You may remember that last September, Jeffrey did an overview of architect Bryan Grunwald’s 980 Park site. An innovative solution, the ballpark would be placed on an expansive concrete deck above I-980 as the freeway becomes a wide urban canyon as it passes downtown before it becomes CA-24. Thanks to Grunwald’s persistence, the 980 Park site is an alternative on the Victory Court EIR. Since we know it’s part of the discussion from a process standpoint, it’s time to take a better look at what 980 Park’s advantages and disadvantages are.
Grunwald uses Fenway Park as the model. The park is above I-980, bounded by 14th and 18th Streets to the north and south, and Brush and Castro Streets to the east and west.
Looks like everything works, right? Not so fast, my friend. While many detractors focused on the terrorism fear angle of putting a ballpark above a big piece of transportation infrastructure, that’s not really that much of a problem. SFO’s International Terminal is built directly over the main access road. Madison Square Garden and Boston’s TD Garden are on top of heavily used train stations. Parts of Target Field, including the plaza between the ballpark and arena, are above a freeway segment. No, the biggest problem with 980 Park is the size and shape of the site.
In the picture above (provided by Bryan Grunwald), Fenway appears to fit almost perfectly into the site. After further investigation, not everything is at it seems. As an urban canyon, this freeway segment may be one of the widest in the nation thanks to the liberal use of ramps, shoulders, and landscaping. At its widest (Brush St. curb to Castro St. curb), the width is 450 feet. That’s an amazing amount, and that vastness probably led to the physical and psychological separation of West Oakland from the rest of the city. As Grunwald sees it, 980 Park is a chance to reconnect West Oakland with the rest of the city, right that postwar wrong for good. Going back to dimensions, 450 feet is great for any number of commercial projects. It’s not so great for a ballpark. To keep things in perspective, remember that 450 feet is only 10 feet longer than dead center at old Tiger Stadium.
Width of the site varies from 450 feet (yellow line) down to 300 feet (18th St.). Freeway on/off-ramps would have to be modified per Grunwald's plan.
Original yellow line indicates 450 feet (width of 980 Park site). Additional lines show actual dimensions of Fenway from the Green Monster to the end of the opposite grandstand plus additional infrastructure.
The yellow line in the above picture runs from the Fisk Pole south 450 feet. It terminates short of the back of the grandstand. This makes sense when you consider what goes into making the ballpark. Start with 310 (er, 308) from the Monster to the plate and 50 feet to the first row. That leaves only 90 feet for seats and circulation on that side. That’s simply not enough. Osborn Engineering was incredibly resourceful in dealing with the lack of space at Fenway by sticking the main concourse underneath the lower deck. They also crammed in as many seats as possible into the space by having narrow seats (18″) and row treads (30″) in the grandstand area, and if you’ve ever sat in those seats at Fenway you’ve noticed.
At the back of the lower deck grandstand is a narrow corridor for circulation and a "curb" on which people can stand, back to a fence. Upper deck and suites were added much later. Notice how much bigger the seats look from the upper deck club to the front of the lower deck to the back?
The advent of modern standards such as the “growing” American and ADA requirements make it impractical to implement Fenway now. Cisco Field at Diridon may be highly influenced by certain elements of Fenway, but it’s not going to be cramped like Fenway. Fenway’s field is rotated relative to the grandstand and street grid, yet its LF line lines up almost perfectly with the Meridian. Unlike my idea for rotating Cisco Field to expose more fair field dimensions, no amount of rotation can make up for the lack of space at 980 Park. It works at Diridon because the shortest dimension available on the irregularly sized lot is 570 feet, 120 feet more than at 980 Park. Curious about how this disparity works out to other small ballparks throughout the country, I whipped out Google Earth and used its virtual tape measure at several more space-constrained current and former ballparks. What I found was a pattern.
Shortest dimension when accounting for playing field (LF/RF line) in calculation. When possible, figure only includes ballpark grandstand and does not account for setbacks or sidewalks. Acreage includes field, grandstand(s), and everything else within exterior walls. Parking lots and ancillary buildings are not included.
