KCBS radio reported yesterday that an online construction bidding service, bidclerk, has a new or updated listing for an A’s stadium San Jose (paid subscription required). The value of the project is $400 million, less than what we’ve frequently discussed as the cost of the ballpark. Start date is listed as January 2013. The project description goes as follows:
New construction of an athletic stadium in San Jose. Preliminary plans call for the construction of a 32,000-seat baseball stadium. The stadium will include concession areas, restrooms, ticket boxes, V.I.P. areas, locker rooms, a medical facility and offices.
This project is contingent upon approval from Major League Baseball and the city. Construction is scheduled to begin no earlier than the first quarter of 2013.
The listing dates back to 2006, when the A’s were looking in Fremont. Strangely, the included documents are two of the now outdated Pacific Commons renderings alongside one recent San Jose rendering. Listed as project contacts are Lew Wolff and 360 Architecture principal Brad Schrock. There isn’t much information right now other than a heads up to interested contractors. Should the project be approved by MLB and SJ, activity should increase appreciably.
Wolff’s Maritz-Wolff development company also lists the Earthquakes’ stadium project. Some light-oriented schematics are included, and the project description indicates how much further along the project is compared to the ballpark:
Site work and new construction of a mixed-use development in San Jose. Schematic plans call for the construction of a 20,000-seat soccer stadium.
This project is currently in the financing stage, and construction is tentatively expected to begin in spring 2011.
In both cases, they are accurate reflections of where the two projects stand. That leaves the January 2013 start date for Cisco Field the one truly speculative item. Should it start at that date, construction would have to be completed in 27 months to be done prior to Opening Day.
newballpark.org 
I’ll do the whole thing myself for not one, not two but FREE DOLLARS! Would that speed this whole thing up?
More fule to the fire baby.
Interesting that the A’s ballpark construction is slated to start about the time the Earthquakes stadium construction is slated to be winding up.
I like your thinking Dan! RM, is this online bidding company legit? And if so, did they pull the ballpark out of thin air or did someone (like Wolff/A’s) place the ballpark there for bid? Interesting stuff. If Wolff/A’s put the ballpark (and SSS) there for bid, that would be strong evidence in favor of them knowing the end game to this “BRC study.” Again, very interesting.
I wondering if the A’s ballpark progress is linked to the KTRB purchase. Aside from Wolff’s update on Rick Tittle, it’s been quiet. Speaking hypothetically, should SJ fall through and Oakland’s prospects remain murky, a struggling radio station could be more of a burden than anything else.
Wow, I didn’t see that part about the Quakes stadium. Looks like what many suspected, that construction would start soon after the 12 week demolition completed was in fact correct. And they’ve increased the capacity from 15,000 +3,000 to 20,000 which is also great news. Can’t wait to see local soccer in an actual soccer stadium.
Tony, we know by now not to suspect anything that isn’t explicitly stated.
Agreed NT.
@Tony D. – The info was posted by someone associated with Wolff or 360. Interesting aside – there’s also a bid for the Cinemark multiplex that will be built at Pacific Commons.
Thanks RM.
Curious as to why the January 2013 start date. If Wolff fully expects a decision to come down from MLB withing the next six months, wouldn’t a 2012 start date seem more likely. I’m assuming the A’s would need about a year to get everything in place before ground can be broken.
The listing is just a contingency — it’s expressly stated that the project depends on MLB and SJ city approval.
To the extent there is any news value, it’s in the fact that the A’s (or whoever is responsible for the listing) acknowledge that construction will begin NO EARLIER than first quarter of 2013. Doesn’t mean that’s when it will actually begin or that it will ever begin at all. But it does tell us the A’s are conceding that no shovel will hit the ground in 2012.
Simon,
The A’s have always stated that the ballpark would open in 2015. This would mean golden shovels in the ground no later than Spring 2013. Not quite sure of the importance of breaking ground next year (?).
FYI, Nationals Park in DC took 22 months to construct.
i’d say most stadiums built over the past two decades the time to construct them would be 2-2.5 years at the most. so if a new park in sj were to have groundbreaking and making it ready for a 2015 opening day, it’d take place in late 2012 or early 2013.
Yup, like Tony D. and letsgoas have said, we should expect about a 24 month (give or take) construction period. A January 2013 ground breaking would point towards a 2015 inaugural season at Safeco, I mean Citi, errrr Petco… I mean Cisco Field.
I’m still hoping they replace the “Field” in Cisco Field with something else though. As it is, it sounds generic. I’d like to see something more unique like Cisco Diamond, Cisco Grounds, Cisco Coliseum(?) or Cisco Yards.
Cisco Grounds sounds cool!
Hopefully Cisco doesn’t name it after a product like HP did with the “HP Pavilion.”
