360 Architecture does package deal for A’s & Quakes

A while back, I had postulated that construction of both the A’s and Quakes’ stadia would be done together, sequenced to take advantage of lower combined materials costs and labor. Little did I know back then that this sort of packaging extended to stadium design as well. That’s exactly what has happened as Wolff/Fisher put out a press release revealing the combined effort.

The timing of the release is obviously to capitalize on 360’s involvement as principal for New Meadowlands Stadium, which is due to have its first regular season NFL game next Monday. Print media reviews should be flooding in over the next several days, allowing for further mentions of 360’s past and future projects, the latter of which should include whatever they’re doing in the Bay Area.

Beyond the possible PR mini-coup, I figure that this was also a smoke signal sent up to say, “Hey, we’re still here and we’re working on it.” In fact, they’ve been working on it for a while. While we figured that ownership had 360 on retainer while all the political mess was sorted out for the ballpark, it was expected that Rossetti would be the firm of choice for the soccer stadium, since they had done several others over the past decade. And since the Quakes’ renderings are basically the same ones from last year’s EIR draft, it’s clear the 360 has been working on the Quakes project for some time.

Try as they might, however, this doesn’t mean that MLB is any closer to getting anything done. Even if that were the case, we wouldn’t hear about it until at least November or the winter meetings.

Stadium4

On the technical side, the Quakes’ stadium and the A’s ballpark are a study in contrasts. The Quakes have their club seats at field level, whereas the A’s have theirs at the top of the stadium. The A’s will have luxury suites, the Quakes may not have any to start. The Quakes will have a planned development right next to their stadium. Something like that at Diridon for the A’s is much further down the road, and the A’s may have little to no control over it. The Quakes will have plenty of parking on the premises. The A’s won’t.

I suspect that this is by design. By offering certain amenities in one facility and not in another, they’re inviting the public to experience both in a mix-and-match fashion. If you’re looking at it from the perspective of a corporate seat buyer, you may have the ability to pick from different combinations of accommodations. It would take Jeffrey’s regionality idea and give it a twist, in that it bridges multiple leagues from a selling standpoint, not just business operations. And if the Quakes are still struggling to get corporate sponsors to commit to the Quakes stadium, it would make sense to leverage the A’s ballpark as a valuable selling point in the form of a package sponsorship deal. Combine that with, say, a future investment in the teams by the Sharks’ ownership group (SVSE), and the potential for further integration is huge. Now, I have no idea how the accounting would work with all of that, but we’re talking about an accountant as the managing partner – he probably has a few ideas. If you’re the Giants, this is most certainly something to watch. The Giants would love to be able to grab additional revenue streams by building a new SF arena for the Warriors, and this kind of flexibility has to be part of the game.

25 thoughts on “360 Architecture does package deal for A’s & Quakes

  1. I’ve got to think that maybe there is something to the notion that this press release means positive things might be happening for San Jose. Why would Wolff spend even more money if nothing is going his way?

    Not sure i agree that the timing is to capitalize on 360’s involvement in the new Meadowlands stadium. How many people around here at, least, really care about that project?

    Incidentally, to cut costs, the new Meadowlands stadium has some beams creating obstructed-view seats, something never seen at the now-demolished Giants Stadium.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/jersey_field_of_oabCIiTLOJ1QzPFltXiniO

  2. Pjk, why assume Wolff is spending more money? He has been working with 360 on these projects for a long time.

  3. Jeffrey,
    At least how I’m reading this development, it didn’t take much money-wise to commission 360 to draw up renderings of the ballpark. It appears now however that the real work will begin for 360 with actual design and engineering of the facility(s). Just my opinion.

  4. It definitely looks like the San Jose ballpark is moving to a new level of activity. And why would that happen if the park is not going to be built?

    Perhaps we can have a sliver of optimism that MLB owners, most of whom probably couldn’t find San Jose on a map, can show some intelligence and do the common-sense thing: Let the A’s move to San Jose and tell the Giants to get lost.

    It’s obvious why AL owners would support an A’s move to San Jose – more money for all of them. But NL owners should do the same, unless they think the Giants are entitled to claim not one but two major cities as their exclusive “territory.” How many other teams in MLB have two Top 15 cites (population) in their territory? None, I’ll bet.

  5. I’m looking forward to more renderings of the proposed Diridon Cisco Field. I’d like to see renderings with fans seated and walking on the concourses to illustrate the scale of this ballpark. Have the A’s or 360 officially stepped forward to claim authorship of the recent Cisco Field renderings? I’m not disputing whether or not they’re from 360 Architecture, but sjredevelopment.org doesn’t cite an author to the recent renderings.