There may be ways to widen the 980 Park site. Brush and Castro Streets are essentially three-lane, one-way frontage roads with parking on one side. Grunwald’s plan could reclaim one lane on each side, adding 15 feet to each side. However, the 450-foot measurement goes from curb to curb, and it will be necessary to have some amount of setback for sidewalks, trees, etc. That requirement alone would eat up the two reclaimed lanes. Beyond that, it’s hard to see what other changes could be made to fit a reasonably-sized ballpark. The field might be able to be rotated so that home plate sits directly above the median of the freeway, and the pitcher and batter face up/down the freeway. That would put the foul poles at Brush and Castro, leaving precious little space for circulation and creating limitations of the seating configuration. It’s a problem for a real architect like Bryan Grunwald, not a blogger enthusiast like me, to figure out. I don’t necessarily think it’s insurmountable. It is definitely a challenge, to put it mildly. And it would most assuredly be a first. Good luck, Bryan.
newballpark.org 
Hmmm, it certainly looks like a tricky proposition. I am curious how Bryan will respond. As much as I would love this to happen, I know Oakland politicians would never go for something dynamic and exciting. Sometimes it seems like they’re incapable of success.
oh boy, not good. I wonder if Brush and Castro st would just have to go away to make this work.
Man. How I wish a ballpark could be built on and around the property where the HJK Convention Center stands. The Tribune Tower and other downtown buildings looming past the LF wall…Lake Merrit beyond CF/LF and the hills beyond. What a great setting. Perhaps borrow BG’s “concrete deck” idea to cover 11th/12th/13th/14th streets to the water?
A man can dream.
BTW: I wish everyone here a safe and happy July 4th. And Go A’s!
@ML–I will send you an updated sketch later today. I am aware of the 450′ limitation and solved it by making the section on the first base side the same as the 3rd base line. So it fits. I am assuming removing some parking from Brush at the critical dimension, may need to do the same on Castro to maintain sidewalks and permit a 20′ are for seating on the Green Wall. The Green Wall seating will cantilever above Brush Street. Maybe cantilever on the Castro site to make the park architecture more dynamic. BTW AT&T Park do not allow parking on roads adjacent to the ballpark.
@BG – I’m not sure what you mean by your description. I eagerly await your sketch. Though I should point out that it’s not just a matter of making something fit within 450′. It’s also a matter of getting a modern ballpark in that space.
Architects and developers always make these “eye pleasing” diagrams of buildings but always leave out an important piece….financing.
The typical developer/architect response?…”Not my problem”.
I am sure I can find other places to fit a ballpark on random blocks in the East Bay or in Shanghai China.
The question is really how will it be paid for?? This makes the 980 and VC sites not feasible period as this has to be a privately financed ballpark period.
San Jose can do it with their corporate base, if Oakland can do it then please somebody standup and point this out to me like I am a 4-year old?
This is a post about architecture, not financing. I’m sure ML would appreciate being able to discuss various aspects of the situation and not have it get into the same argument every time.
Seems like quite a tight fit. I don’t think even the small soccer stadiums for the MLS would fit in that width.
@bc – true that it is an architectural discussion, but the whole premise behind the 980 park is because of its costs, something that doesn’t seem achievable with VC. While architecturally, it may be sound (i’ll leave that to the experts), I’m more strongly opposed to this than VC as i see it as another coliseum north that will eventually bite the a’s 10-15 years later. As I said before, it seems the principle reason behind this is just to get a stadium on the cheap and not necessarily an extravagant state of the art facility that will last for decades a la Phone Booth Park. If you’re going to spend upwards of half a billion plus dollars, might as well do it right with no regrets later on…JMHO.
How is the terrorism issue handled with those other structures? Can they withstand a large blast or it mostly a policing issue (or both)?
No way. Not a snowball’s chance in hell. I would never, ever, go to a game at this location. Where to park? What kind of area is it (near downtown Oakland probably not safe).
Frankly, as much as the SJ thing looks good with a nice sketch-up, and lots of corporate dollars near-by, I’ve always preferred either building on the current coliseum site, or some suburban location. To me, ease of access is everything, particularly since I don’t live in the area (foothills outside Sacramento). I require easy, plentiful parking, or easy BART access. Otherwise, it’s just too much of a a damn hassle to go to a game.
