Category Archives: Coliseum

04.08.12
by

Ostler talks Cespedes, impact

The Chronicle’s Scott Ostler writes about what success Yoenis Céspedes could have, and projects it beyond the field.

It could be an adventure for team ownership, too. What if Céspedes keeps hitting and stirs up interest, a la Linsanity, drawing big crowds to the Oakland ballpark?

That would throw a monkey wrench into ownership’s aggressive campaign to prove that there is no market for baseball in Oakland.

If that happens, A’s owners Lew Wolff and John Fisher will have their own private Cuban missile crisis, and they won’t be able to solve it by picking up the Hot Line and threatening Nikita Khrushchev. Sorry, honey.

Now that would be something. Fans coming out and supporting the team regardless of what they think of ownership? It’d be as if they came to watch baseball or something. I know this: today I sold a bunch of my Giant fan friends on Céspedes. Sometimes all you need is a draw. It’s been proven repeatedly that quality pitching isn’t a draw. Home runs? You know what they say…

04.07.12
by

A’s, O.co have rift over Coliseum name

A year ago, the Coliseum Authority inked a deal with internet retailer Overstock.com for naming rights at the Coliseum. That led to a further renaming from Overstock.com Coliseum to O.co Coliseum, which rolls off the tongue like so many classic stadium names like CMGI Field, PSINet Stadium, or 3Com Park. Apparently the A’s have been rather casual about honoring the change, because the references to O.co either at the stadium or during broadcasts are few and far between. The reason? Money, of course. The Trib’s Angela Woodall reports that the naming rights deal splits the $2 million per year between the JPA and the Raiders, with nothing going to the A’s.

Find O.co in this screenshot

Woodall points out that the A’s have control over the pouring rights and signage, a deal that was hammered out in the post-Mt. Davis settlement. The A’s and O.co are working out their own deal, though I have a sense that both sides are bringing an overinflated sense of worth to the proceedings. For now, the team is only obligated to promote O.co three times per game during radio and TV broadcasts. So it’s not surprising that when fans go to the Coliseum page on the A’s website, they might not realize that O.co is a sponsor due to the lack of mentions.

That’s just as well. Even though the A’s have many more games broadcast than the Raiders, O.co probably values the mentions during Raiders games, which are nationally broadcast, more than the baseball team’s mostly local broadcasts. Last Monday, the SEC closed an investigation into the retailer’s previous financial disclosures. That could halt the company’s six-month stock slide, though you wouldn’t know it from trading this week.

The Coliseum has gone through several name changes in its life, all of them starting with Mt. Davis:

  • Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (original-1998)
  • UMAX Coliseum (1997, aborted)
  • Network Associates Coliseum (1998-2004)
  • McAfee Coliseum (2004-08)
  • Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (reprise after McAfee deal expired, 2008-11)
  • Overstock.com Coliseum (2011, briefly)
  • O.co Coliseum (2011-current)

Isn’t it time to leave well enough alone?

04.06.12
by

Opening Day or Night?

I put out a couple of questions on Twitter, and I figured I should have the conversation here as well.

and…

The way the schedule is currently formatted, with the season starting on Wed-Fri and ending on Wed, it’s practically impossible to schedule a Sunday opener. This format is fairly new, so if MLB were to go back to starting on Sun-Tue and ending on Sun, there might be an opportunity for a day opener. Cincinnati used to always have the first game of the season, sometimes on a Sunday, almost always a day game before everyone else as a nod to Cincy being the most senior of senior league franchises.

Lone Stranger replied to my second question, saying, “Anything earlier than 6pm or so would need to be near people who can leave work early and still see first pitch. i.e. Downtown.” Other responses to the two questions were mixed, some citing favorable weather for day games, others wanting a night game as a better chance for a sellout.

FWIW, The Giants have done day openers going back to their days at the ‘Stick.

03.28.12
by

Graft within the Coliseum Authority? You don’t say?

