New KNBR host Eric Byrnes filled in for Ralph Barbieri on the blowtorch’s afternoon drivetime show on Thursday. Byrnes and Tom Tolbert interviewed SI’s Phil Taylor, who is writing a feature for the magazine on how difficult it is to be an A’s fan amidst the Giants’ recent success (sounds like a must-read). The interview can be found here (MP3). The arguments coming from the three participants are familiar, and rather than selectively quoting them I suggest that you listen to the whole thing and then come back here and comment if you feel like it. The best comments will be excerpted and placed in this post.
Category Archives: Coliseum
This cup doth not runneth over
Update 2/17 16:00 – The Consumerist checked in with Aramark on the cup size controversy and received this response:
For a short time early last baseball season, we used an incorrect cup size for the $4.99 beer. The cup was larger than it should have been. When we discovered this, we began using the correct cup size.
That would mean that the GC12S (12/14 oz.) cup may be used instead. If so, I hope people enjoyed getting the extra suds on the mistakenly larger cup while it lasted.
Today at AN, a fanpost contained the following video comparing the “small” $5 domestic beer with the “large” $8 domestic.
I normally don’t drink one of the big domestic brews (BTW it’s SF Beer Week if you’re interested) and there’s no chance I’d pay $8 for a large one. A $3 upcharge for that tiny difference in cup volume is embarrassing. The same phenomenon has been seen at Seattle’s Qwest Field.
You may remember that the Coliseum complex changed to compostable cups (PDF) several years ago. The cups are manufactured by Fabri-Kal as part of their Greenware line. Greenware comes in a multitude of sizes, and the problem appears to be the specific sizes of cups used.
- GC16S – The company lists this as one of their “squat” models. It’s listed with dual volumes, 16 oz./18 oz. and its “flush fill capacity” is 18.3 ounces. This is the cup used for the “small” beer size and for the various craft beers served all over the Coliseum.
- GC20 – The taller “large” cup’s “flush fill capacity” is 20 ounces.
I broke out my abacus to determine the minuscule disparity of 1.7 ounces. That’s less than the capacity of a shot glass. If the A’s want to be fair to the swill-buying public they should up that large to 24 ounces. Then again, this immediately brought to mind a conversation I had yesterday with a bartender. His establishment is a noted beer bar, though they also keep swill on hand for those who ask. A customer with a large party had no interest in any of the great craft beer they had on tap and kept requesting bottled Coors. At the end of the night the party went through nearly two cases of the stuff. They were charged the same for the Coors as they would if they had requested Pliny the Elder.
Lesson for the consumer: If you must get a Bud or Bud Light, get the smaller size. Better yet, if you’re going to spend a couple extra bucks, get a craft beer. It won’t taste like piss.
P.S.: At the Coliseum the vendors don’t usually fill the small cup to the brim. They stop at a fill line on the cup – probably 16 oz.
Struggling in The Town
Let’s go back two weeks. Lost in the glorious vengeance that usually comes with an Al Davis press conference was a question about a future stadium from KPIX’s Kim Coyle. Davis admitted that he is not involved day-to-day in the work, but he pressed the notion that the Raiders need a new stadium… somewhere. Go 24 minutes into this video to get the question and response. Below is the text.
“The best place for a site is the Oakland Coliseum. It really is. Traffic-wise, the BART, all those amenities that go there – it’s the best place. BUT. If they can’t get it done, you’re gonna have to use other avenues. You’re gonna have to do other things. And we need a new stadium.”
“I mean we’re no different just like someone here brought up, being able to compete… If we’re going to be able to compete we need a new stadium.”
“And we want the Raider Nation, we want the fans out there, you gotta support us.”
“Someone said we had 22,000 (season tickets). We’re at the low end or close to the low end and we’ve gotta to do better. That’s just the facts.”
After the press conference officially ended, Davis talked a bit more. Asked about the impact of the new CBA and the extension of the regular season to 18 games, he said this:
“What does a club do that’s in a depressed area like Oakland, where we find out that the fans don’t have all the money we’re hoping they do?” Davis asked. “What do the Raiders do about 18 games, which means another home game? These are important things that we have to decide.”
So you have the short term danger of even more blackouts coming from greater ticket inventory, thanks to 18 games. Yet Davis is clear in favoring Oakland first, as opposed to immediately looking south to Santa Clara or even Los Angeles.