Not that I’m a Giants fan (sort of support them, just to have an NL team, and they are NorCal), but I have yet to go to a Giants game at AT&T park. Went to a bunch of ’em over the years at the Stick, but not AT&T. Why – when the Stick is such a dump, and AT&T is a crown jewel? Ease of access. Again, the Stick is easy to get to, and has plenty of parking. AT&T hardly has any parking, BART is not all that close. Taking a ferry from Vallejo would be nice, but that adds a big expense, and lengthens the day tremendously (I’m already driving two hours each way). On top of that, AT&T is expensive. Nose bleed seats start at $40, and fluctuate depending on opponent. Really not worth it, overall. Not for me. I’ll probably go once, just to experience it. But I’ll never make a habit of it.
Now, the Coliseum, as much as an obsolete dump it is, is totally easy for me. It’s just a straight shot down 80, then 880, then easy parking. I can drive down, see the game, drive back. No fuss, no muss. Plus ticket prices are totally reasonable. Plus, I love the A’s.
Accessibility is totally important with baseball.
Does anyone know how much, or if, the current Coliseum site has been examined as possibility for a new ballpark? There is plenty of room on one of the lots. It’s right off the freeway. BART is right there. Infrastructure is already there. No land acquisition would have to occur. No environmental studies would have to occur (or minimal). And it would be waaaay cheaper, and waaaay faster, to build there than anywhere else.
@jeff-athletic – When Wolff was hired by Schott in 2003 he asked Schott and the Coliseum Authority to do a study on a ballpark in the South lot at the Coliseum. Additional land along Hegenberger would need to be acquired to create a mini “village” around the ballpark. Schott agreed to do it. The Coliseum Authority did not. Fast forward to 2010. The Authority chose to pay for a similar study for the Raiders. As long as the Raiders are looking to build at the Coliseum, the A’s are shut out. Also, it appears that MLB has dismissed the Coliseum site in favor of downtown sites, for now.
@jeff-athletic- The Coliseum site has already be struck down by MLB. They want a park in a downtown area, which fits better with the baseball crowd who goes to restaurants and bars before and after games. The Coliseum grounds would make for a great football location, as tailgating is more of a football event, and all that parking makes that possible.
.
If you really want to see a Giants game, you don’t really have an excuse not to go. There is a parking lot just south of the stadium, across the channel on 3rd street, about a five minute walk. Check out Google maps. I’ve done that a few times and it’s not a problem.
.
The Diridon location has plenty of parking scattered throughout the area, and you could also take the Capitol Corridor train right to it if you were so inclined.
@jeff-athletic Your perception of the parking situation at AT&T Park is way off. Parking is plentiful, and access by car is WAY better than at Candlestick. In addition to the official lots, there are giant new garages just south of the park for SF State that are very reasonably priced. Flower Mart is a good option for reasonably priced parking, and there are lots of private lots and garages just north of the park.
It’s plentiful, but to park at Pac Bell Park is a very expensive proposition. Last time I went 2 years ago the lot south of the stadium across the O’Doul Bridge was $30. I suspect it’s probably even more today. And that’s on top of the Giants already highly elevated ticket prices. Only problem with having a championship team in a stadium that is 99% privately financed… they have to gouge you to pay for it.
By comparison I go to games down in San Diego for half the ticket price and the most I ever pay for parking directly across the street from the stadium is $15.
@Dan and @ jeff-athletic: And yet the Giants attendance has consistently been among the best in the majors since they moved to their ballpark in 2000. Even their worst seasons in the years after Bonds left they drew around 2.8 million, with high ticket prices. The almost universal experience of MLB teams moving into new ballparks in downtown areas has been (1) less parking, and (2) more fans paying higher prices for tickets.
.
This is what the A’s want and need. A stadium surrounded by gobs of free or cheap parking does not maximize attendance or revenue. An urban setting that lacks parking but is within walking distance of lots of businesses, restaurants, bars and shopping does. I will leave it to the economists or sociologists to figure out why that’s so, but it’s definitely so. Convenience for fans who have to drive a long way to the park is nice, but it will not result in 30,000+ tickets sold for every game, which is basically the threshhold for a successful franchise nowadays. A downtown park in either Oakland or San Jose will do that.
@Dan As noted before, the main lots at AT&T are expensive but there are reasonable alternatives nearby. Just going on memory, I think the SF State garages are in the $15 range, as is Flower Mart.
