Disclaimer: I am not a professional architecture critic or architect, so these comments should be taken with several grains of salt.

Now that the curtain has been lifted on the A’s plans, we can start to dissect them in earnest. I have to admit that I didn’t get the site right at all, but I promise to make up for it by putting together a proper profile on what can now be called the “Coliseum North” site. Expect to see that early next week. I didn’t get the site right at all because I had no idea the plan would be this expansive. By thinking small, I limited myself to only certain sites. Again, that’s an indication of why Mr. Wolff is a developer and I’m just a blogger.

Looking at the first batch of renderings (available in large format alongside Glenn Dickey’s story in the Chronicle), there are a couple of words that immediately come to mind: humble and quirky. Humble refers to the unassuming, streamlined profile the ballpark cuts with its exterior. Quirky comes from the various unique elements in the outfield.

Humble

To understand the visual effect, look at the grandstand façade. Instead of large, ubiquitous, monolithic brick walls, the grandstand is open air, with brick-covered columns to define it. Access ramps, which are not present in the rendering, tend to be open air as well and should follow the same design philosophy. Since the playing surface is sunken, the columns themselves probably rise only 40 feet. Compare that to SBC Park, whose façade rises at least 60 feet from street level. Some other observations:

• The two-deck design allows the design to be low-slung, eliminating the need for numerous concourse levels.
• Luxury suites are not present in the grandstand. They will be there at some point.
• Even the roof over the upper deck appears to be made out of either mesh or a translucent material, giving it less definition and giving the appearance that the roof is not contributing to the height of the grandstand. Whether a roof is even needed is questionable, since wind and rain aren’t big problems in Oakland. At SBC Park the roof has purpose. Not so in Oakland.
• The light standards are almost wispy.
• The outfield buildings are of varying heights, all taller than the grandstand, which further lends to the idea that the ballpark is small. Even the entry plaza behind home plate doesn’t announce itself except for six columns that jut out from the rest of the structure.

Quirky

Just a brief glance at the outfield in this rendering tells you that this ballpark is busy. There are so many different elements that it can be distracting. I imagine that once inside the ballpark, the effect will be more subdued since the elements will be filled with patrons and the focus will be on the on-field action. Let’s take a look at these elements one-by-one:

• LF Corner Bullpen (yellow) – This is probably the home bullpen based on its size. It starts well down the left field line, continues past the foul pole, and ends at what is probably a combination retail/restaurant building, with standing room areas for fans to watch pitchers warm up. The idea originated in the design for Safeco Field in Seattle.
• LF Corner Building – While it certainly borrows heavily from Petco Park’s integration of the Western Metal Supply building, it doesn’t serve quite the same purpose. Besides the restaurant, there may be extended club facilities and the A’s administration offices, both of which would have enviable views of the field. Atop the building would be a large party deck and extra seating, which could be used or not used depending on expected attendance or high demand.
• Bleacher Triangle (Left-Center) – This is definitely my favorite element of the design, and not just because I am a bleacher bum (Section 137). It definitely establishes a distinct neighborhood for the bleacher creatures in left. The triangle or “A” shape is playful. It’s also divided into upper and lower sections. This may allow for the creation of a lower reserved section and an upper general admission section. The height of the first row may be only one-half the height of the same row in the Coliseum’s bleachers.
• The Tower (Left-Center) – The most unique element is the introduction of either condos or a hotel (less novel, see Toronto) overlooking the field. Six levels of units, three abreast, comprise the tower, which rises over the triangle like a sentry. The piece de resistance is the roof deck, complete with seats overlooking the field and a pool with deck chairs. Condos would provide more upfront money to finance the ballpark, but they might yield less in tax revenue than a hotel.
• CF Building – Probably the most controversial part of the design, this building is adorned with several balconies and decks that hang over the field. Will they be in play? The idea isn’t original, as it was built into Houston’s Minute Maid Park in the form of “Crawford Boxes.” In this incarnation, these look like party suites with decent sized seating decks attached. Above the two levels of party suites are more hotel rooms/condos. And yes, on the roof is another yet party deck, this time with a huge LED video board smack dab in the middle of it. It may sound like overkill on the party facilities, but it’s actually smart. The facility will be flexible enough to hold gatherings of many different sizes. The decks could be split as needed, and there’s potential for overflow seating as well. Lessons Wolff learned cutting his teeth in the hospitality industry can easily apply in this field as well. The southern end of the building (right-center) appears to hold a fountain, and a contemporary one at that.
• RF Grandstand – The outfield wall will be low, probably 3-4 feet at most. If this sounds familiar, it’s because a similar approach has been used in sections of Dodger Stadium, Angels Stadium, and Fenway Park. Another element similar to Fenway will be the design of the right field corner, which angles out sharply past the pole before curving towards center. Another bullpen (yellow) will be in the corner, with opposing pitchers constantly surrounded by fans. In light of the Craig and Jennifer Bueno/Frank Francisco incident, this might not be the smartest thing to do, but if the intent is to intimidate the visiting team, this will go a long way towards that. The foul pole is a dead-on copy of Fenway’s Pesky’s Pole. Gary Sheffield will be retired by the time it’s built, so he won’t have anything to worry about. There’s a third seating deck just below the lights, too.
• The Outfield – There’s some question about the height of the batter’s eye, but it’s probably right, and if it isn’t it could be modified pretty easily. Other than the right field corner, there are no odd angles, and none of it appears to be visual affectation, which is refreshing. The biggest concern is the dimensions of the field, which were not disclosed. Hopefully the VDC learned something from their visits to some of the newer National League parks: Don’t build a bandbox. Cincinnati and Philadelphia are going to have problems acquiring top-level pitching because of the pitifully shallow dimensions designed into their new ballparks. If anything, the outfield should be deeper than neutral to offset the diminished foul territory (compared to the Coliseum). Atlanta has kept itself competitive in large part due to Turner Field’s enormous outfield.