Matier and Ross lifted the covers on a potential conflict of interest within the Coliseum Authority in today’s Chronicle. According to the report, a campaign for a cigarette tax headed by former State Senate President and recent Oakland mayoral candidate Don Perata paid $37,500 to Oakland City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente. IDLF would then rally support for the initiative, Proposition 29, on this June’s ballot.

The conflict of interest could come from both men’s roles in relation to the Coliseum Authority. IDLF is on the Authority board, which will decide on a vendor for a new 10-year management contract for the complex. Perata is a lobbyist for SMG, the incumbent operator and one of three bidders for the next contract.

Naturally, both Perata and protege De La Fuente deny that there’s any conflict. Whether you think that these types of transactions can be properly siloed or were done deliberately to hide the details from the public, it looks at least a little suspect. Both pols are grizzled veterans and have been associated with shady Oakland dealings in the past including the Mt. Davis deal, so it’s not as if there’s no history there. To keep things from blowing up, it would be best if  IDLF recused himself from voting on the matter. Or he could return that money.

A contract to manage the Coliseum complex is peanuts compared to the potential of Coliseum City. If there’s something to this conflict of interest allegation, god knows how corrupt the Coliseum City deal could be.

03.12.12
by

Two groups express interest in A’s

UPDATE 6:40 PM – Lew Wolff responds, reiterating that team is not for sale. From the article, Andy Dolich was contacted and denied that he was one of the “suitors” interested in the A’s. Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said that if the team were sold to a more Oakland-friendly group, the Victory Court site may be considered again. There may even be a third group interested.

The A’s are not for sale, at least from everything I’ve read and heard. That hasn’t stopped two groups from expressing interest in buying the club, according to Matier and Ross.

Let’s play this little hypothetical out: If Bud Selig can’t broker a deal to get the A’s territorial rights to San Jose, then it would seem that Lew Wolff’s next step may be to put the team up for sale. Such a sale probably couldn’t be completed until 2013 at the earliest, which coincidentally is the same year the A’s lease ends at the Coliseum.

Forbes valued the A’s at $307 million last year, and should have a similar valuation this year. The going trend for franchise sales would have the team sell for a significant premium over that valuation.

Recent MLB franchise sales prices compared with Forbes valuations

The environment during which a hypothetical sale of the A’s occurs is much different from 1995, when Wally Haas sold the A’s to Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann, or even 2003, when Schott sold the team to Wolff and John Fisher. Nowadays, Bud Selig is pushing hard to get the biggest possible sale price for outgoing owners, even rogues like Frank McCourt. Given the trend, I can’t see the A’s selling for less than $400 million on the open market, especially if there are competitive bids. This would happen even if the A’s low-revenue problems show few signs of improvement anytime soon.

Of course, after soon comes 2016, which is when the new CBA expires. There’s also that CBA provision in which teams in the largest markets become ineligible for revenue sharing. The Oakland situation is odd in that the A’s are supposed to be exempt from that rule as long as they’re stuck in the Coliseum. There’s still a little confusion on this which probably won’t be resolved until we actually see the document in final printed form, and that hasn’t happened yet. Here’s my guess as to why the A’s situation is so foggy:

  1. As long as the A’s only have Alameda and Contra Costa Counties as their defined stadium territory, MLB has an excuse to consider them a low-revenue franchise despite the broad NorCal TV territory.
  2. If the A’s go to San Jose, it’s likely that Wolff will have gotten his wish that the Bay Area will become a shared territory (though I would expect the City of San Francisco to remain strictly with the Giants). If that shared territory deal occurs, the A’s would become a large market team by CBA definition.