Thanks for answers guys. Makes sense. I know the economics/sociological aspects have moved everything towards downtown stadiums (for reasons stated). But I’m selfish 😉 I like it to be convenient for me. I am going to go to a game at AT&T at some point. I’ll look into all of these alternate lots/garages. I’ve even considered parking somewhere along the embarcadero, or even Fisherman’s Warf, and take the trolley over. Again, I’ve also considered taking the ferry from Vallejo.
Big hassle compared to going to River Cats games 😉
Oops – the garages I was talking about are at UCSF Mission Bay, not SF State. My bad.
@Jeff Crime in dowtown Oakland including the area of the proposed 980 stadium is average for an urban area. I’ve lived two blocks from the proposed 980 site for 3 years and criminal activity is limited to auto break-ins, prostitution, and I’m sure some drug dealing (but somehow I’ve never seen that happen). There is an assault from time to time, but it’s rare. All of which has been on the decline since the Fox re-opened and the Uptown apartment development filled to 90% occupancy. A high-end 200+ unit apartment building is to open at 14th and MLK in August. Things are changing for the better and while I don’t want a ball park two blocks away… it’s not a place that is too dangerous for one to be.
@ML–The First Base line stands are 137′ wide, while the Third Base line stands are 85′. If you make them symmetrical @85′ wide as one should to minimize construction, then you reduce the over all width by 42 feet. Deducting 42′ in width from your Fenway Park maximum width of 493′ as indicated above yields a width of 450′ give or take a foot. Additional width can be gained by eliminating the parking lane ad the critical width, to provide for sidewalks and/or bike lanes. Parking lost can be made up in the attached parking garage./Users/bgrunwald/Desktop/FenwayFirstBaseStands85′.jpg/Users/bgrunwald/Desktop/FenwayFirstBaseStands85′.jpg
–
I am not aware of any significant area needed for ADA. There is plenty of area north and south of the ballpark for elevator cores, escalators, ramps, and exit stairs. Most of the width of ballparks is to accommodate vendors and back of house activities. Again there is plenty of space along the Third Base Line and in the Outfield to widen the stands for front and back of house uses.
–
/Users/bgrunwald/Desktop/FenwayOak500Aug2Rev.jpg
Couldn’t an upper deck or a concourse be cantilevered over Castro (making Castro a tunnel under a part of the ballpark)? It would cause the park to butt up against the buildings on the other side of Castro, but even that would probably add some “Wrigleyville” flavor. Tiger Stadium in Detroit had bleachers over the street behind the LF wall in the ’30’s, after all (see the 1934 icon here: http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/TigerStadium.html ).
@Brian–It is possible to cantilever over the sidewalk, buy probably not over the moving lanes. However, it may be possible to bridge over to new buildings on the east side of Castro (Downtown side) to provide amenities to the upper decks on the First Base Line. The buildings could provide additional vertical circulation. There are a number of vacant lots and/or other development sites that could provide this opportunity. This would extend the values of the ballpark.
@gojohn–Re you question of resistance to a terrorist bomb threat–all you have to review is the first World Trade Center bombing result. The bomb was placed in a light truck in the parking garage below the WTC. The result is the blast was directed out into the parking garage, and not up, as blast forces seek the easiest way to expand–in the case of 980 Park the blast forces would go out the direction of freeway and ramp openings. It should be noted that I-980 is truck traffic restricted–so we are talking light vehicles.
Recent comments not related to 980 Park and architecture have been deleted.
@Bryan Grunwald – Okay, I got your attachments. Nothing that you sketched gets to the heart of the problem. 85′ lower deck yields 30 rows of seats (33″) with no circulation fore or aft. The way I see it the width issue translates into three distinct problems:
1. Lower deck is either extremely shallow or must have concourse underneath it.
2. Upper deck along foul territory cannot be too close to field or sightlines become very poor. If the upper deck is pulled back, capacity is compromised.
3. Wheelchairs (ADA) spaces and companion seats have to account for 1% of seats at every price range yet are difficult to shoehorn in because of the amount of space they require. Where do they go?