Overall, I’m mostly pleased with the design. It’s borderline overbuilt due to amount of adornment in the outfield, but none of it is gimmicky and most of it serves an actual purpose. It should make for a nice backdrop, though it’s unfortunate that the outfield elements will block the view of the Oakland hills over which many Coliseum fans still reminisce. The façade is open and minimalist, though it could do without the now cliché brick. The design is certain to change as different stakeholders provide input. As more details come out, I’ll continue to provide reviews.

One more bit to chew on for the conspiracy theorists: There is nothing about this ballpark that is site-specific.

The reports are starting to file in. Here is the first batch:

• KGO-7 report (new with video, 4:30 PM)
• KRON-4 report (with photos)
• CBS-5 (KPIX) report (with video)
• Contra Costa Times (with photo)
• SF Chronicle/Glenn Dickey (with large photos, expanded article including feedback from affected businesses – 10:30 PM)
• NBC-11 video

Also, a larger picture:

Now that it’s bigger, it can clear up some confusion on my part.
The red-purple oval on the left is a large plaza with a fountain in the middle of it. Coliseum Way runs through the plaza and becomes a frontage road along 880.

• In the upper-right is what looks like a BART platform and supporting structures (stairs, escalators).
• It could either be a street or a pedestrian mall on the north end, leading from the BART platform west. A piazza of sorts is between the street/pedestrian mall and the red oval.
• The green building just outside the third base grandstand looks like a public building – perhaps a museum or community center.
  

NBC-11’s website front page has a slightly larger than thumbnail sketch of a ballpark plan:

There’s also a new press release from the team:

“On behalf of the Oakland Athletics ownership group, I have proposed a concept and a site to the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and the City of Oakland that we believe has tremendous potential for the development of a baseball-only facility for the A’s in Oakland. It is our hope to create more than just a ballpark, but one of the next major urban centers in the Bay Area that will greatly add to the economic base and the community image of the city we have called home for the last 38 years.

“A visionary leadership from all parties associated with this project who believe the A’s are a community asset is required to help us reach our objective in creating one of the most exciting venues in all of sports, one that will have a positive and lasting impact on the City of Oakland for years to come.

“Our ownership group is willing to incur the vast majority of costs associated with this project; however, to create the major urban development we envision is virtually impossible without some sort of public and governmental support. If public and private forces can be channeled to see this project to fruition, it is our belief the economic benefits to the City of Oakland will far outweigh the public assistance sought.

“We look forward to closely working with the JPA and the City of Oakland in a diligent and expedient manner to further examine the feasibility of this proposal.”