The trouble facing any prospective buyer is that he’d be paying for the team in situation #1, with limited opportunities for growth. $400 million for just the franchise, perhaps more given that Wolff will want something for all of the headaches he’s gotten in pursuing a ballpark deal. Unlike the Haas-Schott sale, there are no hometown discounts anymore. The obvious revenue growth prospect is a stadium at Coliseum City, which by the time it could actually happen would cost at least $500 million. But, as we hammered here repeatedly, there’s a lot of doubt about the ability for the A’s to pay for a ballpark in Oakland. If the A’s pre-sold $100 million of the $500 million ballpark thanks to naming rights and such, the remaining $400 million converts to a $30 million annual mortgage payment over 30 years. Matier and Ross indicate that the 1990 record of 2.9 million in attendance is proof of the support, but that’s not the concern. The concern is what happens when the A’s are losing and fans don’t show up? The A’s recent revenue sharing receipts have been in the $30 million range. If the revenue sharing receipt effectively gets transferred to a bank to pay for the ballpark, it doesn’t solve the A’s competitiveness problems since they’d remain a poor team, in this case “house poor”. That’s a terrible investment on the owner’s and league’s part. I’m also skeptical that, with Selig’s focus on incoming owners’ liquidity, such a plan to keep the A’s in Oakland would pass muster. Selig or his successor isn’t going to sign off on Oakland becoming another Pittsburgh: great stadium, poor team.

A few months ago, some pro-Oakland. keep-them-at-the-Coliseum interests called Wolff to see if he was interested in selling. He confirmed that he wasn’t. So it’s funny, though not surprising, that the interests mentioned by Matier and Ross are from Los Angeles and Silicon Valley, not Oakland or the East Bay. With the A’s ongoing presence in Oakland precarious, it would seem better to have some kind of homegrown ownership group, lest an incoming group be called carpetbaggers all over again. If either of those groups were to go in, they’d invest at least $400 million in the team and $500 million in the stadium, with no guarantee of a great sales price once they feel like selling. That’s a tough proposition for any prospective buyer, and just one of the endgame scenarios Selig has to consider when deciding the A’s fate.

03.09.12
by

News for 3/9/12

Feels like we need this since the week has been dominated by the PR war.

  • The A’s announced today that they will have a private entrance for season ticket holders. The terms are that you’ll need the credential from your season ticket book along with your ticket to use the entrance. In addition, for any extra tickets you buy for a particular game, those holding the extra tickets won’t be able to use the entrance. It seems like this was done to reward STH during bobblehead and other high-demand giveaway games, though the FAQ emphasizes that distribution of giveaways will be proportional. The entrance will be next door to Ticket Services.
  • Jeff Moorad withdrew his application to become the “control person” of the Padres, leaving John Moores as the control person for the time being. The move is considered a procedural one, with the need to consummate a TV deal between the Padres and the new Fox Sports San Diego channel first. Moorad’s deal to acquire the team from Moores was constructed so that Moorad could stretch the timeline out to four years if necessary, though his intent was to acquire controlling interest sooner than that. MLB had raised concerns that Moorad might take a lot of the Fox money upfront and use it to buy out Moores or to pay down debt, instead of putting it into the franchise (the McCourt-Dodgers TV problem). It’s a smart move by MLB, because if the rumor had some merit it could’ve sapped some $10 milion per year in revenue from the team. Now the Padres are Exhibit A in how to pull off a sale that puts the team on the best financial footing. If anything, it looks like Moorad was putting the cart before the horse. And this article from the SD Union-Tribune sheds light on the group of owners set in opposition to Moorad. There’s a big difference between that and the supposed foment against T-rights changes that Lew Wolff faces.
  • In Miami, the 5,700+ parking spaces at the Marlins ballpark are proving to be a logistical nightmare, not like we didn’t see that coming. The suggestion: buy pre-paid parking or else you’re taking your chances finding a spot on someone’s lawn.
  • As he is wont to do, Peter Hartlaub went into the archives and found a concept for a huge, multipurpose stadium on what looks like Laney College. The year: 1960. 80,000 for football and 48,000 for baseball? Not without a lot of Astroturf.
  • MLS Commissioner Don Garber really wants a stadium and team somewhere in the five four boroughs of New York City. Sorry, Staten Island.
  • Bruce Jenkins has a few words about the A’s-Giants tete-a-tete. Surprisingly, he wants the Giants crushed and calls them bullies. Sounds good to me.
  • There’s a movement afoot to get rid of the television blackout once and for all.
  • Robert Gammon considers Coliseum City the last, best chance to retain Oakland’s teams. Sad then, that Oakland’s announcement was drowned out by the A’s-Giants drama. There was a press conference on Wednesday, though no representatives for the three teams showed up to provide support.
  • Tim Kawakami thinks Joe Lacob and Peter Guber should announce where they intend to settle by next year sometime. That might be a little premature. If the Giants were to build an arena in time for the 2017-18 NBA season, they wouldn’t have to break ground until summer 2015. That puts EIR and related prep work at the beginning of 2014. Even then, if there were some snags the Coliseum Authority isn’t going to say no to a year-to-year lease, since the debt service on Oracle Arena runs through 2027.
  • BTW – Yoenis Cespedes is expected to play his first MLB game ever on TV tomorrow against the Reds (CSNCA, Noon). Don’t miss it.