There’s the dilemma. The Coliseum is great from an accessibility standpoint. It is rich in history and legacy. Is that enough? Davis did something no other owner in the Bay Area is really willing to do – talk directly about the elephant in the room, Oakland’s struggles as a city. Unfortunately, to ignore Oakland’s issues is to ignore reality. Yes, there are great places to live within the city limits. Yes, it is only one-sixth of the East Bay’s population and is near many other wealthier cities. But it has issues that make it difficult to consider from the standpoint of funding a near billion-dollar stadium (not to mention a half-billion-dollar ballpark), and Davis has been feeling that pinch for a while. You’re not going to hear outsiders or “carpetbaggers” like Lew Wolff or Joe Lacob talk about this. They’ll dance around it as much as possible. Davis has nothing to lose at this point and has never edited or censored himself for good or bad. His opinion counts more than most other local owners because he’s part of the community, at least much more than Wolff or Lacob. Apparently Davis gets credit for giving the Coliseum a real college try – at his behest no less. If it’s too hard and the Raiders explore those “other avenues,” what then? Does that college try translate into greater goodwill? A shrug? Or will people remember only the endgame?
Brown to Redevelopment: Your days are numbered
Governor Brown just finished his press conference, where he explained his budget plans. Brown is pushing for $12.5 Billion in spending cuts, and he is asking the legislature (and the voters) to extend temporary income, sales, and car taxes that are set to expire this year. As for the redevelopment golden goose, Brown said that existing (already bonded) projects are safe. New projects, on the other hand, are in trouble. Brown wants to “phase out” redevelopment agencies and start taking back $1.7 Billion in tax increment annually. What it comes down to is this: If you don’t have your project started and well underway in the next 12-18 months, you are screwed. There continues to be some debate as to how the governor could eliminate RDA’s, with the agencies enshrined in Article 16 in the Constitution and recently passed Prop 22 acting as protection. The governor seems to be saying, “If we get rid of RDA’s, there are no more protections.” Yow. Okay, who would this impact? Let’s put together a list:
- San Jose Diridon Ballpark – While the City is speeding up land acquisition, what about Autumn Parkway and other mitigations? Will the funds be in place for the rest of the project, or will it get kicked down the road?
- Oakland Victory Court Ballpark – Oakland already had to deal with a tight schedule based on a 2015 Opening Day. Now, Oakland will have to get its bonds raised and land in place right around the time an EIR is certified, or even before certification. Expect for Oakland to push MLB harder to decide in its favor, even without anything significant in place.
- 49ers Stadium in Santa Clara – The quasi-public stadium authority would have to get its loans and/or bonds in place in the next 18 months as well.
- New Raiders Stadium at the Coliseum – A new stadium is practically a nonstarter given the funding questions. Expect the Raiders to look south sooner rather than later.
- Downtown Los Angeles NFL Stadium – The now $1.5 Billion stadium (+$500 million in the last two weeks) would require $350 million in bonds, which won’t be available if RDA’s go away.
- City of Industry NFL Stadium – Ed Roski’s plan involves his own land, but much of the stadium cost would be funded by tax increment on the land improvements, thanks to much of the city being one large redevelopment zone. Uncertainty regarding RDAs makes the prospects for building infrastructure for the stadium and ancillary development, murky at best.
- Sacramento Kings Arena – As Kevin Johnson’s arena task force continues to talk things out, time is running out, especially for an arena at the long dormant Railyards.
- San Francisco Arena – Land south of AT&T Park could serve as the site for a new arena. Controlled by the Port and with development rights given to the Giants, it’s likely that any dev plan there will require at least the same kind of public outlay that made the ballpark deal work. Proponents would have to find another source for that funding.
Slide captured from the governor’s briefing
The message is abundantly clear: If you want to get something built, get a move on. (BTW, take a look at the counter on the right today. Eerie.)
A cup of Joe with the Georges
2/22/16 – George Vukasin Sr. passed away last week at the age of 82. George Jr. informed me of this sad news earlier this morning. SFGate and BANG covered the man’s life. I only met George Sr. once. Fortunately, I wrote about it. Apparently he liked the article, as did many other readers. So in honor of George Sr., I’m reposting my article from December 13, 2010 (was it that long ago?). RIP George Vukasin Sr. Wherever you are, I’m sure the coffee just got a lot better.
