The future of Pacific Commons is Target and a multiplex

If you were wondering what was going to happen after plans for a ballpark village in Fremont died, you now have your answer: a new development called “The Block.” As the next phase of Pacific Commons, The Block will contain a 100,000+ square foot anchor retailer and a 16 screen multiplex, along with additional retail stores. You may remember back when the ballpark village was being planned, there was talk of a “lifestyle center” that would’ve been home to numerous high-end stores. Now it’s pretty much the same-old, same-old stuff. That’s not to say that Fremont couldn’t use a new movie theater – there isn’t a first run theater currently within city limits. But another Target? And wasn’t that already in the works elsewhere in the immediate area? Fremont’s citizens decided a couple years ago that they don’t want to think big, and this is further proof of that. Oh well.

29 thoughts on “The future of Pacific Commons is Target and a multiplex

  1. Isn’t there a Target about a mile away at the Newpark Mall?

  2. Isn’t there a big multiplex about 4 miles away in Union City?

  3. Yeah in addition to the Target at Newpark there is also one in Fremont. Fremont also has two Walmart locations pretty close by. Movie theater is a good idea though, no good theater between Union City and Militas.

  4. What if movie-goers end up parking at Costco or Lowe’s? And that would be all year long, not just 81 nigths a year. Aaahhh! The big box retailers should fight this proposal with the same effort that they put into killing the ballpark.

  5. When the ballpark village was proposed it was billed as a way to give Fremont something like a downtown. Now, instead of holding a vision for the same type of planning sans ballpark, it has turned into yet another big box Americana shopping center. Sad!

  6. Fremont REALLY screwed up when they let a small group dictate the future of Cisco Field. Oh, the lost tax revenue Fremont could of had.

  7. Well, I am pretty sure that this would generate more tax revenue than a ballpark though, vince.

  8. Instead of bringing in thousands of people to shop in Fremont 81 days a year, they will have yet another Target to go along with the one that’s a mile away, and some movie theaters to go along with the ones that are a few miles away.

  9. Eventually, someone will probably propose hundreds of condos for the Warm Springs ballpark site, creating new traffic, etc, 365 days a year. Not to mention more burdens on the schools, etc. Better than a ballpark that supposedly would bring “crime and chaos,” I guess, even though every new ballpark in the last 25 years actually has been a blessing, like the one in Frisco.

  10. Just what the burbs needed….

  11. A massive parking lot with a couple of stores strewn about. Talk about turning back the planning clock a decade or so.

  12. Let’s see: Should we take a ballpark that will put us on the map internationally, bringing in thousands of people to spend $$ in Fremont, making us a destination city and likely host of an All Star game and World Series? Nah, we’ll take another Target instead.

  13. If it makes anyone feel better, the rumor is the newpark mall target will close when the pacific commons one opens.

  14. Ah, nothing like small minded and short term thinking. Regardless of the stadium, what an unimaginative means to use the space.

  15. I’ll bet the Target and multiplex will create dozens of high-paying jobs, right? Oh wait – these will be low-paying jobs, just like the ones that would have been created at the ballpark.

  16. Even though PC was removed from consideration, it still represented an outside option should San Jose and Oakland have failed. I guess this makes MLB’s upcoming decision even more important with regard to the A’s staying in the Bay Area. IMO, a “no” vote” would eventually lead to a change in ownership and/or relocation.
    Speaking of change in ownership, did anyone else hear Gary Radnich’s interview with Lacob and Guber a few weeks ago? Interestingly, both were part of attempts in the past to purchase the A’s. Guber was part of the Bob Picinini (sp) group, and Lacob had partnered with Beane. In Lacobs case, he had actually signed the purchase agreement, but never received a fully executed copy back from the selling party (he doesn’t mention who). Like the Picinini offer, it was apparently turned down by MLB and given to another buyer (again, no mention of any names). I wonder how different things might have been if either of the two groups had been successful in their bids. If you want to listen to the interview, you can go to KNBR’s site and click on the Radnich tab. The discussion takes place in the beginning of part 1.

  17. I think the (Fremont) A’s would have brought in not only more tax revenue from the A’s, it would generate more revenue from neighboring restaurants, stores, new hotels (for visiting teams and the press) than the target multiplex plan.

  18. But what about the traffic! Aahh! Or taking parking spaces at Costco!! Aaah!! Or the “crime and chaos” (quoting from the Fremont Citizens Network Web site). Funny, but I work down the street from ATT Park and have never seen anything but positive affects. No crime or chaos to be found.

