At the Soccer Silicon Valley Foundation’s second annual dinner, Lew Wolff and the Quakes revealed new conceptual images and a fly-in video of the future stadium. If you haven’t been following this, here’s a quick refresher:

• Location: Airport West property between SJC and SCU, near Lowe’s
• Size: 15,000 plus berm and plaza space to approach 20,000 total
• Design: Horseshoe soccer-specific stadium, oriented northeast-to-southwest
• Architect: 360 Architecture
• Roof: Covers roughly half of seating area, with lights tucked underneath
• Video board: Two-sided, like Cisco Field concept
• Transit availability: Caltrain, future BART station
• Projected opening: ~2012
• Cost: $40-60 million

The design is distinctly European in flavor, as it trades in a top-mounted deck of luxury suites for three rows of premium (club) seats along the pitch/field. By all accounts, the field itself will be slightly sunken from ground level. A single concourse under the main seating serves all. The U-shape is meant to contain noise and if anything direct noise out towards the airport, which is a good idea.

It’s possible that the main seating bowl will be all steel, which takes a page from Stanford Stadium. That should make the stadium less expensive to build and noisier to boot. Next up is the fly-in video.

Don’t get used to having “Earthquakes” on the roof. Once a naming rights sponsor is secured, you’ll see the sponsor’s name there.


The big takeaway from this is that the Quakes finally have something tangible in the stadium realm to sell to fans and potential sponsors. It’s been a long time coming, and hopefully getting the necessary funding won’t be such an uphill battle anymore.

I’ll end this post with video of Wolff at the event last night. He pretty much covered everything in this post.

As expected, the Sharks have officially moved from CSN Bay Area to CSN California. The main reason given is that the Sharks will now have more room to air games and related programming without the congestion that was choking CSNBA the last several years. This is especially important from the HD delivery perspective, as the “Plus” channels meant to carry additional programming aren’t in HD.

Beneath the surface, the real motivation by Comcast is to conjure enough demand to force the other cable systems (Charter, Suddenlink) to carry CSNCA throughout the rest of Northern and Central California. The Sharks are asking shocked and angry consumers to call their cable systems to request the channel. We’ve seen this movie before, and we know how it usually ends.

While two networks will have their schedules freed up, there remain a few chances for conflicts. I studied the recently released, tentative 2010 A’s schedule, and compared it to the Kings’ and Sharks’ schedules. Here’s what I found:

• 10/1/09 – Sharks @ Avs, Opening Night, 7 p.m. on Versus against A’s @ M’s, 7:10 p.m. on CSNCA. No conflict.
• 10/3/09 – A’s-Angels @ 1:05, Sharks-Kings @ 7:30. No conflict.
• 4/6/10 – A’s-M’s TBD (7:05), Sharks-Flames @ 6:30, Spurs-Kings @ 7:00. Use of the Plus channel will be required.
• 4/8/10 – A’s-M’s TBD (12:35), Canucks-Sharks @ 7:30 on CSNCA-HD, Clippers-Kings @ 7:00. Probably no A’s conflict.
• 4/10/10 – A’s-Angels TBD, Coyotes-Sharks @ 7:30 on CSNCA-Plus, Mavs-Kings @ 7:00. If the Angels choose to make this one of their Saturday evening games, there will be a conflict. If it’s a day game, it’ll be blacked out because of Fox Saturday exclusivity.
• 4/12/10 – A’s-M’s TBD (7:05), Rockets-Kings @ 7:00. Use of the Plus channel will be required.
• 4/13/10 – A’s-M’s TBD (7:05), Kings-Lakers @ 7:30. Use of the Plus channel may be required if Kings game is not carried nationally.

Complicating things a bit is the fact that the Kings have not yet announced their broadcast schedule. It’s possible that some games may be carried by their OTA affiliate, if they have one this season.

In light of the Merc article containing economist feedback on the economic impact report, there’s been a small amount of blowback from San Jose and other media. While I haven’t trumpeted or killed the report critically, I feel that it has enough realism and conservatism baked in to pass muster with the public.

During the City Council session yesterday, there were some comments about omissions in the report. Some of the unknowns:

• How much parking will be built on site and how much will it cost? Will the City foot some/all of the bill?
• What is the fiscal impact of sales of construction materials for the ballpark?
• No mention is made of land lease terms, or the cost of additional land acquisition.

It’s been understood for some time that new infrastructure in the area, including parking, will be for the benefit of the transit hub and the downtown community as well as the ballpark and arena. Future demands are too great to have exclusivity, especially for a parking garage.