Some observations:

• The site appears to be much more expansive than just the Drive-In/Swap Meet.
• The ballpark itself is situated just north of 66th Ave, on the southeast section of the site.
• The field is oriented northeast, similar to the current Coliseum, with the outfield running near the Union Pacific/Amtrak railroad tracks.
• Parking is on the other side of the tracks, with a series of bridges (pedestrian only?) providing access over the tracks.
• High-rise structures (probably the condos) are located in left and left-center.
• Small retail buildings line 66th Ave.
• Either a shopping center or big-box retailers have been placed to the west, along Coliseum Way.
• The street grid is completely changed north of 66th Ave.
• What looks to be a new street runs east-west through the complex. It may be an extension of the existing Seminary Ave., which currently ends at San Leandro St. That would make sense, because it would provide a direct route from I-580.
  

More details are leaking out about the nature of the presentation that Wolff will give to the JPA tomorrow.

The project would reportedly involve up to 90 acres of industrial land between 66th Avenue and High Street, and will be pitched as one requiring no up-front investment of public funds from a community still reeling from sour deals with professional sports teams, including the disastrous 1995 pact that returned the Raiders to Oakland.

and…

These officials say they have not been told about project costs or other specifics related to Wolff’s plan, including the exact site eyed for a ballpark. One official said it is assumed the project would include the former drive-in property, because it consists of about 20 acres of open land and is only blocks down Coliseum Way from the existing stadium.

It’ll be interesting to see how expansive the plan really is. If it ends up being 90 acres, then it would come all the way down from the Drive-In/Swap Meet to 66th Ave. The bigger the size of the project, the greater the possibilities. There’s certainly an opportunity for the creation of an “Athletics Village” or “A’s Town” (someone else has already copyrighted the term “Athletics Nation“) with the ballpark as the anchor for a large swath of development. Could it cause an influx of A’s fans moving into the area, with residents eating, sleeping, and living baseball all year long? Statues of Billy Beane, Sandy Alderson, Wally Haas, Dave Stewart, and Rickey Henderson lining the streets? A Ricky’s location just outside the ballpark? Bruce Bochte running a marine educational center/museum down the street? MC Hammer preaching at a church inside the village? Well, maybe not. It certainly would be a bold step, and if successful, would go a long way towards countering that California and Bay Area fans are fairweather or bandwagonesque.

It’s good for A’s fans to dream and hope about such things, but those hopes should be tempered with the fact that big urban renewal projects often have to get scaled back for any number of reasons: investor willingness, feasibility, government cooperation.

In an editorial, the Trib implores Wolff to publicize the ballpark plans and stop teasing everyone with little details:

If Wolff has something specific in mind, this would be a good time to throw out the old trial balloon. The A’s are the hottest team in baseball right now and could be in first place by this weekend after dwelling near the cellar a good part of the early season. Fans are streaming to the stadium, bringing with them converts from the other side of the Bay who could be hooked for good by a combination of consistent winning ball and the promise of a cozy ballpark.

While putting out information while the team is winning is no guarantee of widespread approval, it can’t hurt. It’s hard to conceive of a situation that’s better suited, especially with the Giants’ current plight.

The Chron’s Ray Ratto weighs in with his opinion of the latest ballpark site:

Anyway, when you get right down to it, the A’s aren’t being held down by their ballpark much at all. Fact is (and who doesn’t enjoy a good fact now and then?), they’re probably better off staying where they are than sinking nine figures into a site that makes sense only to the editors of Redeveloped Flea Market Quarterly.

and…

Thus, the idea behind putting the ballpark further away from a BART stop, between two freeway off-ramps, and with a lovely view of San Leandro Boulevard seems odd, and bordering on the downright misguided.

Once Friday’s presentation is made and the subsequent press conference is held, it should get the public debate going. Some questions to consider:

• Are the existing owners of the targeted properties willing to play ball (read: sell and relocate)?
• If not, what measures will the JPA/City of Oakland explore to make this get done (read: eminent domain)?
• What options are available to bridge the 1.2 mile gap between the Drive-In/Swap Meet and the Coliseum BART station? Shuttles? Trolleys? Another BART station?
• Why would the JPA be involved if the site under consideration is not under JPA control?
• There are large trucking/warehousing companies along Coliseum Way. How would they react to a mixed-use development next door, especially one that could significantly alter the existing street grid?
• How are the existing train tracks going to be negotiated? Pedestrian or vehicle bridges? Gates at crossings?
• Is this the best site? The easiest to acquire? The best compromise among all factors? Are other sites under consideration?