Cisco 6509
I think “grounds” is reserved for Pearless Grounds @ Victory Court
..Peerless Grounds…
Peerless Grounds is almost as bad as HP Pavilion.
Peerless Grounds? ..lol.. I love that name, but too small of a company.
If It’s a go for VC, I like:
Kaiser Yards
Dreyers Grand Park
Clorox Field/Yards/Park
I love Safeway– I have a close connection to the company–but sounds
too much like Safeco
re: Kaiser Yards
Dreyers Grand Park
Clorox Field/Yards/Park
I love Safeway
.. If these companies had any interest in sports sponsorship in Oakland, wouldn’t they have already done it years ago?
pjk, top execs at Kaiser and Clorox are founding members of Let’s Go Oakland: Keep the A’s. They’re in the bag for support of a JLS ballpark, not just on some list of big companies in the vicinity.
How much are these companies willing to pay for naming rights? Anything close to the $120 million Cisco would pay in San Jose? I just did a search on “Clorox Oakland ballpark naming rights” and it came up empty. Sounds like these guys are willing to sign onto a Web site but I’m not seeing any evidence that they’re ready to sign 7-figure checks annually for 30 years to make an Oakland ballpark happen.
PJK…where are silicon valley sponsors now? If SJ is so likely the a’s should have a heavy SV sponsorship at the games, might help move things along at least. Wolff can then say “hey look people all of our sponsors are from SV so we need to move there” as opposed the same “trust me” line he has been saying since 2005. The only one that has committed to this project so far publicly is Cisco, and even they don’t sponsor the a’s currently. (although i have seen cisco ads at NHL games in Pittsburgh and elsewhere, but not sharks games..strange)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group already sent a petition to Selig with 75 CEOs signing it urging that a ballpark be built in San Jose. FWIW, Silicon Valley tech companies already have spent lots of money at the existing Coliseum Complex. Remember McAfee Coliseum? How about Oracle Arena?
A bit from the SVLG press release: “Among the 75 CEO’s who signed the letter were John Chambers, CEO of Cisco; Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo; John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner Perkins; Tom Werner, CEO of SunPower; Mike Klayko, CEO of Brocade; John Donahoe, CEO of Ebay; and Shantanu Narayen, CEO of Adobe.”
Big big names. Big big money.
Too bad these big , rich SJ/ SV companies can’t “pony” up some coin to save the mounted unit (police horses) for DT San Jose. I just see Wells Fargo, an SF company, as the main contributor. $280k is all they need. Comon, Cisco, where’s the help? John Chambers, Cisco’s CEO, has more than that as walking around money
Hey ML, how about an open “anything goes within reason” thread soon? I got some more goodies to throw out there.
lol oh my god..
Official San Jose Or Bust propaganda:
.
SF and East Bay corporations don’t matter because all they can do is create a web page.
South Bay corporations are where it’s at because they signed a letter.
Shaking head very, very slowly. Look, to all of those here who truly want the A’s to stay in Oakland, I say this: if you don’ t want to see the team leave Oakland city limits and want to see a VC ballpark, to that I say GREAT! That is completely your right and, in some ways, I’m with yah. I’m passionate about seeing my home town acquire MLB, so I can relate to the passion of some here who don’t want to see MLB leave Oakland. But please, try and build a real case for Oakland WITHOUT insulting San Jose or downplaying the corporate support lined up for a SJ ballpark. I was once a huge supporter of the Uptown ballpark plan for Oakland; that unfortunately didn’t work out. Now I see my hometown as the best possible option for the A’s to get a new Bay Area ballpark. The fact that SJ is my hometown and I’m a huge downtown fan makes it even more sweeter for me. Again, I’m passionate about this. And those who feel the same way about Oakland and VC, I applaud you. But make a case, don’t insult!
OMG dude, you have to try harder to keep up. I’ve never insulted San Jose. I’ve been no more critical of it than you have of Oakland, in pointing out various civic shortcomings or lack of achievement over the decades. When I paraphrase someone to show how stupid they sound, and how unhelpful their remarks are, it’s them that’s gettin’ the insultin’, not the unfortunate geographic area they’re trying to promote.
@Tony D./tps – Neither of you are great advocates for your causes.
@TPS – Cisco naming rights….$120 mill….please let us know who has signed up for Oakland with the same amount? kthx
@JK – You have this laughable fantasy that rich guys are born philanthropist. Please stop with the welfare poaching and advocate something that Oakland can do themselves without resorting to begging.
@S T–welfare poaching? Huh? How about an owner working, talking, anything!, with the city his team is playing in? He may have no choice if BS shoots down SJ, which isn’t looking too good. If he wants to pout and sulk, sell the sucker locally. There will be interest, and you’ll see naming rights/sponsors jump on board for a VC park.
re: There will be interest, and you’ll see naming rights/sponsors jump on board for a VC park.