—
Peerless Coffee is based out of a low-slung, light industrial building built in 1976. Established in 1924, the company has seen it all: wars, boom and bust cycles, and several sports teams. Three generations of the Vukasin family have helmed the company, and they are Oaklanders through and through. They have every intention and desire to continue being a pillar of the Oakland business community. How that can continue with a ballpark proposal lingering in the immediate future is uncertain.
As I approached the building, the aroma of roasting coffee nearly overwhelmed me. I sipped an au lait inside the store as I waited to interview George Vukasin, Jr., who runs the business, and George Vukasin, Sr., who left the company to his children and still is a major presence there. George Sr. is also well known as a major proponent of Oakland and East Bay sports, as he was pivotal in making the Coliseum complex come into being. I sat down in their front office and we talked for nearly two hours. I could’ve easily sat there for another two as George Sr. recounted stories of Oakland sports glories past, but I had to start writing. Maybe another time.
We first talked about how the Coliseum deal was struck. George Sr. happily took on the role of historian, recalling how the late developer Bob Nahas put together a coalition of civic and business interests, including the elder Vukasin, to get a sports showcase built in the East Bay. They quickly focused on a site in East Oakland. The land was undeveloped, with the major owners being the Port of Oakland, EBMUD, and PG&E. Deals were struck with both utilities to maintain easements at the complex while a land swap was negotiated with EBMUD for a parcel on High Street, where the utility’s maintenance yard now resides. The Port of Oakland handled the land deal, as George Sr. was a Port commissioner at the time. The process from first discussion to groundbreaking took 2 years and was unencumbered by CEQA laws or other red tape.
The Coliseum Commission ran the complex for close to three decades. They understood what it took to keep the complex in the black, such as the need for 130 event days at the complex every year. While that should be easy to do with 81+ baseball games, 7-10 football games (sometimes), and 41+ basketball games, occasionally things would run tight. One particular year, Vukasin couldn’t figure out what to do so he called rock promoter Bill Graham and asked for help. Graham magically produced 7 days of Grateful Dead shows at the arena, the proceeds of which allowed the Commission to take care of the debt service.
Around the same time, Amnesty International contacted the Commission about putting on a single concert, which would be held at the stadium. Walter Haas, who had put a good deal of money into renovating the Coliseum, was not particularly fond of having a large number of concertgoers trampling his pristine baseball field, as evidenced by the declining number of Day on the Green concerts during the Haas era. When Amnesty International inquired, Haas and Roy Eisenhardt unequivocally said no. Vukasin and others tracked Haas down at the Pacific Union building in San Francisco, where they asked him to grant permission face-to-face. Haas, ever the gentleman, relented on the spot and the concert was held, as long as there were assurances that the field would be kept in good condition. No contracts, no litigation, just a talk and a handshake.
We shifted topics to Victory Court, and that’s when George Jr. was able to speak more. He was contacted 18 months ago by Mike Ghielmetti and Jim Falaschi, who suggested that Victory Court would be a studied site for a ballpark, and that the Peerless Coffee property was one of the targeted parcels. That led to a meeting with Ghielmetti and the City of Oakland’s real estate manager, Frank Fanelli. Little happened during the meeting, and no direct contact has been made since. Once George Jr. caught a man surveying and measuring the property. The man couldn’t divulge who sent him, and George Jr. asked him to leave. The man got in his car and went around to the back of the property, which is accessible from both Oak and Fallon Streets. George Jr. saw him surveying that side and kicked him off the property for good. To this day the Vukasins don’t know who the appraiser was, let alone who sent him. They asked me who I thought it was, and I guessed that it was MLB, contracting the work as part of its “due diligence.”
I asked why the current site was so crucial, and George Jr. went into great detail about how the business worked. While the plant looks like a 70’s office building from the outside, the nondescript façade hides many unique features that are part and parcel of what makes Peerless Coffee run the way it does. Among the important features:
- The floor is an extra thick concrete pad, which allows the company to stack huge bags of coffee from floor to ceiling without worrying about weight.
- The plant’s location near the port lowers transportation costs.
