– A’s games that is? You look at the sports pages of the Mercury News, and the Giants usually always get the front page and the A’s are on page 5 no matter what the standings. Switching over to the A’s all of a sudden and losing most east bay fans doesn’t bode well in the long run after the new stadium euphoria wears off in 3 years, PAL. I can’t wait till the BRC announce “Da Town” as their choice. You will be crying like a PATHETIC little kid. You’ll still have the SJ Giants there. Support them with the other Giant fans in the SB.
    If the BRC picks SJ, Uncle Lew will have to pay through the nose for the TR’s, cheapen the ballpark even more, not beef up the payroll, and raise ticket prices for you rich SV yahoos. He won’t get a dime of my money. I will boycott the A’s forever.

    • @Larry E–There may be higher incomes in SV, but will they go to baseball games– A’s games that is? You look at the sports pages of the Mercury News, and the Giants usually always get the front page and the A’s are on page 5 no matter what the standings. Switching over to the A’sall of a sudden and losing most east bay fans doesn’t bode well in the long run after the new stadium euphoria wears off in 3 years, PAL. I can’t wait till the BRC announce “Da Town” as their choice. You will be crying like aPATHETIC little kid. You’ll still have the SJ Giants there. Support them with the other Giant fans in the SB.
      If the BRC picks SJ, Uncle Lew will have to pay through the nose for the TR’s, cheapen the ballpark even more, not beef up the payroll, and raise ticket prices for you rich SV yahoos. He won’t get a dime of my money. I will boycott the A’s forever.

      The only reason the Giants get greater SJMN newsprint than the A’s is because they compete directly with the SF Chronicle on the Peninsula. The area of the Peninsula between SFO and Palo Alto is definetely Giants country. Trust me, when the A’s come down to SJ you’ll see the Merc flip the switch in terms of coverage. If the “BRC” was going to pick “Da Town” for the A’s/MLB long-term, that decision would have been made last year. Heck, there wouldn’t have even been a “BRC” if that was the case. No need to respond to the rest of your post (getting deleted twice in one week isn’t my style).

  33. I’d like to see the post 1968 championships displayed atop the LF roof. I’m not sure where the retired numbers could go. There may be a bunch of real estate on the colonnade wall for decoration.

    These renderings don’t have padding on the brick in the RF corner. If they end up going with brick facing on the colonnade, they’ll probably have something to subdue it. Besides Wrigley Field, a few other ballparks toy with ivy (like for the batter’s eye). I’d like to see a rendering where that colonnade is covered in ivy below the “in-play/homer” line. A giant, ivy covered wall in RF would definitely be a signature element to this version of Cisco Field.

  34. M L and Jeffrey:

    I agree with the word ‘radical’. The design is radical because it is more like older parks, despite what appears to be a lot of ‘modern’ design elements. It is ‘radical’ because it does not follow the universal seating profile of recent parks. The radical part is the two deck design without the massive mezzanine containing the money making club/suite seats. It makes the upper deck a great place to sit. In the view from center field, it looks almost exactly like Wrigley, with one suite level tucked under the second deck and the press box high. As ML says, the high club seats are reminiscent of Fenway. I would consider it a hybrid of Fenway (with the popular Monster seats and rooftop bar), Wrigley, and Tiger Stadium. If they can redo the bizarre left field corner, they have a masterpiece. The ‘building’ with club seats is a good use of the notch in the property line there, but the seat angles are jarring.

    I don’t think the ‘colonnade’ is as radical as the deck alignment. You can see the prototype by 360 at AAA Huntington Park in Columbus. I actually think every fan in the park would be tempted to walk there if they allow it. I know I would. It will be the visual ‘trademark’ of the park and the opening shot on TV broadcasts. I don’t know the secret Lew Wolff marketing formula behind this design, but I’ll take it. We’ll probably pay through tne nose due to the small capacity, but we’ll get an experience we couldn’t find west of Chicago. Now let’s build it.

  35. Ah ha! Thanks craiger. Here’s a video of the colonade at Huntington park. Notice the RF line is 318!

  36. Very cool—neat to see the real deal v. a rendering—I agree it would be a destination spot—also believe that SJ’s would curve with Autumn Pkwy which would provide additoinal visual interest

  37. OK ML, I changed my mind. The colonade in RF won’t make the park feel walled in. Seeing Huntington park pictures and video have helped me realize how cool this will be. Add another level and a curve to the structure and It is more impressive!