One more thing about the Giants’ press release: They implied that Wolff/Fisher got a no-San Jose discount when the A’s were purchased for $172 million in 2005. What then, do they say about Arte Moreno, who bought the Angels for $185 million in 2003? He didn’t have any territorial restrictions that called for a discount, and that was for a much larger market. Weak sauce Gigantes. Maybe if some of The Game’s and KNBR’s radio talent actually did some fact-checking they’d know this stuff.

Added 2:50 PM – The field is almost done!

03.07.12
by

3/6/12 News Analysis

First off, a quick acknowledgement of the unanimous approval of the Kings ESC arena deal by Sacramento’s City Council. Somehow, that happened a full hour before the Oakland approved its resolutions and expenditures for the Coliseum City project. There’s still a long way to go. The $255 million that Sacramento is committing to the project is the big semi-known. If KJ and company can put a deal together that doesn’t look too risky (and force a referendum because of that risk), they’ll be in pretty good shape. There are still issues of which route the City will go to come up with the $255 million (selling parking rights vs. raising bonds), the Maloofs’ ongoing debt, and the typical EIR mitigation stuff that will be identified in the coming months. Onward and upward.

I realize that my liveblog notes from the Oakland City Council meeting are so messy that they’re nearly incomprehensible, so I’ll boil the whole thing down to its essence.

1. The Council voted for a feasibility study and EIR, not to build anything.

Just to be clear, here’s the relevant language from last week’s committee report (emphasis mine):

The ENA [exclusive negotiating agreement] with the JRDV/HKS/Forest City development team will allow private predevelopment work to proceed for Area 1. The ENA between the City and the development team is for the purpose of determining the capacity of the development team to deliver on the project, and for studying and evaluating the feasibility of a new stadium development.

In other words, it’s a start. It’s not a promise to replace the Coliseum or erect a ballpark next door. It’s about determining whether this concept, Coliseum City, actually makes sense. Speaker after speaker brought up the legacy of major pro sports in Oakland, totaling 111 years (impressive). Some brought up the soul of the city, or how teams leaving could negatively impact the next generation of Oaklanders. Problem is that all these appeals to passion and soul at least indirectly led to the bad deal that the City and Alameda County got into in the first place with Mt. Davis. Ignacio De La Fuente has been consistent in his desire not to bend over backwards for any team, and that any team that wants a deal in what he considers the best land for a stadium in the Bay Area has to be an equal, willing partner. Or in this case, three equal, willing partners. Which brings me to the next issue…

2. The City Council is couching their words.

Libby Schaaf brought up the fact that the original resolution(s) did not specifically call for a project alternative in which no new stadium is built, so she asked for a rewording and got it. This request came after just about every other Council Member other than Larry Reid and Rebecca Kaplan (who was absent) talked about the “no stadium” alternative. That’s the case where either it doesn’t make sense to build a new stadium to replace the Coliseum, or no team is interested in such a stadium, or some other set of circumstances in which a stadium can’t happen. Those in the audience didn’t want to hear it – they want to hear about progress and results – but it’s a big step forward for the City Council. Last year I wrote about the adult conversation that Sacramento was having with its residents over the Kings future. Oakland is getting closer to having their own discussion, which will be all the more painful because it will involve three teams and choosing favorites.