I think what everyone would like to see is a truly bespoke solution for 980 Park, not a retread of Fenway. Below is a picture of a cross-section of Fenway’s third base grandstand from the Green Monster. You can see the lower deck extend well back of the roof. I counted some 44 rows of seats along the third base lower deck.
@ML–The answers:
1. Lower deck in shallow section along the 3rd base line must have a concourse with vomitories and aisle behind field level seats. Third base line section has many options including being deeper.
2. Don’t understand this question
3. Fenway model I used has largely been made ADA compliant–has nearly 40K seats, some seats and aisles I would admit are narrow, but we are looking for a 36K seat ballpark and if more area is needed then the Third Base line could be widened to match the First Base line at Fenway.
4. I am not saying that I would advocate a total rebuild of Fenway. Only by using Fenway as a model to show that a ballpark would fit on the 980 Park site with some adjustments, in response to your crits above.
Marine Layer:
I posted a relatively recent comment last night; I don’t see it up here.
Was it deleted?
A’s observer.
South of 15th Street the existing freeway footprint widens. Why is the proposed design being wedged into an area of the freeway that narrows?
@BG – Just do the math. You’ll have a hard time fitting 30k seats in the space unless you build very vertical. And as I mentioned, the roof line has little bearing on how large the grandstand is. The seats extend well behind the roof. It’d be nice if you did some kind of basic sketch or schematic instead of a Fenway overlay. Clearly you’re trying to cut a few corners by doing that.
@A’s observer – I removed 20 comments for not being relevant to the topic at hand. That group included one of yours.
Marine Layer:
thanks for getting back to me.
But I thought my comments were entirely relevant because they responded to your comment that the Coliseum Authority nixed the idea of doing a stadium at the Coliseum; true this site is no longer in the EIR process for Victory Court but Oakland/Alameda County officials removed it in response to the plan being dropped by the team as I understand it.
Again, for the record, I hope the Victory Court plan succeeds; but if it doesn’t then the A’s and Raiders should collaborate with the Warriors, Alameda County and Oakland to make that entire area a regional asset.
A’s observer.
@A’s observer – I really don’t want to belabor the point since it’s off-topic. The team had no say in MLB’s culling of the four Oakland sites. MLB is the party who said the Coliseum site was inadequate. At this point the Coliseum is not on anyone’s radar as a potential ballpark site.
@Matt–Yes it is possible to slide the ballpark 60′ south and pick up another 20′ + of width, but the plaza would be reduced.
–
@ML–It is a hell of lot of work to tweak this concept. I am relying on the Fenway footprint to show it is possible.
So MLB told Oakland city officials to find sites of pre-requisites. The city said here are four spots that meet your criteria. Then Victory Court was selected. @Bryan Grunwald, have you spoken to anyone at MLB about the 980 Park concept? If yes, what has been MLB’s response?
Marine Layer: The team had “no say” in MLB removing Coliseum site?
Okay.
To Bryan Grunwald: thanks for your effort but wouldn’t there be a tremendous amount of fumes and other potential toxic issues to deal with?
A’s observer.
@Ethan–I haven’t spoken to MLB, but I have been told by City Staff that they are aware of the 980 Park proposal. MLB is not the driver here, it is the ownership group.
–
@A’s Observer–Carbon Monoxide is a heavy gas and the deck is short–so ventilation requirements are unknown at this time. However, if ventilation is required, gases and particulates, would be subject to filtration. 980 Park has garnered the endorsement of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project because it would reduce freeway particulate matter from entering West Oakland, by decking and street sweeping. Also it would reduce noise.
–
The only real issue is the control and time. The City doesn’t like to have to deal with Caltrans, being a State agency, is a higher level of government. Hence, they can’t control the land or the schedule for completion. The schedule is driven by availability of local funding and the environmental review process. Assuming the money is available, say $200K for the Caltrans required engineering feasibility study (the EIR is being done on this site by the City), the only issue is the time to complete the environmental review. Since the City has started the EIR on VC and is considering 980 Park as an alternative as well as I have garnered the endorsement of all the adjacent neighborhoods, it would seem the schedule would be short, but not in the control of the City. Sorry for the rambling sentence, but I have to run.