In the report, the alternative development plan involves a new corporate campus, or up to 1 million square feet of mostly office and some retail. The space is expected to be built out over two-plus decades, with the final space available in 2038. That’s a major departure from a ballpark, which would be completely open in 2014. Height restrictions prevent buildings of 20 stories or more, so the chances of building anything as architecturally iconic as a ballpark are slim. You need not look further than the Adobe headquarters for proof:

The only thing memorable about the HOK-designed complex is the art installation on the north exterior, otherwise known as the San Jose Semaphore project.

Speaking of Adobe, they didn’t exactly start out in San Jose. Originally a Mountain View-based company, Adobe was lured downtown with a $33 million subsidy and favorable lease terms. Most of the land in the picture above is owned by SJ Redevelopment, not Adobe. In hindsight, it’s proven to be a good deal because as of this moment, Adobe is the only Fortune 1000 company located downtown. In the past few years, several companies have left, leaving a massive vacancy rate in their wake. Knight-Ridder was acquired by MediaNews, with the Bay Area papers absorbed by BANG. Power producer Calpine emerged from bankruptcy and promptly moved to Houston. Even new deals were sunk, as City tried for years to bring middleware maker BEA down from the northside, only to have Oracle acquire them after the deal was consummated. The target building, Sobrato Tower, remains vacant as City tries to find a tenant yet again. Finally, Adobe bought the old San Jose Water Company site, but there’s no telling if/when anything will be built there.

To better illustrate downtown’s plight, here’s a map showing where the city’s six Fortune 1000 companies reside in blue, along with a red/black square denoting the ballpark site’s location:

These companies have little incentive to move. They have full control over their parking, are just as close if not closer to where their employees live as downtown, and for the most part don’t need downtown amenities, such as they are. It also doesn’t hurt that for the companies that have large, long-held real estate portfolios, they also have Prop 13 on their side. It wasn’t that long ago that much of north and south San Jose was cheap farmland, ready to shape however the developer saw fit.

Faced with this un-downtown-like reality, it’s no wonder why SJRA projects all the way to 2038 for office space. Downtown will always have smaller businesses, law firms, and media companies there. There’s nothing wrong with pursuing more large corporations, but city fathers should also understand that there are other ways to enhance downtown. A ballpark is Exhibit A in doing just that.

To that end, they’re focusing on this hub concept, for both transit and entertainment. Retail went with Santana Row and a series of expansions to Valley Fair, so the best things left are transit (coming with BART and HSR) and entertainment (sports, arts). As mixed up and broad as their vision for downtown has been for the last 20 years, it’s good to see it coalesce around a more focused set of objectives.

Mayor Chuck Reed introduces former mayor Susan Hammer, who speaks in support. Next up, County Assessor Larry Stone.
City Council meeting is next and will take up the economic impact report.

SVLG head Carl Guardino announced that SVLG officially supports the move.

Reed’s last quote:

“I’d like to thank Lew Wolff and the A’s. It’s Lew’s vision that makes it possible for us to build a ballpark in San Jose.”

Mark Purdy is headed inside to talk to some of the featured speakers.

1:45 – Council hearing Econ impact report now.

2:25 – Council unanimously approved report.

For those who are wondering where all the South Bay community leaders are regarding the San Jose ballpark project, they’ll be at City Hall tomorrow at 1 p.m. for Mayor Chuck Reed’s press conference. Reed will undoubtedly tout the revenue and growth potential cited by the week-old economic impact report. Here’s the press release:

Mayor Reed to Discuss Economic Benefits of a Proposed Major League Ballpark in San Jose

Event:
This Tuesday, Mayor Reed will host a press conference to discuss the findings of an Economic Impact Analysis for a Proposed Major League Ballpark, and highlight the estimated General Fund tax revenue and job generation benefits that the City and other local agencies stand to gain. Key baseball supporters, business leaders and labor representatives will be available for interviews. Following the press conference, the San Jose City Council is expected to accept the economic impact report at the Council Meeting.

When:
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

Where:
San Jose City Hall, Wing Room 120
200 E. Santa Clara Street, San Jose, CA 95113

Who:
Mayor Chuck Reed
Former Mayor Susan Hammer, Pro Baseball San Jose
Larry Stone, Santa Clara County Assessor
Pat Dando, President & CEO, San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Neil Struthers, Chief Executive Officer, Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building Trades Council
Carl Guardino, President & CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Michael Mulcahy, business leader, Pro Baseball San Jose

Other prominent community leaders and supporters of Major League Baseball will also be in attendance.

Background:
In May, the San Jose City Council unanimously approved Negotiating Principles for a proposed Major League Ballpark in downtown San Jose. These included requirements that construction and operation of a stadium be privately financed, and that the proposed project have a positive impact on the City’s General Fund. An Economic Impact Report released earlier this month found that the proposed ballpark could annually generate $1.5 million for the City of San Jose, $1.5 million for the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, as well as $2 million for Santa Clara County and other local agencies. The report also estimated that a stadium would generate 350 new construction jobs (annually for three years) and 980 net new jobs as well.