- Peerless rents out some surplus space in the back, with the knowledge that the space can be repurposed for a plant expansion if need be.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is the process of roasting coffee itself. Peerless does a lot of custom roasting for different clients, such as restaurants and hotels. This makes it important for the company to have extremely precise control over the variables that come into play, from humidity to the shape of the natural gas flame as the beans are being roasted. Roasting the beans an extra five minutes can severely change a coffee’s flavor profile, according to George Sr. George Jr. followed that up, saying that the process is so delicate, a transition period of 18 months would be necessary, including construction time. During that time, both facilities would be running (or under construction), allowing the new plant to work out the kinks and match the old plant’s flavor. The fact that coffee is perishable, coupled with the change of equipment and environment, mandates such a long transition. It’s possible that a lot of product will be wasted along the way. When another coffee roaster built a new plant to replace an old one, it supposedly took 6 months or more after it started operating to “dial in” the flavor properly. Essentially, the coffee is roasted based on the conditions in that exact location. Any changes would require a costly upheaval.
In preparation for what could happen, George Jr. and his sister, Kristina Brouhard, have done the necessary background work just in case. As I was talking with the two Georges, Kristina, an attorney who is also Peerless Coffee’s legal counsel, popped in for a moment and we exchanged pleasantries. They’re getting ready to (and I’m paraphrasing here) man the troops.
That’s not to say that manning of any troops will be needed. I asked the Georges if, as I had suggested last week, a ballpark land grab extended as far out as Fallon Street, instead of the taking of all land between Oak Street and Lake Merritt Channel. They both said they’d be fine with it, though no one has explained to them why all of the land was needed. They’re perfectly content to be neighbors to the ballpark, and their comfort with their specialized operation suggests that they aren’t in this just to hike up the price on their property. George Jr. doesn’t want anyone to feel sorry for the business, but he was very clear in saying, “This business is our family.” And right now it’s threatened by the ballpark. Already, customers are asking if Peerless is going out of business, which is clearly not the case. If you think that battling perception is hard now, just wait until the word gets out about a ballpark.
There were plenty of other anecdotes about Wally Haas, Herb Caen, Franklin Mieuli, Ken Hofmann, and strangely enough, former Warriors bust Chris Washburn, who George Sr. said had a “Rolls Royce grille on a Volkswagen.” George Sr. lamented how the revenue chase has made getting a fair stadium deal so difficult. We talked about how genuine Oakland’s (and Let’s Go Oakland’s) efforts were, and I was surprised how much we were all on the same page. There was a bittersweet moment in realizing that it is possible that Oakland, so defined by its sports franchises and full of history, could lose two or all three of them. George Sr. would’ve preferred a ballpark at Howard Terminal. George Jr. would’ve liked a downtown site. They told me how much they appreciated my work, and I thanked them for the time they gave me to discuss the issues. As I got up to leave, George Sr. had the most surprising parting words for me,
You never go over the owner’s head. If you call the commissioner, the first thing he’ll do once he gets off the phone is call the owner.
Coming from a man who has heard and seen it all – especially in Oakland and in dealing with pro sports teams – those are sage words.
Dolich supports a new “multi-use” stadium
A reader alerted me to Andy Dolich’s piece last week in the Biz Ball section of the CSN Bay Area/California website. Dolich goes back through the postwar history of stadia in America, going from the multipurpose bowls of yesteryear to the new single purpose venues of the last twenty years. He then summarizes the current difficulty experienced by California teams when it comes to getting stadia built. After that, he proposes an idea so strange it might have come out of the 60’s: the 49ers, Raiders, and A’s should all share one stadium where the Coliseum currently sits. In supporting this “multi-use” concept, Dolich cites major technological advances, such as the movable seating decks at ANZ Stadium and customizable LED displays used everywhere nowadays. While Dolich’s sense of history is sound, he left out a major factor that has sent both the NFL and MLB on different tracks. The Neo-Classical ballparks are much smaller in terms of capacity than their predecessors, while the new football stadia are much larger. 40,000 has emerged as a sweet spot for MLB, while 65,000 is preferable for the NFL. No amount of new technology is going to be able to mask or easily move 25,000 seats, not even tarps. The requirements for baseball and football have diverged so much that it’s hard to envision even attempting to make a multipurpose stadium work these days. Let’s take a look at how the two sports’ requirements differ:
- Proximity to the field. In baseball, it’s customary to have the first row at the same level as the field, or perhaps a foot above the field. In football, the first row may be 6-10 feet above the field.