@BG – I am sure it is a lot of work to tweak the concept. But, we’re talking about a facility that the A’s would use for 30+ years AND something the current owner would have to sign off on. No one would want a stadium that’s an engineering and design marvel for fitting 32K seats into such a small area but turns out to be bad for watching baseball in. For example, I don’t believe any of the modern stadiums have a main concourse underneath the lower deck and no other way to access concessions. So, that may work to shoehorn a stadium into the 980 plan, but is probably an outmoded ballpark design.
@cuppingmaster and ML–I will be the first to admit the width of the 980 site is a challenge. Probably the only way it could work is to move the footprint I have been using south so we benefit from a 470′ width–and main concourse at grade or slightly elevated. Extend the paid-area concourse into the plaza for more width on the Third Base Line. The fact remains that something similar exists in Fenway Park, and the fans love it. Small is the new intimate. Small is likely to be less expensive. Frankly with the vomitories opening at near field level, it may be great.
brian…FENWAY PARK IS 100 YEARS OLD. NOT COMPARABLE TO A MODERN STADIUM.
.
jeez you are dense.
name-calling between A’s fans, is not cool.
I’m trying to rap my mind around this 980 Park. What I do know is Mr. Grunwald has done a lot of hard work and is an experienced architect – he has earned our respect, IMHO.
Bad move on my part. But its hard to compare 100 year old stadiums with modern plans.
.
I was at fenway in 2009. The flaws are all over the place. People (myself included) accept the flaws because of its historic nature. But for a brand new park no one will accept the flaws.
I think 980 is an awesome concept. Does it stand up with all the the little details taken into account? Not sure. The idea that you could duplicate Fenway and it would be good enough? Completely wrong. The idea that Brian should spend a bunch of time working through the finite details of plan that isn’t likely to go anywhere? Entirely up to him.
The solution to widening the cinch point of 980 Park 500+’ feet (wider than existing Fenway Park @ 493′) involves acquiring 3 homes and one vacant lot in West Oakland. I regret this, but it would make the site eminently feasible and would increase the capacity, function and access to the attached garage. Maybe as much as 525′ if parking lanes in the cinch point are removed. This would allow seating above the “Green Wall”. It is better to address this possibility now, while the EIR is being prepared to avoid time delay and EIR costs.
@BG – “eminently” feasible, huh? Hehe, just messin’ with you. Thanks for taking the time.
@All–I went out to visit the possible acquisition sites necessary for a 500’+ wide ballpark. The fringe on Brush Street has been disturbed by the 980 construction. Some lots are vacant, essentially a ragged edge. It is possible to move (literally pick it up and move it to new foundations) two home to adjacent vacant lots. One home is single family and the other has three apartments. The only structure that would have to be displaced, it is a 12 unit apartment house. It is totally out of character with the surrounding historic single family homes in the area. This is regrettable, but there are several vacant lots on both the east and west sides of the freeway where this housing could be relocated and quality improved. I will prepare a new sketch.
So wait now this plan involves moving housing? This is more half baked every day.
@Bryan. Sounds good. I cant wait to see the sketch. Keep up the good work!
@Bryan–i appreciate all the work you’ve done on this rather ambitious project. Some people are skeptical about it, but I have high hopes either VC or this as the back-up can be pulled off.
Status of Victory Court EIR and status new Raiders stadium in Oakland?
Has anyone called Oakland/Alameda County officials and asked directly what is the status of both of these projects?
Would like to know if these things are really moving forward or what.
Al Sacacevic of the Chronicle speculated that Oakland will lose all three teams in the relatitvely near future.
Marine Layer- how about asking offcials for their thoughts – if any -on that scenario?
To Bryan Grunwald – kudos to you for your effort but I again ask the question about carbon monoxide.
You mentione that Carbon Monoxide is a heavy gas – I think I kind of understand what that means – but isn’t this basically an insurmountable issue if the soil is contaminated and if patrons would have to breathe carbon monoxide all day long?
As much as everyone puts down the Coliseum, at least there is often a nice breeze to blow away some of the pollutants from various sources.
A’s observer.
Another question re: Lew Wolff’s planned (reported) meeting with Mayor Quan:
Can anyone verify the concrete reason for the meeting?
Marine Layer: you know Lew Wolff. What’s the reason in your opinion. (And I think both of these threads are relevant as was the last one you deleted which I would ask again to be posted).
Thanks.