However, the choices won’t be as simple as “build or don’t build”. There will be an array of choices, permutations, and even sites to consider. Assistant City Administrator Fred Blackwell noted at the outset that because the redevelopment money for the Coliseum City is supposed to be confined to that specific redevelopment area, it couldn’t be used outside the project area. Then Eric Angstadt clarified that all reasonable alternatives will be studied, including sites or options that may be outside Oakland. Who’s right? I guess we’ll find out. My immediate reaction is that if redevelopment is going away from a project/operations standpoint, what does it matter what redevelopment area it’s in?

3. 980 Park and the Ghost of Victory Court

I counted two mentions of Victory Court all night, one by Larry Reid and one by a speaker. It’s almost as if VC has been wiped from people’s memories. Just 14 months ago the Council Chambers was packed to the rafters and an overflow room was needed to hold everyone for a planning commission hearing on VC. This time, a third of the audience was on hand for a different, non-sports issue on the Council’s agenda, and they left when that issue was resolved. There were few people in the balconies, and there were plenty of seats available in the chambers for latecomers. I noticed that neither Let’s Go Oakland nor Baseball Oakland heavily promoted this session, so that may have something to do with the lower turnout.

On the other hand, 980 Park rose like a phoenix. Multiple West Oakland residents spoke in favor of it. Bryan Grunwald spoke out about it, as you’d expect. Nancy Nadel mentioned that her constituents were interested in it, and Jane Brunner pushed it forward. Brunner indicated that there were discussions with city staff about 980 Park’s feasibility, so since Coliseum City’s going through a feasibility study, might as well include 980 Park, even if it’s simply to find out if it makes any sense cost or time-wise. Redevelopment funding issue aside, it can’t hurt to include 980 Park as an alternative. One speaker rightly pointed out that if Coliseum City and its Oakland Live! concept became successful, it could seriously harm the existing downtown Oakland. Cities usually don’t have two downtowns, at least not successful ones. San Jose knows this well, as they forever killed downtown’s retail growth by approving Santana Row three miles away. Downtown Las Vegas is the low-rent, shopworn alternative to the glamour of The Strip. In the next year I can see the Council ask for a full economic impact report, explaining how creating a second downtown could have a complementary or deleterious effect on the original downtown.

…

That’s it for this early morning. I have a postscript item to tack on, but that will have to wait until the business day starts. Until then, comment away.

03.06.12
by

More from Oakland City Council Session 3/6/12

Update 11:27 PM – Unanimous vote yes. Audience erupts in “Let’s Go Oakland” chant.

These are raw notes I’m taking as we go. Voting result will be posted at the top when it’s done.

Blackwell mentioned that because teams are in various discussions with other jurisdictions, plan should also include non-stadium alternatives.

Potential conflicts of interest with one contract provided for planning and development. Decoupling was necessary. So it’s #1 ENA for master planning, #2 for EIR

Urgency. A’s are actively pursuing San Jose. There are a number of obstacles. Giants have expressed opposition. Likely a public vote.

Raiders. They’ve expressed desire to stay with a brand new facility. They are being courted by a variety of interests in SoCal. NFL has been pushing a model with multiple teams playing in one stadium, which could be pursued in Santa Clara vis-a-vis 49ers and Raiders.

Warriors – have had discussions. Are farthest away from making a move. SF has been in discussions.

Funding agreement – funds came from Coliseum Redevelopment Area. Funds are limited to affecting Coliseum area, not available outside area. Funding includes a transfer of assets (redevelopment). Legislation (AB1X26) to eliminate redevelopment indicates that such transfers may be under review. According to City Attorney, actions with third party agreements should be protected from “clawback” (reclamation by state).

Eric Angstadt in response to question by Jane Brunner – Premature to say what will be studied, but all recommended alternatives will be studied in terms of project goals. There will be a report of which alternatives are studied and why. EIR process will study alternatives that are reasonable, including (potentially) sites outside of the city.