Interviews:
Mayor Reed, event speakers and other civic leaders will be available for one-on-one interviews immediately following the event.

I think I’ll be scheduling a late lunch to cover the event myself.

Large group at San Jose’s Parkside Hall B to discuss the Diridon Station & Ballpark plan. It’s a workshop, which means that lots of reps from City, transit, and consultants are all over the place to answer questions. Updates will be posted here as they come.

1:20 pm – No real ballpark news. This was a community event to get area residents to provide feedback on how the surrounding area should be developed.

2:10 pm – The next workshop, which will be focused and land use and transit, is scheduled for sometime in late January. That will be important simply because it will introduce something that hasn’t really been discussed (even during this workshop), phasing. Consider the timeline for all of the construction work being projected to this point:

• 2011-13 – Realignment of Montgomery/Autumn Streets to Autumn Parkway.
• 2011-14 – Ballpark is constructed, plus Caltrain electrification.
• 2015-20 – High speed rail, including expanded Diridon Station.
• 2020-25 – Downtown segment of BART extension.

That’s a really lengthy development time, plenty to get different objectives accomplished but also difficult to understand the timing of various pieces. How long will much of the immediate area be gigantic holes in the ground? Does the city work on the greenscape first or parking infrastructure? Can they be done simultaneously? Of course, there’s the lingering question of how much parking should go there, which didn’t get addressed at the workshop. There will be plenty of battles about how much housing if any should be there, alternatives to a ballpark, public art, and ways to better connect the station area to downtown. Everyone’s playing nice now, but several garden-variety development battles are promised – and that’s even after the long-awaited ballpark EIR is certified.

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel has a new article featuring quotes from economists questioning some of the projections in the San Jose Economic Impact Report. Here’s one of the better takeaways from the article:

But experts who study the economics of ballparks reviewed the numbers for the Mercury News and raised plenty of concerns. Chief among them: The cost for the city land the ballpark would be built upon is significant, they said. With three more parcels to buy, acquiring the land for the stadium over the years could amount to at least $42 million, according to a Mercury News analysis.

“You can’t come out saying that this doesn’t have a cost if all we’re supplying them (the A’s) is the land,” said Victor Matheson, associate professor of economics at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. “The land is very valuable real estate.”

Rather than be redundant, I’m reposting the “Cutting through the B.S.” entry from last week, which covers much of the same ground.

First, I’ll start off with some context on the report. The media has published several figures that sound good, but further understanding is in order.

• $130 million per year in direct spending in San Jose. This is based on what’s called a “stabilized” year, which for the purposes of the report is 2018. This acknowledges that much of the newness of the ballpark will wear off over time, allowing attendance to settle just under 2 million/year (24,300/game). This breaks down to $82.8 million of spending in the ballpark, $40.5 million outside the ballpark, $1.8 million by the various visiting teams, and $5.2 million for non-MLB events. There are some odd ratios used to get to these totals. For instance, the study assumes that 10% of players will live in San Jose, and that 10% will spend 50% of their income in the city. What? The other 90% will live outside San Jose and will spend only 5% of their income in the city. All-in-all, some 5.1 million (7%) will be spent within the city. Another $50 million would come from spending directly related to ballpark and team operations. Compare the $130 million figure to projections for the 49ers stadium, which were $72 million and $160 million for the City and County, respectively. I’m skeptical about these numbers, but CSLI claims they’re based on information from MLB teams, other sports franchises, and surveys. There must be some correlation, but the numbers described within the text don’t always match up with what’s in the tables.
• Nearly 1000 jobs will be created outside of construction. Granted, moving team operations from Oakland to San Jose will net dozens, if not hundreds of new jobs. From a greater regional standpoint, it’s really just displacement. Moreover, there will be displacement of the low-paying jobs. Many of the Aramark-sourced vendors in Oakland will lose a seasonal baseball gig, while Aramark-sourced vendors in San Jose will gain one. For years many of these vendors have worked multiple venues to help make ends meet, which makes sense since we have the luxury of having six local pro sports teams combining to cover the entire calendar year. And if the 49ers and/or Raiders move to Santa Clara, there will be even more displacement. Many vendors won’t be willing to travel 40 miles to work food or janitorial service. So it’s great for South Bay workers, terrible for East Bay workers. Not that I needed to explain that in great detail.
• Per capita spending. The study separates fans into different groups in order to properly establish their spending patterns. For A’s games, in-ballpark spending is projected to be $49 per person per game. That sounds high until you break it down into its components: $30 for a ticket, $15 for food and beverage ($6 nachos + $7 beer + $3 dessert = $16), $3 merchandise (part of more expensive item spread out over multiple visits), $1 parking (3 people per car, 30% of fans using available parking). The Coliseum’s 2009 Fan Cost Index is $46.81 per person per game, and that includes a child discount on tickets. Many fans (including myself) go quite cheap by finding free parking, or by bringing in outside food. Still, I pay $13 for a bleacher seat, $7.20 roundtrip from Fremont BART to the Coliseum, $3 in gas, plus $7 for a large sandwich and drink from somewhere else. It adds up.
• That hint. In the afternoon post, I mentioned there was a hint at the deal. In the general fund revenue section is this sentence, “Under the Ballpark Development Scenario, the hard
  construction costs of the stadium are used as a proxy for the assessed value.” Assuming there are no appraisal shenanigans like the kind the Giants pulled in SF, the figure points to an assessment of the ballpark only, which means that the land will remain City property while the A’s will lease it for the stadium. In other words, it’s a repeat of the Giants’ land deal.