  38. @ Bay Area A’s

    Thanks for sharing the Huntington Park info. If this Diridon version of Cisco Field gets built, the colonnade will definitely be one of the most defining features of any ballpark around. I appreciate that it’d based out of land space limitations too and not a contrived gimmick.

  39. @TonyD–Excuse me, but the area from SFO to Gilroy is Giant’s territory.
    If SJ is such a slam dunk and the perfect place, they would of picked them last year too. 17 months? What the hell’s going on? BS was not happy about Chuck Reed and that ballot measure, because SJ is out of the equation IMHO, but I’ve been wrong before.

    • @TonyD–Excuse me, but the area from SFO to Gilroy is Giant’s territory.
      If SJ is such a slam dunk and the perfect place, they would of picked them last year too. 17 months? What the hell’s going on? BS was not happy about Chuck Reed and that ballot measure, because SJ is out of the equation IMHO, but I’ve been wrong before.

      I’m talking about true heart of the fanbase, not technical territory. In the greater San Jose area you’ll find both A’s and Giants fans. By the way, BS was so unhappy with Chuck Reed that he (MLB) offered to pay for a March special election for the ballark? No need to go in circles; I’m done on this thread.

  40. @jk–couple points–SJ Merc is currently advertising at the Oakland Coli—have yet to see that at ATT–second–if SJ is out of the running than what are the other “variables” in your equation that keep MLB from telling Oakland to get on with it and build the ballpark by 2015—no TR issue to be dealth with in Oakland—put the shovel in the ground and take care of biz—

  41. I don’t see a spot for an emergency vehicle entrance to the field. Has anyone caught where it is?

  42. I agree with GoA’s and Tony D.

    Why would the BRC announce they are choosing Oakland when the entire East Bay is already in the A’s territory?

    There “nothing” stopping Oakland from getting this done with the A’s ownership now. They just sit there and wait. I ask “wait for what?”

    San Jose is the city that needs to wait for a BRC decision. The longer this goes the more it favors San Jose by default.

    What is so hard to understand about this with Pro-Oak fans?

    If Oakland was the BRC’s choice then lets get on with it. But the BRC knows what Lew Wolff knows already…..Oakland nor the East Bay have any viable sites available and San Jose is a much more suitable market.

    All this plus with no public subsidy from the City of Oakland nor Alameda County available, all signs point to one issue that is holding this up….The TR issue with the Giants.

    The TR issue is the only reason that is stopping this and that will be resolved very soon as MLB stated they would pay for a Spring election in San Jose and they “appreciate their enthusiasm” about this.

    Why draw this out otherwise?- Please Pro-Oak fans please provide a theory.

  43. i also don’t see where there’s an opening towards getting out of the park inside a vehicle. don’t they need to have one just in case of emergency like bringing in and out an ambulance, bringing in material like maybe new sod before the season starts, heck during ceremonies that you know will feature vehicles circling the field.

    course this are again the first sketches of the park and some sort of path from the field to the outside probably will be installed. if i had to make a guess, there will be some sort of gate that opens in that “thing” in rf so that would mean the wall wouldn’t be all solid brick. sort of what you see with at&t with their brick rf wall.

  44. The left field party suite building could be alot like the Bricktown ballpark’s building that houses Coach’s brewery, only bigger. How about Gordon Biersch? I have been perusing the Diridon area plan (on SJRDA website) and there will be a pedestrian way connecting HP, HSR, Diridon station, the ballpark and a proposed neighborhood park (approx. 8 acres) directly across Park from Cisco field. The pedestrian way will follow Cahill and jog behind Cisco field to the west, possibly creating an area like that behind the 3rd base grandstands at Target field. There also appears to be a building between Park and Cisco field. Could this house a regional sports museum (like Camden Yards) or maybe something entirely different?

  45. Also of note from the Diridon area plan is the FAA OEI height restrictions. The Northwest corner of the ballpark site is limmited to 130 feet above grade and the south end of the site is limmited to 145 feet.

Leave a Reply to Sid Cancel reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.