…just like how the current Coliseum ballpark has a big naming rights sponsor, right? One of two stadiums in the country in use through MLB and NFL seasons but no corporations think it’s worth it to sponsor the building.
@pjk–how come none in Dallas so far? Jones may demand too much money.
Back to the original name from my childhood: Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum. I like it. Poor economy and the uncertainty of both teams future doesn’t help.
I remember when the arena in SJ was built back in 1993, and the city said they want it to keep it the San Jose Arena, that it’s for the community, not to sell out to a corporation. That lasted till 2001 when the Sharks and SVSE were having financial problems and Compaq bought in.
They also went to the 2nd choice (Sharks) for the name of the team, after a much publicized contest. Blades won out, but it sounded too violent. Isn’t their a blade on the bottom of a skate?
I remember when Candlestick was “Monster Park”. Do the 49ers have sponsorship at the park now? I think companies aren’t rushing for naming rights on the Coliseum, because they know its headed for demolition. I agree with jk-usa … build a nice stadium in JLS and all those businesses on LGO, will step up to the challenge. Wolff got the Cisco pledge. Good for him, he needs that right now, to make his bid to move more legit.
“How about an owner working, talking, anything!, with the city his team is playing in?”
The question is simply whether that city can support an MLB team under modern conditions. Long history of miserable support + little corporate base (the cornerstone of modern gate revenue) + intense competition only eight miles away = Why bother? Do you thing the city of Omaha could support an MLB team? No? So why would Wolff waste his time talking to the mayor of Omaha?
bartleby pretty much nails it. Both Wolff and previous owner Steve Schott have seen no future for the A’s in Oakland. So either these guys are flat-out meanies or they’re just grounded in realism.
@bartleby–I’m tired of revisiting this for the umpteenth time, but support was not that great too for the G’s before Pacbell park, and the A’s outdrawing them more years than not before Pacbell.
A new JLS will be as successful as Pacbell, no doubt. Hey, we still got 17k a game last year in a lousy stadium and poor ownership. That’s bigger than any Finley championship year.
re: Sharks and SVSE were having financial problems and Compaq bought in.
…Financial problems? It was just about selling naming rights and generating lucrative revenues. Arena/stadium naming rights in San Jose are worth a lot of $$$. JK makes it sound like the Sharks are failing, omitting the little detail about 18 years of sellouts, or whatever it is at this point.
speaking of naming rights, didn’t verizon a few years ago buy the naming rights to the coliseum and didn’t hear from them ever again.
@pjk–Sharks aren’t failing and are doing okay financially I believe, thanks to the success of the arena. They do rely on the extended season with the playoffs every year to make a profit i read. But weren’t they losing money a few years ago? Corporate support a little light there for awhile. Not sure. I’ve seen only 3 games there and don’t follow hockey that much. I saw more Golden Seals games in the mid 70’s. Smallish, but rowdy crowds and great seats for $5-6. First time I saw Krazy George before he got the Wave going in the 80’s with the A’s.
@jk “I’m tired of revisiting this for the umpteenth time,”
OK, so don’t. I’m tired of pointing out the obvious reasons why the situations in SF and Oakland were and are very different and why the success of AT&T Park does not automatically mean a new yard in Oakland will be equally successful (and in fact, almost guarantees a park in downtown Oakland would fail).
“but support was not that great too for the G’s before Pacbell park,”
Thats true, BUT there were reasons why that was the case.
– Candlestick was far less convenient and far less accessible than the Coli.
– Candlestick was a hideous freezing dump. The Coli was pretty much a state-of-the-art ballpark for much of the time we’re talking about. And,
– The A’s were far more successful on the field, winning four championships.
At the same time, the Giants enjoyed far broader support in the Bay Area than the A’s, as evidenced by TV ratings. Plus, there’s way more corporate money in SF to support premium seat sales than there is in the East Bay. So it was a much better bet that new venue plus new site would solve the Giants’ problems, especially given the lack of “new ballpark” competition. None of these factors apply to the A’s in Oakland, plus they must compete with AT&T Park.
“and the A’s outdrawing them more years than not before Pacbell.”
Attendance was roughly even, and went back and forth. But this was not particularly impressive considering the A’s led the Giants 4-0 in World Series titles during this time. And as noted above, there were factors holding back Giant’s attendance which did not apply to the A’s.
“A new JLS will be as successful as Pacbell, no doubt.”
There’s huge doubt. Even AT&T was considered a big gamble, despite significant corporate base, broader regional support, and lack of serious competition. Now the A’s are supposed to go head-to-head with the Giants in a ten square mile radius without corporate support? Not happening.
Bottom line: Today it’s all about premium seat sales. I’ve estimated such sales account for 50% or more of the Giant’s gate revenue. This is an educated guess, but so far no one has questioned my reasoning or come up with better numbers. This is the difference between being profitable and not. Bottom line is, the largest portion of the Bay Area’s corporate base is in the South Bay and the second largest is in SF. East Bay has relatively little. It makes no sense whatsover to build a second ballpark in the East Bay and HOPE it can cannibalize enough of the San Francisco market to get by while ignoring Silicon Valley.