  19. don’t forget the revived economy around china basin, pjk

  20. @fc–interesting item on Lacob and Gruber (separately) attempting to buy the A’s. These guys seem decent enough so far, handling the bill Cohan owed the Coliseum, reaching out to fans, doing some positive changes and wanting to win. I know their eyes are on SF down the road, but Jean Quan, who’s a huge W’s fan, will try to get them to stay and maybe get them to change the name to Oakland Warriors.
    Perata wouldn’t of cared, just like Brown.
    @pjk–Fremont and the tri-cities are bush-league to say the least, and are the blandest towns in the bay area (throw in Milpitas too). I still didn’t care for the ballpark village “vision” Wolff had out in no-mans land, surrounded by big box hell, with no real public transportation. I actually prefer Diridon over any Fremont area, but wouldn’t watch them at either place

  21. re: I actually prefer Diridon over any Fremont area, but wouldn’t watch them at either place

    Your loss. Don’t worry – the A’s will get many new fans in San Jose.

    If plans move forward for a Frisco arena, chances are slim to none that the Warriors stay in Oakland.

  22. Found it interesting that JQ’s made a splash in the press already…for the $1000+ dollars of unpaid parking tickets she has accumulated…..guess they booted her vehicle that was parked in front of city hall…ouch….and as noted in the article that she as a councilwoman promoted increased parking enforcement to generate additional revenues—oh well—off to another good start with the Oakland leadership

    Ed.: Not relevant.

  23. @pjk — do you “want” the Warriors to move to SF? Lots of Oakland bashing here … don’t understand why folks want Oakland to be a city without pro sports. The Oracle rocks for the Warriors!

  24. David: As a Sharks season ticketholder who lives about 5 minutes from San Jose’s arena, I am most concerned that operators of a Frisco arena will try to lure my Sharks away from San Jose. It’s probably a long shot, though, since the Sharks kicked in $35 mill to build SJ’s arena, are smack in Silicon Valley and the owners are from the valley, too. And the Sharks would not be anchor tenants like they are in San Jose.

    I don’t have much of an opinion on where the Warriors play. But if ground is broken on a Frisco arena, the Warriors will most definitely be gone from Oakland. And to add insult to injury, you can be guaranteed that the Golden State Warriors will suddenly become the San Francisco Warriors.

    (I’d love to see San Jose get the Kings, who have given up on getting a new arena in Sacramento.)

  25. @pjk–I was thinking the same thing, about SF trying to lure the Sharks if and when they build a new arena near AT &T. Increased capacity probably at around 19-20k for hockey and 21k for b-ball, and increased tix prices cuz it’s the City. It’s a semi-long shot, but the Sharks can be sold and make a huge profit and bolt up north. How would that make you feel? Not so great. As A’s fans, we’ve put up with this crap, one foot out the door, for the last 15 years and a couple years before Finley sold to the Haas family.

  26. @jk-usa – If the SF interests can figure out a way to privately finance $750 million (probable 2020 dollars) on an arena, more power to them.

  27. You think it would cost $750? Sounds a bit high. Maybe $500-$600. (SJ’s arena was built for about $165 mill in 1993). If a Frisco arena gets the go-ahead, there’s pretty much no possibility that they won’t try to lure both the Sharks and Warriors. What they could wave at the Sharks is maybe couple thousand more seats and, of course, no more airport curfew. But I think the Sharks will stay put for goodwill purposes (their fan base is dominant in the South Bay) and because they run the show in San Jose.

    I can sort of understand how JK feels about the A’s moving to SJ because if the Sharks moved to Frisco, even to an arena down the street from my office, I would probably lose interest and not renew my tickets. But SJ has given the Sharks everything they’ve wanted – a brand new arena that they control, millions of dollars in improvements, control of luxury boxes, etc. In Oakland, the city has slammed the door shut on A’s efforts to come up with a new ballpark. And if San Jose took the Sharks arena and wrecked it the way Oakland did to the A’s, I wouldn’t blame the Sharks for bolting.

  28. @pjk – Orlando Events Center/Amway Center opened this year, price tag $480 million. That included less than $10 million in land acquisition costs. Given seismic requirements, higher construction costs in SF, and the likelihood of building in extras with the arena, $750 million is a realistic figure.

  29. San Jose must be glad it built when it did. I think Prudential Center in Newark, NJ opened at a cost of $350-$400 mill, without the Bay Area’s seismic expenses.

    re: Blaming Wolff. What i really don’t understand is pro-Oakland folks failing to take personal responsibility for the A’s plight, since these are the public officials that these pro-Oakland folks voted for. Wolff didn’t make Jerry Brown mayor, Oakland voters did. Wolff didn’t elect the Alameda County and Oakland city officials who wrecked the Coliseum. Oakland and Alameda residents did. But it’s always blame Wolff, blame Wolff, blame Wolff.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

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