- Quantity of premium seating. Football stadia tend to have 7,500 club seats and 100-200 suites. Ballparks have 3-4,000 club seats and around 40 suites.
- Confinement. Colder seasons force football stadia to enclose their suites behind glass, whereas ballparks like to take advantage of the summer by putting the seats outside the glassed-in parts of the suites.
- Surfaces. While Field Turf and other advanced artificial surfaces have gotten better at mimicking grass, they’re still far away from being truly comparable for baseball applications. The fake stuff is welcome in football, where there’s no need to worry about having a true ball bounce or roll. If a stadium were to utilize grass, the dirt infield problem emerges.
- Environment aesthetics. In football, the stadium is the scene. In baseball, ballparks are frequently designed take advantage of a pastoral or urban backdrop.
ANZ Stadium’s pitch. Note the tracks used to move the seats in and out.
The technology that Dolich espouses does little to address the differences in fan experience that the single purpose venues achieve. For instance, ANZ Stadium‘s movable seating sections could be an inspiration. Prime lower deck seats are mounted on tracks that expand and contract based on each sport’s specifications. It sounds good until you realize that the difference in capacity between ANZ’s rectangular (rugby, soccer) and oval (cricket, Aussie Rules) is only 2,000 seats. As a cricket venue it is severely compromised in terms of dimensions, with far more cricket tests played at Sydney’s older Cricket Ground. Movable seating decks have been employed to mixed success in the United States, the most prominent examples being the Louisiana Superdome and Candlestick Park. Aloha Stadium and Mile High Stadium both had novel methods to move entire seating stands. At Aloha, four double-deck stands either pinched in for football or widened out for baseball. Eventually the stadium was locked into its football configuration, much the same way The Stick’s east stands have been kept in their football mode. LED displays are great replacements for signage. They make an excellent platform for disseminating game information. But they don’t address the capacity disparity. From a fan experience standpoint, it could be said that the displays are sometimes counterproductive since they are so distracting. Either way, they’re just window dressing. Dolich uses the current economic state as justification for building a multipurpose stadium. Why bother, if the fan experience will only be marginally better than the current stadium, and will always be compared to superior experiences at single purpose venues? Dolich worked for the 49ers as a consultant to help improve the experience at The Stick, and was not particularly prominent in the selling of the new stadium to Santa Clara residents. He was unceremoniously let go at the beginning of this calendar year, and now he’s practically endorsing an alternative to the plan. If this were the 60’s, when both baseball and football were played in 50,000-seat ashtrays, it might be feasible. Times have changed. Until someone figures out how to make 25,000 seats disappear, the idea is not really worthy of discussion.
Raiders Coliseum: The impact
Back in October, a new plan for the Coliseum complex was unveiled, and it had no traces of the old multipurpose bowl. The feasibility study released then was careful not to show a specific opening date or year for the Raiders’ new stadium. Instead, a 48-month project timeline was given, with 15 months for EIR preparation and 30 months for construction. Although sharing a Santa Clara stadium with the 49ers remains an option, it’s clear that team CEO Amy Trask prefers to have the Raiders in their own digs.
To understand what the impact of the new stadium would be on the Coliseum complex, I did a quick-and-dirty Photoshop overlay to see how the current and future pieces fit together. First, the new plan as drawn up for the Raiders:
Now the overlay:
The overlay isn’t exact, but it’s close. The big reveal is that the footprints of the new stadium and the old Coliseum overlap slightly. That indicates that some part of the Coliseum would have to be torn down in order to complete the stadium. A precedent for this already exists in Cincinnati, where the outfield chunk of old Riverfront Stadium was removed to make way for Great American Ball Park. The yellow stripe running through the area is the easement for underground sewer interceptor, which can’t have permanent structures on it. While it appears that part of the new stadium sits on the easement, the stadium could be constructed in such a way that the interceptor would remain accessible. (If you’re asking why the A’s haven’t asked about doing something like this at the Coliseum, stop right there. They have asked.)
Assuming that the Raiders can get all of its ducks in a row (a big if), it’s possible that construction could start as early as mid-2012. Which means, of course, that the existing Coliseum would be affected. Significant portions of the original structure might have to be torn down. Hemmed in by the old stadium and the interceptor easement, the new stadium designers will have to be clever to design it in such a way that minimizes such impact. Since there’s no final site plan or stadium design, there’s plenty of time to sort all of this out.