@A’s observer – I have no idea what the purpose of the meeting is, and I don’t expect either party to divulge it until after it is completed. I have asked Eric Angstadt about the status of the Victory Court EIR and have received no response.
@A’s observer–The tunnel will have to be mechanically ventilated.
–
I think it is a good chance that Oakland will lose all teams. Raiders to LA or Santa Clara, the Warriors to San Francisco Mission Bay, and the A’s, well I don’t know but surely not San Jose, but not to Vegas because of gambling, maybe to downtown Oakland. I think Lew is meeting with Jean to see if the city will come up with any public funding to make Oakland apples to apples with San Jose. Sort of take the risk out of the equation. Or even up the options. If this is the case, it argues for 980 Park because it is cheaper to deliver than VC. Surplus rent revenue could be plowed back into defraying the cost of the ballpark as well as land/infrastructure.
I’m gone for a few days and the BS from BG re: San Jose continues.
By the way BG, what part of Wolff saying “don’t read to much into it” (meeting with Quan) didn’t you get?
By the way, Oakland will loose the A’s to downtown Oakland? Aren’t you a professional architect?
@ Bryan Grunwald You know, I think of all the Oakland teams it seems to me that the Raiders are the team most likely to stay. LA doesn’t want them, they want their own franchise, they’ve conducted polls through the LA Times that says as much. I also don’t see the Santa Clara stadium working out for the 49ers and Raiders to share. If it gets done by the 49ers alone, I can’t see them wanting to bring in the Raiders. There also seems to be a stronger connection with Oakland and the surrounding cities to the Raiders than the A’s or Warriors, at least judging by the amount of fan gear, decor, etc. seen around the area. Who knows, whatever the case, it’s sad that the city and county is having to deal with this constant negative fog which seems to hang over its sports teams nowadays.
Lastly, I don’t think Wolff has to meet with Quan to get an answer on public funding from The O.
Apples to apples with SJ? Oh boy!
@ML–By your own calculation, the width of Fenway Park is 493′ not 545′ above. I suggest you leave out support space that simply fills out the lot.
AIG – Has made it clear that they want to own the LA football franchise. Al Davis is passing the Raiders on to his son Mark. The team is not for sale. The Warriors might move. But they have a lease through 2017; so it business as usual for the next six years.
@BG – The line I drew only goes to the back of the roof, which as I’ve established previously, is not the back of the grandstand. That extends many more rows back, which probably puts it at 505 feet. Again, as I’ve said before, there should be some allowance for a modern ballpark in that space which you consistently ignore. And unless there are actual sketches to show a modern ballpark can work in that space, I remain skeptical. No offense.
@BG. Tough crowd. Since the specifics of the design can be modified after land acquisition I’m focusing on the placement aspect of your proposal. I know the neighborhood pretty well. I spent two years researching West Oakland and Downtown before relocating to Downtown from SF in’08. The construction of 980 was a huge mistake… the number of vehicles per day using it and the meager time saved over going around west Oakland at 70mph means it wouldn’t get built if proposed today. Just like the Cypress it creates a physical, and psychological barrier between WO and Downtown. A ball park bridging the two communities is a great proposal. However it’s physical impact must be minimized. Use of eminent domain will be fiercely challenged: the community was able to delay 980 construction for a decade.
Moving the ball park south means less use of eminent domain on heritage buildings and residential homes. Parcels adjoining 980 to the west (centered on 11th St) are either vacant, commercial, or contain buildings with no architectural significance. BART access at this location will mean fans will walk through the well established CityCenter shops and high rise commercial district.
I meant south of 11th street.
@Matt C–Not enough room at 11th Street. I don’t see acquiring 3 rental properties and a vacant lot as daunting. VC involves acquiring one residential and 16 commercial properties. The quid pro quo for the West Oakland Community would be free viewing from the sidewalk at the Green Wall and reconnection to Downtown. One of the structures has no architectural merit at all. The other two or the other three could be moved to adjacent vacant parcels. Filling in vacant parcels left from the freeway construction will help heal the architectural character of the neighborhood. Moreover, the ballpark will provide much needed jobs to West Oakland if specifically targeted via structured public policy.
—
Nothing will happen at this site unless the City decides to invest in better education and public safety in West Oakland. This work needs to happen now.