23 public speakers – No one against, do not see Bryan Grunwald. Mayor Quan wasn’t in the Chambers initially, now is in the back corner

Chris Dobbins – Save Oakland Sports

San Jose resident argues for Coliseum City as a Raider fan.

Keith Salminen – Not just Oakland’s problem. It’s East Bay’s problem. Future of the East Bay is at stake.

Dr. Death – Humbly ask to fund the studies. Can’t forget the past. 111 years of tradition gone forever. Devastating to the economy and pride. Will be expensive, but you have to spend money to make money. Project may be eligible for $40 million in TOD funds.

Black Hole guy from Brentwood

White guy in red A’s hat and Run-TMC Mullin jersey. If you get rid of the team you get rid of a big part of Oakland’s soul. What do you have left if there’s no soul?

One dissenter, didn’t catch his name – Doesn’t want two downtown Oaklands. Wants the ballpark to be down the street near downtown. Is he referring to 980 Park? Compares situation to Las Vegas with the old Vegas and The Strip.

Bryan Grunwald is here, is given 4 minutes. Supports resolution, argues for scope to be expanded. Ask to spend money on feasibility of 980 Park. Differs with Blackwell on limits of redevelopment funds. (If redevelopment ceases to exist, do the limits matter?) If there is a no-stadium alternative at Coliseum City, why not have the stadium downtown/uptown? To put all eggs in the Coliseum basket is ridiculous and a waste of public money.

Larry Jackson reminds Council that he proposed Coliseum City two years ago.

Jorge Leon spoke once, wanted to speak again but was told to sit down by Larry Reid.

Council members

De La Fuente – Supports resolutions. Understands passion of fans. We don’t have to bargain or beg for our teams because our site is the best. The teams are an asset, but they also want to be here. Can’t forget we are subsidizing the franchises for $10 million/year. We can do better next time. We are prepared to work hard, but it takes two to tango. It’s responsible to look at the no stadium alternative. We can’t force teams to stay. Hopefully we’re sending one more message tonight that we’re willing to work with MLB. Hopefully we’ll get the same in return.

Brooks – In the last year I think we’re making moves like we’re talking to the teams in a way they understand. Refers to opening of management of contracts for Coliseum, which she started.

Brunner – Congratulations Mr. Reid. He has been pushing the Coliseum (his district) as long as I can remember. The only reason we didn’t look at the Coliseum was that the A’s were saying they wouldn’t go there. I’m in total support of this. The reason I’m interested in (980 Park) is that there’s a chance that the A’s will still come back to us and say we’re still not interested in the Coliseum. Talking to staff offline, we need to understand the feasibility of doing it over the freeway. It’s good if we know the pros and cons.

Schaaf – We all want all of our teams to stay, but we don’t totally control that. We have to be mindful that there are other people who control those decisions. There will be scenarios if one or more of those teams don’t stay. Resolution does not include that kind of language, so will ask Blackwell to include it. Coliseum City doesn’t adequately describe how big it is.

(Angstadt clarifies that non-stadium alternative will be specified in the professional services contract.)

Reid – Nobody’s spent more time on this than I have. I tried to get Dan Lindheim to see it, he wouldn’t. I tried to get Jerry Brown to see it and he wouldn’t. Thanks to the Mayor and to Jane Brunner for writing the letter to MLB.

Nadel – Constituents support 980 Park as part of study.

Reid – If we do nothing then we will lose every sports franchise in our city. When we first sat down with Lew Wolff and showed him our vision of Coliseum City, he took it down to San Jose (sic) and came up with the 66th-High Street. If we give MLB two options and MLB tells him, “Here are two options, take one or put the team up for sale,” Oakland would never be the same. (Referring to Coliseum City and Victory Court). I’m glad that someone caught the vision. I just hope it’s not too late.

Unanimous vote yes. Audience erupts in “Let’s Go Oakland” chant.

On the way out I introduced myself to Bryan Grunwald and held the door for Desley Brooks as she left City Hall. If there were any winners tonight, they were Brooks and Reid.