The biggest issue is the timeline. The plans call for a severe reduction of available parking during and even after construction. Most of the old Coliseum would be replaced by a large public plaza leading to the BART bridge. For the A’s and Raiders’ 2012 and 2013 seasons, I’m guessing that parking would be reduced by 3,000 spaces or more, roughly 30% of the complex’s available spaces. A parking garage and additional surface parking obtained by buying nearby properties would help make up the shortfall, but most of those spaces wouldn’t be ready right away. Cutting into chunks of the Coliseum would probably remove parts of the upper deck that the A’s don’t use right now. On the other hand, the Raiders need those seats. Chances are that if part of the old stadium has to come down, the Raiders would play in a reduced capacity stadium for those two years (the Tennessee Titans played at Memphis’ Liberty Bowl and 40,000-seat Vanderbilt Stadium while what is now LP Field was being built). The iceplant between Gates B and C might have to go.
If construction couldn’t start until 2013 or later, the impacts to the A’s and Raiders could be fewer. The A’s should hopefully have something going somewhere, with the need to endure the transition lasting only one season. The Raiders could play at the Coliseum throughout the entire construction period. The Warriors? They’re screwed.
Athletics After Dark Stadium Debate
We were contacted last week by Athletics After Dark to participate in a debate over the merits of keeping the A’s in Oakland vs. moving them to San Jose. On the pro-Oakland side is Jorge Leon, representing San Jose is Jeffrey August. Listen to the show and chime in.
Jeffrey’s comment added:
Hey All… That is me taking the San Jose side. To be clear, I am still 100% in favor of anything happening in the Bay Area (Oakland included). In this debate, I took the San Jose side, but as you can probably tell from most of my answers that is strictly because I believe the path to privately financing a stadium in San Jose is much more clear.
Some general observations:
I feel kindred to Jorge Leon. He is a good guy and has his heart in the right place. It is hard to criticize a guy like that.
Dale Tafoya is a rock star. I have been listening to his podcasts for a while (and I don’t always agree with the things David Feldmen says on them, ha). I hold him in the same esteem as Tyler Blezinski and ML. These are three guys we should all be thankful are part of our fanbase and have a DIY work ethic. I get more than the majority of my A’s news from these three guys (and their internet based media outlets).
Last, there was a couple of moderators that were originally scheduled but then actually didn’t appear. Zennie Abraham and Rich Liebermen. I believe it was scheduling conflicts for both. I was actually looking forward to getting grilled by Zennie, that will have to wait for another day.
Lastly, let’s hope there is no need for a podcast like this next offseason.
Coliseum sans Coliseum
Update 10/11 1:20 PM: SFGate’s Raiders blogger Vittorio Tafur has some choice words from Amy Trask, indicating where much of the inspiration for this vision came from:
“There is no short answer. … We’re having ongoing discussions about the stadium opportunities. We’re working very, very cooperatively with the city and with the local officials. We’ve been extolling the virtues of this site for a quite awhile now. It was a year and a half, 18 months, give or take, maybe more, just under, but about a year and a half ago that I started talking about this site and using a new-stadium on this site as an opportunity to revitalize the whole area.
Why not, rather than look simply look at the stadium project, look at how one can use a stadium as an anchor for, or a catalyst for, an urban redevelopment that provides economic stimulus for the whole region? You guys know as well as I do that this site is centrally located, it’s tremendously well-served by public transportation. There are stadiums and facilities all over the country where they’re trying to figure out, how do we get subways or trains to come to our stadium? We’ve got BART. We’ve got Amtrak, the capitol corridor, the ACE train. So, it’s a central location on a freeway, well-served by public transportation.
So, about a year and a half ago, we started proposing and extolling the virtues of proposing the possibility of doing a stadium project on this site. Not as a stand-alone facility but as a catalyst for an urban renovation in the manner in which to bring economic stimulus for the whole region. We have been working very cooperatively with the city and the Joint Powers Authority. You guys understand this region. Right now, fans come to this facility and there’s nowhere for them to spend their money in the area. There’s one or two spots on Hegenbereger, but how about doing something here like was done on the waterfront.”