  6. ML,

    I can’t go into much detail but the bar I work for has a marketing arm that has been in talks with the Quakes, A’s and Sharks for cross marketing promotions and data gathering. Part of this includes getting discounted items (tickets, consessions, and team store crap) based on what you purchase at any 3 of those teams games. You’re smarter than I thought you were, sir 😀

  7. One thing I keep hearing that I dislike is that there will be obstructed views at Cisco Field. I say, work around that and get it out of the way now before the stadium is built than waiting around and then doing a retrofit to fix that later.

  8. Briggs, we got definitive proof the day after the renderings came out that they were from the A’s. We’ve got a picture of Lew holding them in his hands in his office. Doesn’t get more definitive than that. And the Murk confirmed a day later.

    Zonis, where are you hearing that it’ll have obstructed views?

  9. Dan,

    The third base line has seats that butt up against the brick building in the Left Field corner. No way those aren’t obstructed.

  10. I’d wager they’re not. That “building” is farther from the field than the Western Metal Building is at PETCO Park. And that building doesn’t obstruct any views.

  11. @sfp – I had no idea that your bar, which shall remain nameless, had a marketing arm! The world is getting so complex.

    @all – I’ve tried to figure out the number of partly obstructed view seats in the LF corner. It may be 200. The obstruction may not be that bad, basically those people won’t be able to see the LF wall and warning track. The real obstructed views will be caused by columns. But if they go with a 32,000-seat version, I find it difficult to see the need for columns because the seating decks are shallower.

  12. And many A’s fans are used to obstructed views. Anyone sitting beyond the first row or two of the bleachers can’t see the warning track in front of them or the the power alley on their side. Is there an MLB park around that can claim not having any obstructed view seats?

  13. Dodgers Stadium and US Cell probably are parks that don’t have any obstructed views.

    helps that they have regular “bleachers” or pavilions beyond the of.

  14. Wondering whether they would ever consider sliding the brick building down to allow full view from those upper deck seats. It appears they would just need to move it the width of one of those suites. To gain the suite back, why not slide the LF corner beachers back to a more straight position.
    .
    As far as the columns, I think they have to go. I know nothing about engineering, but if the negative comments about the Giants/Jets stadium are any indication, the A’s would be wise to spend the extra money to do away with the columns.

  15. didn’t ol’ Lew spend a bunch of money buying land in Fremont? i wonder what that marshland is worth now?

  16. What are people’s thoughts on the name of the team? The Oakland A’s of San Jose, Oakland A’s, San Jose A’s?

    • @Tom – As part of San Jose’s negotiating principles, they’ve made very clear that any team that moved to San Jose would have to named “San Jose ___” with no Anaheim-like loopholes.

  17. it’ll be sj a’s without question.

  18. Pressure on Selig to move forward in SJ continues with the release of this letter signed by 80+ Silicon Valley CEO’s. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16025095. Note that their committment is to support both teams provided that the territories be assigned similiar to other 2 team markets—I would expect the A’s to have on-going press releases to keep the attention/focus on the San Jose vote in March–decision has to be made by early November—6 weeks away—

  19. MLB has to ask itself if it wants to lose Cisco to the NFL over the Giants’ bogus claims. The 49ers need a stadium sponsor and Cisco has been left on hold for years now.

  20. Wow that is a LOT of heavy hitters. Hopefully Selig reads the damn thing.

  21. To pacify other skeptical owners, couldn’t they change the territorial rights without setting a dangerous precedent? For instance, they could vote on changing all 2 team markets into shared territories. Seems that baseball could specifically include language that would prevent the invasion of territory from a team not already within the same geographical local. I would think that such a provision would satisfy most everyone’s concerns. Is that a concession MLB is willing to make?

  22. how many teams are gonna move anytime soon once the a’s move to sj sometime in the next 3-4 years?

    every other team other than the a’s and tb have a new park built, renovated, or building one. i don’t see any of these other 30 teams moving anytime soon. what would their excuse or threat be since the whole we don’t have a serviceable venue argument used for so many teams over the past decade like the a’s and twins before they got their new park isn’t around anymore.

    if the a’s move to sj? how likely is it that tb moves to another team’s territory? they’re almost in the same boat as the a’s have been up until the past few months where it looks as of now that this sj deal may finally be going thru.

    what city out there is willing to spend the big bucks to build a 40k stadium? do other teams really have to worry about these whole territory rights issues on whether or not a team moves into their neck of the woods? imo the rays probably stay somewhere down in central florida and get a new park built eventually.

    if that is a sticking point for owners who are leery of the a’s moving to sj because it may effect them, i don’t see as a legit reason.

  23. I thought the other 2 team markets already were shared territories.

  24. They are all 2 team markets except Baltimore/DC. I think that is the point that JtB is making here. Part of the deal would be to reaffirm existing 2 team markets in one way or another.

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