The latest tidbit from Matier and Ross concerns the old Coliseum Drive-in/Swap Meet lot just north of the Coliseum:

A birdie tells us that Oakland A’s owner Lew Wolff does have his eyes on a location he’d like to explore for a new ballpark — and no, it’s not the waterfront — it’s the privately owned site of the Coliseum Flea Market at 66th and High streets.

Wolff is expected to go public with his ballpark plan during an appearance before the Oakland-Alameda Joint Powers Authority on Friday.

Coincidentally, I drove right by the Swap Meet yesterday to check out the site. The old screens and projection building are still there, though the Drive-In itself is no longer operational. The Swap Meet is open daily. I’ve linked a satellite photo if you’re interested.

Some observations:

• It’s 1 mile from the Coliseum BART station, and everything between it and BART is industrial. That’s a pretty long distance. Would Wolff ask for another BART station to be built there? There’s a $50 million price tag associated with a new station (Figure obtained from estimates for the Irvington station, part of the Warm Springs Extension). The best option may be to extend the Airport BART People Mover an extra two miles to the ballpark site.
• It’s flanked by a huge warehouse that I don’t think is getting used right now, an 5-acre overflow parking lot, and a PG&E plant/substation. An EBMUD maintenance yard and storage facility are across the freeway.
• The Swap Meet lot is owned by Syufy (Century Theatres to the rest of us).
• Coliseum Way would need regrading because of the now non-functional railroad tracks that repeatedly criss-cross it (and rip a car’s suspension to pieces, btw).
• The area is zoned M-40/Heavy Industrial and would need to change to accommodate housing, retail, etc.
• A slough runs through the area, between the Drive-In and 880.

To make it worthwhile, Wolff would have to acquire everything between the BART tracks (San Leandro St) and 880, from the southern slough north to 50th Ave. That’s about 35-40 acres, not including the PG&E lot. The combined property would be enough to build the ballpark, parking, and the mixed residential/retail development required for the area.

Is this a good idea? The distance from BART is a concern, and I don’t see Oakland and Alameda County diverting some of the downtown/JLS transportation project money just to build a BART station only a mile away from an existing station. A shuttle could help, but not having BART immediately nearby is a significant issue. If you took BART to and from last night’s game as I did, you know what I’m talking about.

Beyond that BART issue, it seems to fit Wolff’s requirements. It’s highly visible from the Nimitz (880), so he should be able to attract big-name retailers. The area would be a blank slate, so it could be developed however the developers saw fit, though for at least few years, it would be on an island compared to its surroundings. There are only a handful of property owners in the area, so Wolff could deal with them directly.

I’ve already started to see the comparisons to China Basin. It’s unrealistic to expect development in East Oakland to flourish the way China Basin did. China Basin was a case of extremely good timing. SF politicos had been working on development plans for China Basin for decades, including two separate ballpark proposals (4th & Townsend was the first). Pac Bell Park broke ground just after the dot-com boom hit, and since the area was one of the last parts of the city not touched by new development, it became hot overnight, especially with the influx of young professionals. Soon lofts started showing up on Potero Hill, UCSF announced their new China Basin campus, and the South Beach neighborhood fully took shape. The confluence of high-stakes speculation and enormous economic growth is not looming in the same manner for East Oakland. If Wolff and his partners choose to invest in East Oakland, more power to them.

Not to beat a dead horse regarding seat licenses, but a new article from the Trib shows that there continues to be much that can be learned from the Raiders’ PSL woes. The Giants’ charter seat program, while successful, does not lack nuggets of wisdom either. The main lesson is, “Provide value above and beyond a seat.” There is a wide ranging array of perks available for potential seat license investors at a new ballpark. Some ideas that may or may not prove effective as incentives:

1. Expanded preferred ticket-buying opportunities, especially for high-demand games (Giants/Red Sox/Yankees).
2. Greater access to players/staff/management through open houses, fan forums, or planned social events.
3. Access/admission to club facilities several hours before/after games. May also include post-7th inning alcohol sales.
4. Discounts on renting ballpark facilities (clubs, meeting rooms, tours).
5. Food, beverage, and parking vouchers for low-demand games (er, Tampa Bay/Kansas City).
6. Liberal renewal terms (dropping out for one year in season ticket purchases does not result in significant drop in preferred seating location – may be subject to demand).
7. Extra swag available on promotional giveaway days.