If the Raiders get a new stadium built in the Coliseum complex, be prepared for the place to look something like this:
You may notice something’s missing. That’s because there’s a large pedestrian plaza where the old Coliseum infield used to be. The finished product includes a $862 million stadium, which includes $144 million in debt remaining on the the original (and to be demolished) Coliseum. A stadium built for two teams would cost $880 million. Either way, costs would be slightly less than the $954 million projected for the 49ers stadium, though likely rising costs haven’t been accounted for in the Oakland model.
These and other facts come from a recent feasibility study (PDF) commissioned by the Coliseum Authority. The analysis was done by CSL, a firm that has done plenty of other similar studies, including the study for the Santa Clara stadium. Not surprisingly, CSLI breaks down the financing for the stadium (minus Coliseum debt) along very similar lines to what was pitched for the Niners:
- $96 million in public funds (redevelopment)
- $133 million in personal seat licenses membership equity fees
- $150 million from the NFL
- $339 million from the Raiders
If the 49ers and Raiders roomed together at the stadium, the financial picture would be vastly different:
- $110 million in public funds (redevelopment)
- $133 million in personal seat licenses membership equity fees from Raiders fans
- $133 million in personal seat licenses stadium builders licenses from 49ers fans
- $300 million from the NFL
- $30 million from the Raiders
- $30 million from the 49ers
One of these is impossible, whereas the other makes too much sense to actually happen. Keep in mind that the two-team model is the only truly feasible model in either Santa Clara or Oakland. Naming rights could be worth double for a shared stadium. There would be less competition for a bowl game, soccer friendlies, mega concerts – all of these big events would gravitate to one place. It’s just a matter of executing.
While the Niners are well ahead of the Raiders process-wise, the Silver & Black hold the trump card. Ever since the Santa Clara concept was unveiled, I was skeptical that the Niners could do it alone and I remain skeptical. It’s no fault of the team, it’s simply too expensive. It would be one thing if it was the Giants and Jets working together; at least they had a working relationship to help make the deal possible. Nothing like that exists here. And for the Yorks to hope that Al Davis’ wandering eye will somehow cease long enough to pen a long-term deal is, well, not very promising.
The holdup here is that Al could very easily move the Raiders south to Santa Clara. But you can’t expect him to agree to the same kind of 40-year lease to which the Niners are committing. It would be hard to see him commit to anything longer than a decade, hell, even 5 years. The Raiders are going to want to keep all of their options open, whether that means a new stadium in Oakland, or waiting out what happens with the Chargers in San Diego (or LA). Any short-term lease or flexible situation makes it harder to secure important pieces of financing, which will make it harder to get the stadium built. Not to sound callous, but the best thing for both teams – if they want to get something done together – may be for Mr. Davis to slip into a long coma. Or, you know. Then again, maybe Amy Trask’s eye is just as wandering.
Going back to the plan, I think they’re making a mistake. Instead of demolishing the entire Coliseum, they should reuse the East Side stand the way I described in March, transforming it into a convention center. The space is there and there’s plenty of opportunity for integration, whether it’s extra parking through a garage under the facility or a green roof creating a large amount of open space. After all, you’re already talking about a billion dollars, what’s another half-billion among friends? It would allow the employment base to be stabilized, since the low-wage service jobs common with these facilities could easily float between the arena, stadium, and convention center.
Beyond that, it’s clear that any stadium project would need TIF to help it get built, TIF that would come from surrounding development. Various industrial and commercial development projects would be encouraged, along with more sprawling parking across 880 (notice the pedestrian overpass). Not sure what that would mean for tailgating. I’m somewhat curious about the “Live/Work” area occupying the Coliseum North area (thanks Jeff), as it’s a stage that would probably trail the rest of the development.
Is it a pipe dream? Yes. I was somewhat disappointed that the Trib’s panel didn’t raise any questions about the Raiders’ future in Oakland, even though a feasibility study for the Raiders was due and up for review. Certainly, the Coliseum Authority, City, and County don’t want to lose the Raiders, but at what price? Knowing that Raiders could very well want only short-term deal in the South Bay, the Authority may be best served by waiting the Santa Clara process out – for if that fails, an East Bay stadium sounds like a decent fallback (though not as cost-efficient as a rebuilt Coliseum).
Other notes from the presentation:
The cited population figures are strange. They completely omit Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties, which indicates they did a fairly lazy CSA lookup-and-add to derive the numbers.