“Hey, we still got 17k a game last year in a lousy stadium and poor ownership. That’s bigger than any Finley championship year.”
Translation: attendance sucks now, sucked then, and has consistently sucked regardless of what ownership did except for four or five unrepeatable and unsustainable years in which the team lost money hand over fist. There’s no evidence to suggest the East Bay was a good market for MLB even before the rise of SOTA ballparks and corporate money. Now that corporate money drives the business and the Giants dominate that area, there’s lots of evidence that building a privately-financed yard there would be a catastrophic money loser.
@bartleby–well aren’t you the Debbie Downer for the Oakland folks on here, but the pro-SJ guys love yah, especially TonyD. TonyD thinks Cisco Field @Diridon will be the best thing since sliced bread; will sell out every game for 47 years; will make Fenway look like a sandlot, and that the average SJ fan will easily spend $239 per game, not including tix and parking. He didn’t quite say that, but he probably dreams it nightly.
Not to change the subject, but if the NFL loses the 2011/2012 season, the Coli grass won’t be ruined for A’s baseball the last month of the season and potential playoffs. Yippee!!!!
http://newballpark.blogspot.com/2009/08/verizon-coliseum.html
Looking back at the previous site for this blog and they indeed was some talks about verizon getting the naming rights of the coliseum but i guess the deal fell thru as like i mentioned earlier we haven’t heard anything regarding this subject for a couple of years now.
A couple mill a year for naming rights is a drop in the bucket for a Verizon, Clorox or Safeway, and especially a Chevron. Yet they pay these overpriced CEOs at least that.
@jk I’m honestly not trying to be a Debbie Downer, although I understand why it may come across that way to Oakland-only folk. In making the arguments I make here, I’m not passing moral judgment on the City of Oakland or the people who want the team to stay there. I have affection for and personal ties with the City of Oakland. I would be the first to argue the Raiders and/or Warriors could and probably should build new buildings and thrive there. I would enjoy a new ballpark in Oakland as much as the next person (and hey, it’s not my money at stake to build it). But I’ve been in business a long time, and fundamentally I consider myself a realist. I have little patience for arguments that ignore or misrepresent economics and demographics (like the ones tps routinely makes) or that bash Lew Wolff for trying to put together a viable, privately-financed, local project. Thus, I have a tendency to take the bait.
“will sell out every game for 47 years”
At 32K, that is a possibility; that’s kind of the point. Rather than spending zillions to build additional upper deck seating (which is the most expensive part of the ballpark to build but generates proportionately lower revenue than the lower decks), you create scarcity for big games. In this way, you leverage demand to sell more season ticket packages. You don’t necessarily sell less tickets overall, but you’ve just found a way to sell tickets for Tuesday games against the Royals rather than extra upper deck tickets for the Yankees that will sit empty the rest of the season. It’s actually a brilliant business strategy.
“and that the average SJ fan will easily spend $239 per game, not including tix and parking.”
You might not want to hear this, but that figure might not be that far off. If you look at the pricing for AT&T Park, they’re getting something like $140 for club seats to premium games. They don’t publish their suite pricing, but I believe reading somewhere those go for something like 3K to 5K per game. And at 32K, a higher percentage of Cisco Field would be premium seating than at AT&T Park.
That doesn’t mean average fans will be paying anywhere near that much, but it does mean they better buy season ticket packages and they’ll probably be sitting in the upper deck or outfield.
You can decry the situation, and say that’s not how it ought to be, and I wouldn’t argue with you. But honestly, the money to build the ballpark has to come from somewhere. If it’s not going to be public money, wouldn’t you just as soon have it be big corporations?
@bartleby–nice post and I can see where you’re coming from. Call me the eternal optimist on some how pulling off an Oakland ballpark. Having Quan pull off that impossible mayors race (thanks to rank choice voting) was meant to be I believe, just like the A’s staying in Oakland forever, but not at the Coli of course.
@jk I respect that. Hey, folks who are saying “we get that the financials work better in the South Bay, but we love our team, and hope that the financials work just well enough to get a deal done in Oakland” – how can I argue with that? So maybe we have some common ground.
My fear is that if, as I believe, the financials won’t work, delays resulting from the VC effort may cost an opportunity in San Jose. Or, if a ballpark somehow does get built at VC and then the financials don’t materialize, I may find myself watching the green-and-gold version of the Pittsburgh Pirates for the rest of my life (e.g. wretched team playing in two thirds empty, state of the art ballpark and losing its top free agents every year).
But if a ballpark somehow does get built at VC, no one will be rooting harder for it to be a success than I will.