Putting a winning team obviously has an effect on season ticket/seat license sales as well, but as seen in the Raiders’ 2001-02 season, winning offers few attendance guarantees. Wolff has said the area is not keen on seat licenses, but I’m still skeptical on the idea that they won’t be offered.

The Trib reports that a meeting between members of the Coliseum JPA and Wolff/A’s VDC is scheduled for sometime next week. The VDC will likely present its “wishlist” containing site details and requirements.

In the article is a quote from Ignacio De La Fuente, who “showed frustration that talks have not progressed since Wolff announced last year the team was going to take control of the planning and site location for a new ballpark.”

“We talk a lot, and nothing happens,” he said. “I want to make sure that we are not just talking. … It is going to be up to them to at least show, or give us some indication, what area they are looking at.”

DLF also had this to say about the public share:

“I’m prepared to work with the A’s and explore possibilities for sites, but I can’t make a blanket statement that we are going to put land together for them,” he said. “I want to be absolutely clear. It has to be their money. (Putting land together) does not mean it is their money.”

Sounds like we have a potential problem looming regarding financing. Surely even DLF realizes that SBC Park, which is considered the best (and the only recently built) example of a privately built major league ballpark, had some public involvement? There were much more insidious ways of doing this, such as the machinations that created Dodger Stadium. Considering Wolff’s previous comments that while the ballpark will be a mostly private transaction, he doesn’t think an SBC-type deal is likely, one wonders what the gap between the two positions will be when the presentations are made.

“Blez: At least you’re getting a lot of walk-ups lately.

Wolff: That’s the worst thing that could happen to us.

Blez: Really? Why?

Wolff: Well, let’s think it through a little bit. We have the highest walk-ups in Major League Baseball. That is a big black mark against us with the league. Say you’re trying to get the vendors ready for the game and you don’t know if you’re going to have 10,000 people or 20,000. The Giants have the luxury of knowing almost every game where they’ll be. This is a serious problem. It’s not a plus. Obviously we have a lot of seats because of the Raiders expansion and such. So when people say, “Gee whiz, can you spend more money?”, we don’t want to gouge anybody but we’d like to be closer to what the Giants are able to do just by way of a neighbor.“

• One of the things that tends to be forgotten in the appreciation of baseball is that there is a business model behind it. Or rather, several. Moneyball is a unique business model for developing and acquiring players. SBC Park and McAfee Coliseum have very different business models for their stadium operations. A team with its own cable network (Yankees, Red Sox) would have a separate business model for selling advertising. It may not be the most interesting thing to discuss, but it’s the reality of the modern era.
• This is not the first time Wolff has expressed his disdain for walk-up attendance. Expect the season ticket advertising push at the beginning of this season to be cranked into high gear in September and throughout the offseason.

“Blez: So, when you talk about 32-35 thousand capacity…

Wolff: That will create some scarcity. Not a lot. We still have some great ideas. We want to cater to families still and we aren’t looking for the last dollar. But we’d like to be able to manage the dollars that we have. And we don’t know sometimes whether to have 100 people working or 200. You need to probably talk to the people that do that to get more detail. But it’s just not good. And by the way, even if the Raiders weren’t there, it still wouldn’t be good. Without the Raiders, we’d still be looking for a modern venue.”