I hadn’t seen a corporation count in one of these studies until now. Even with the omitted counties, the Bay Area would place third (fourth if LA had a team and was included in the comparison).
I took the corporation count further by making a before/after comparison. If a new football stadium were built along with a new ballpark for the A’s, there’d be a visible shift in the amount of premium options available to interested parties. There could even be some oversaturation of the premium product, especially club seats. The suite numbers look the same, but should be treated differently because the future total includes “minisuites,” which are smaller and more affordable than typical luxury suites. The oversaturation phenomenon is evident in New York, where the old stadium only had 500 club seats (2X teams) and the new one has 10,000 (also 2X teams).
I’m sure that many of you South Bay partisans will quickly say that the market can support the jump. I’m not so sure. Good thing club seats aren’t counted as part of the TV blackout quota.
It’s also not clear what the effects on the Warriors would be. BTW, the team currently owes $10.7 million in back rent and expenses to the Coliseum Authority, a likely goodbye present from outgoing owner Chris Cohan. The drive to rename the Warriors won’t go anywhere as long as there is this tension regarding financials between W’s and the Authority.
Trib Editorial Board asks mayoral candidates about A’s, Warriors
Blog fave Dave Newhouse reports on a panel held for the four leading Oakland mayoral candidates about two major sports issues affecting Oakland. The one with the most ink is the matter of whether the Golden State Warriors will finally adopt the Oakland moniker. I suspect the answer for incoming W’s owners Joe Lacob and Peter Guber lies in money. Chris Cohan hinted a long time ago that some amount of relief from the team’s lease might do it. It’s not clear whether the same thing would satisfy the new owners. There is also some question as to what value each designation has. Is “Oakland Warriors” more or less valuable as a brand than “Golden State Warriors?” Some sports marketing folks out there know the answer to that better than I do.
Following that question of pride was a question about a pending fall. All four were asked to address the A’s situation:
(Jean) Quan: “I think this (city) is the soul of Major League Baseball — great diversity, ethnically and income-wise. I met Lew Wolff after I got elected. He didn’t say ‘girlie,’ but almost. There’s not a transit-rich (baseball) site that’s more ready to go in the entire Bay Area than ‘Victory Court’ (in Jack London Square). We own most of it, and could develop it as an entertainment (center).”
(Rebecca) Kaplan: “I love the A’s. Lew Wolff felt (Mayor) Jerry Brown didn’t care. The A’s could succeed here very well. I believe we could have a football and baseball stadium on the Coliseum site. We own the land. San Jose is not a done deal. They have a local law that requires a ballot measure, and they did not put it on the November ballot. So there’s a window of opportunity here.”
(Joe) Tuman: “I’ll be blunt. In professional sports, it’s ‘show me the money.’ … I won’t spend a dime of public money on keeping the Oakland Athletics here when I can’t pay for police officers or keep the streets safe. I’m not saying it can’t work, but let’s be objective.”
(Don) Perata: “I probably know a little more about this stuff than most people. I was part of two Raider deals that both failed. We got held up; we really did — by both (the A’s and Raiders). We got rid of the Coliseum board and then politicized it. … In retrospect, it was a disaster. I don’t think the A’s are going to stay here. We can’t play in this game, putting up the money. We haven’t been smart with our franchises.”
So from this, we can gather that one candidate backs Victory Court, another backs a Coliseum-sited ballpark, another won’t put up a dime, and the frontrunner has given up. Well, no one can ever say Oakland lacks diversity, and that goes for sports politics too.
According to this DIY poll by TellFi (via The Oakbook), Perata is garnering 34% of the vote, with Quan at 27%, Kaplan at 16%, and Tuman at 10%. If Perata and his rather brutally honest mindset prevails, it’s probably curtains for MLB in Oakland. Absent a simple majority, Perata would have to win via the instant runoff that would occur on election day.
Strangely, Newhouse follows up Perata’s comment by writing, “But we’ve been smart enough to keep them.” I’m not sure that smart is the operative word, Dave.
(Thanks, Ed)
Quick postscript: I wonder how linusalf will spin this Newhouse article? Update 10/8: He finally did, and it doesn’t say much. Also, supposedly Lowell Cohn was on Ken Dito’s show this morning and is no longer opposing a move south because of Oakland’s inaction. Wonders never cease.
newballpark.org 