02.25.12
by

San Jose to start Autumn Parkway work + Coliseum sign restrictions

It figures that on a weekend I chose to do a mini ballpark trip, news breaks. More about the trip later.

The Merc’s John Woolfork reports that $500,000 in design work has been approved by the City of San Jose for the Autumn Parkway project. It’s a small procedural step in getting the important roadway finished. For the Shasta/Hanchett and St. Leo’s neighborhoods trying to reach the Target on the other side of the tracks, making their way there currently involves a 1.6 mile drive along the Alameda and Taylor/Coleman or a 2 mile drove along Santa Clara and Market/Coleman. All that for a store that’s only 0.6 miles away using the crow flies method. With Autumn Parkway completed, the trip will only be 1 mile long, while providing an important alternate route for visitors to HP Pavilion and a future Cisco Field.

Apparently that’s not enough for Stand for San Jose and its surely well-paid San Francisco-based consultant/spokesman, Dan Newman. (BTW, does Stand for San Jose have any actual San Jose people running the place who know what’s going on?)

For his part, SJ transportation director walks the political as best he can.

Larsen said the roadwork isn’t required mitigation for the proposed ballpark. But because environmental studies on the project assume the improvements will be done, getting them under way bolsters the city’s case against critics who might seek to stall the project with litigation.

“It’s a little nuanced,” Larsen said. “It’s not technically a mitigation, but an assumed condition, so from that perspective, it’s cleanest to have it done that way.”

Odd. All this time I was under the impression that Autumn Parkway was a necessary mitigation. I suppose that if there’s little-to-no new parking being built along with the ballpark, a direct artery leading to it may not be critical. Let’s be frank about it though, it’s very important. Not just from the standpoint of providing that new artery for both residents and sports fans, but also from the political standpoint that the residents need to be thrown a bone. Autumn Parkway is a basic part of the covenant, whatever for the final mitigation plan takes.

While the Giants’ astroturf group keeps grinding, Larry Baer continues to wear a white hat when asked about territorial rights. From the AP:

“We continue to be respectful of the process, and there is a process,” Baer said from his team’s Scottsdale Stadium spring training site. “The game is bigger than any internal machinations. I think it’s not good for the game to have whatever internal back and forth between teams. That’s not good for the game. We want to be respectful and see the game flourish in our market, in all the markets.”

Who needs internal back-and-forth when you can have an external political group do your dirty work?

Going back to the Autumn Parkway project, the $22 million cost does not have any specific funding attached to it as of yet. The city’s redevelopment agency is dead, which means the project falls back to City. They’re looking for some federal funding, but I don’t believe a grant will cover more than a quarter or third of the project’s cost. Whether the City finds the money in its couch cushions or by asking Uncle Lew, it remains an important step even if it isn’t officially linked to the ballpark. My worry is that due to the money crunch, Autumn Parkway will be delayed for a year or several beyond the opening of Cisco Field, which will make a lot of locals and fans upset.

For their sake I hope the signmakers pick a more technologically competent shop than the one the Knope campaign used. (The shop was named "Signtology".)

For their sake I hope the signmakers pick a more technologically competent shop than the one the Knope campaign used. (The shop was named “Signtology”.)

We’re six weeks away from the true home opener, yet one new rule is being laid down at the Coliseum and a lot of people aren’t going to like it. According to the Trib’s Angela Woodall, a new restriction on signs will be in place, in which no sign larger than 3′ x 6′ can be used at the stadium. That’s a big deal, since virtually all of the anti-Lew Wolff signs have been very large in order to be captured on TV. The A’s are instituting the rule because the signs have a “negative aesthetic impact”. Frankly, I’m not sure why the team bothers unless certain fans or sponsors are complaining about the signs. Bringing up signs again only brings attention to the signmakers, while their near-constant presence in past years has practically rendered the signs as background scenery.

The new rule presumably means that the “Keep the A’s in Oakland” and “Lew Lied He Didn’t Try” signs will have to change to be used. I suppose they could use bodypaint or a series of small signs. Oh well.