• The challenge for Wolff will be to sell the added value in a new ballpark. Some of it is inherent: new amenities, better location. Other added value may not be so obvious, such as special perks for season ticket or suite holders. In the end, the best added value comes from a winning team. It is the ultimate end product, after all.
• Mt. Davis has been almost universally hated by A’s faithful, but it’s provided some interesting benefits for them. The lease agreement is extremely favorable for the A’s, as their yearly payment is slightly less than the cost of salaries for rookies Huston Street and Nick Swisher. They also have one-year options on the lease starting in 2008 and have a cheap buyout clause. Without Mt. Davis, the A’s would arguably have less of a case to get a new ballpark. Opponents, including those who would have an emotional attachment to the Coliseum, might be more in favor of renovations to the Coliseum, perhaps similar to those undertaken in Anaheim. The Coliseum now is clearly not a good revenue-generating ballpark model because of the huge capacity and little scarcity.
• Pricing is another matter altogether. Since a competitor resides in the same market, the A’s couldn’t make huge across-the-board price hikes without dealing with the ramifications of the demand curve. Wolff has said that the area isn’t too keen on seat licences, but seat licenses are a very common part of stadium financing these days. Are seat licenses out of the question, or will they be offered in a limited form? If they are offered, how will they be pitched? What flexibility will be in the partial season ticket plans? What about ticket promotions such as newspaper family packs?

“Blez: Are you strictly focused on Oakland right now? I live in Sacramento, so I selfishly hope you’ll come here, but have you explored any place like Sacramento or Las Vegas?

Wolff: We have time to look at Portland and Las Vegas and places that people keep hearing about. Our focus is in our territory, which is really a district. Our district includes, Alameda County, Contra Costa County and I think Monterey too (laughs), we’re not moving down there. We don’t have Santa Clara because that was somehow shifted over to the Giants. I am focused totally on our district. In order of priority, I would like to be in the city of Oakland, if we could. If not, something to do with the city and county through the JPA, and otherwise, the county.”

• This should get the Portland and Vegas folks talking, but they’re just going to have to wait like vultures circling carrion (this goes for San Jose and Sacramento too) for talks in Oakland to collapse. However, Fremont or Dublin may be in play sooner than later. Wolff held firm on intent to not challenge territorial rights in Santa Clara County, which makes it all the more difficult for Baseball San Jose to sell their concept.

“Blez: Anything beyond that?

Wolff: I don’t know where to go beyond that (laughing). That’s all we have the right to do. Now, Sacramento could probably be an area. But I haven’t discussed it in any detail with anybody. Right now, I’m not sure whether that’s a good market or not.

Blez: Raley Field was actually built so you could build a second and I think third deck on it to make it into a major league ballpark.

Wolff: We want a ballpark without a third deck. I understand the park is great and a friend of mine owns the team. I haven’t actually seen it yet but I’m going down with Billy soon to see it. When you’re going to make this type of investment whether it’s in Oakland or somewhere else in the area, and I’m talking $300-400 million, you should get the biggest bang out of it. San Diego’s done a great job. They’ve benefitted a lot. But Oakland is a tough city. It’s built up.”

• At first, I was surprised with Blez seemingly pimping Sactown. I don’t really have an issue with it. Wolff, Fisher and other investors will choose a site and plan based on feasibility, cost, and potential. He’s probably heard plenty about Sacramento already, so Blez isn’t giving him anything new to think over.
• As for bang-for-the-buck, there’s potentially another issue regarding Sacramento. If a ballpark village were planned for the area around Raley Field, that would mean displacement of many business situated in the warehouse district there. That may not seem like much, but those businesses have a rail line, the river, and a major interstate only steps away from where they hang their shingles.
• Built-up? This wasn’t necessarily an issue only three years ago, when the relative futures of Howard Terminal, Uptown, and Oak-to-9th were in question and all three were open to different development plans. Howard Terminal is now sewn up for the next 30 years. Uptown is belatedly getting all of the pieces in place for the Forest City project, and Signature may have a plan in place for developing the Estuary. This brings up the question of timing. Wolff was brought on solely to work on venue development in 2003, then got an option to buy the team. Then he exercised the option in December, shortly after all three deals were well past initial planning stages. That leaves Oakland with fewer and fewer ideal sites. I’m probably reading too much into this, but it is curious.

I’ll end on this note: Not only was it a brilliant interview “get” for Tyler Bleszinski, it was an excellent P.R. move by Wolff. He addressed much of the hardcore fanbase directly, giving them a few details to whet their appetites. Many are now clamoring for site plans, models, renderings, anything to push it forward. It’s clear from most of the comments that there is a positive feeling about Wolff, one of guarded optimism. It’s a crucial step in convincing the community at large that a ballpark is a good thing for the public.