Finally, Woodall also noted in a tweet that the Coliseum City EIR is expected to go before Oakland CEDA in committee next week. Sometime after that, it would be expected to go before the full City Council for expenditure approval. If it goes to the Council (which it should), I’ll be sure to attend that session. I wonder if it’ll be as raucous as the one for Victory Court?

02.08.12
by

Strategery

The architectural firm HKS has some wins to crow about. The Dallas-based company designed Lucas Oil Stadium and Cowboys Stadium, hosts for the last two Super Bowls. Now they’re backing two Hail Mary attempts for the Bay Area NFL teams. A month ago an SFGate report had San Francisco planning commissioner Mike Antonini working with HKS and an unnamed investment company on a last ditch attempt to convince Jed York to keep the team in San Francisco. Today, Matier and Ross report that HKS has signed on to put together the Coliseum City plan with the hopes of keeping one or all of Oakland’s franchises in place.

To get the project going, Oakland is getting ready to authorize $3 million for a series of studies that will have to done on the entire Coliseum area, not just the complex. I wrote about this in detail last December. HKS won the winning bid, in conjunction with Oakland-based JRDV and Forest City, to master plan 750 acres of land on both sides the Nimitz. The project is split into two areas: Area 1 (Coliseum complex, BART, and surroundings) and Area 2 (nearly everything west of 880 to the airport). Knowing how much money goes into these types of studies, they’ll need every penny of that $3 million to complete the work.

Coliseum City/Oakland Live!

Based on the previous work these firms have done, I figure the responsibilities will be divided along these lines:

  • HKS – Design for the iconic stadium(s) and hotel
  • JRDV – Master planning and integration
  • Forest City Enterprises – Actual development

All of these pieces are important. HKS will work on the anchors for the project, and they have potential access to investment groups should things move along. So does Forest City, but their aims are lower since they’re focusing on ancillary commercial spaces that will have to be sold and/or leased to other tenants. JRDV provides the framework and the glue. Their responsibility is to make it work with Coliseum BART, figure out how to backfill parking that will be lost to construction, and make the whole thing look attractive. Their local portfolio is extensive, including plans for Uptown around the Fox Theater and San Jose’s San Pedro Square Market. Nothing JRDV has done in the US is as large as what’s being proposed for the Coliseum area, making this new project a special challenge.

As I wrote two months ago, this process is expected to be deliberate. Anyone expecting a new Coliseum complex to rise like it was being built in Shanghai is due for disappointment. The RFP lays out the time commitments the winning bidder will have to make to get through the entirety of the project:

  • 25 project meetings with city staff
  • 8 community workshops
  • 12 public meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council

The Coliseum area has an advantage in that it shouldn’t need a new EIR for a replacement or refurbished arena or a replacement football/baseball stadium since those uses are already in place. New EIRs will be needed for any other new construction. That would include:

  • A third sports venue, such as a baseball stadium alongside a football stadium
  • High-rise hotel
  • Commercial development, including office towers or a mall

In addition, the entire plan will need its own EIR. It’s all about impact, and if you introduce new elements such as the visual impact of a high-rise hotel or additional commercial traffic not associated with Coliseum events, it all needs to be studied. Likewise, a third venue will have to be studied simply because of the possibility that events could be held in the arena, ballpark, and football stadium simultaneously. That’s a lot of people and a lot of cars. There will have to be plans to figure out where all of these people will park since much of currently undeveloped Coliseum complex land will be claimed for future development. Lastly, there will need to be alternatives to show what impacts would occur if some of these concepts don’t come to fruition.

This is how big things get built in California. There’s a very good chance that none of it will ever get built. Oakland and Alameda County will have to be in lockstep to make this happen, and their collective resources are extremely limited. It’s telling that Oakland is footing the bill for this but Alameda County is not. They’ll need more resources to execute this plan to any successful completion. If they aren’t get on the same page, it’ll be Oakland’s $3 million down the drain.