What you, gentle reader, want to know is: Are these realistic numbers? The strange breakdown of player spending and the projections of property tax pass throughs to school districts are specious. Other numbers appear to be realistic, in some cases conservative. The study projects $1.5 million in tax revenue. It’s not high, and there’s a good reference point in HP Pavilion. Sharks games produce between $1.2 and $2 million per year in taxes with fewer games and less overall attendance (though greater ticket prices). That said, $1.5 million is a drop in the bucket for a city of 1 million people. Claims of making money from the deal are key for Mayor Chuck Reed, as he wants to uphold his fiscal conservative credentials. Given the litany of bad stadium deals listed in the last appendix in the report, it would be a great victory if the project were simply revenue neutral. Not sexy, but a little more realistic.

Media coverage of the economic impact report and reactions:
The money: Wolff connects the dots @ Bloomberg, talks T-rights @ Forbes
The lede @ the Merc and SFGate
The tube: KTVU and KGO stories

Tonight’s contribution comes from frequent commenter gojohn, who in a previous thread had some thoughts on the future makeup of a San Jose A’s fanbase. I told him that it looked like he needed some room to flesh out the concept, so I gave him this post to do it. I’ll add my own thoughts at the end of the post.

When I was looking over the San Jose Economic Impact Report the table below stood out to me. 

I was a bit surprised to see it estimated that 50% of the ballpark attendees would be coming from San Jose. So, I attempted to come up with my own number based upon the only data that I know of that is publically available. That would be the table below from the Fremont Economic Impact Report.

This table breaks down the advance ticket sales by county for the 2005 Oakland Athletics season. Ticket sales per county should vary mainly based on the population of that county and its distance from the Oakland Coliseum. Below is scatter plot of the % county population attending games by the distance of each county from the ballpark (I assumed only one game a person. Obviously not right, but I made that assumption for all counties so it shouldn’t affect the slope of the line).

Allow me to make a few observations from this graph before moving forward. First, Napa County loves the A’s. Those fans take the long haul to the park in numbers that far exceed expectations. If the A’s move south, Napa County might be the biggest losers. Second, Alameda County attendance is slightly above expected, but Santa Clara County is a bit lagging. Doesn’t really fit with the notion that the South Bay is deserving of a new ballpark more than Alameda County because the former will support the team more. Maybe they’re better Giants fans? Obviously, there are many issues unrelated to attendance alone that factor into the decision to move the team South, and the purpose of this post isn’t to reignite the Oakland vs. San Jose debate. I’m just sayin’, if you are going to talk the talk…

To estimate how the placement of the ballpark in San Jose might affect the relative attendance values from surrounding counties, I took the trendline formula from the scatter plot above and plugged in the distance of the counties from Diridon (I’m not a statistician, but I believe this is regression analysis). Using that formula, a Diridon ballpark would result in 433K less fans per year than the Coliseum, demonstrating that having a centrally located ballpark does have a significant positive affect on attendance. Keep in mind, this assumes no increase in fan interest from the 2005 values, it is only taking the ballpark from one location and putting it in another. I had to increase the y-intercept value (aka: the fan interest index) 34% to get an attendance value equal to the Coliseum numbers. In other words, a San Jose ballpark may indeed generate more interest than an Oakland one, but the interest needs to be ~34% higher to make up for the asymmetrical location of the ballpark in the Bay Area.

The graph below shows the percentage each county would be expected to contribute to Diridon ballpark attendance. To the right of the pie graph is a bar graph that breaks down each individual city in Santa Clara County.

The 18.6% value from “other California or out of state” is taken directly from the 2005 values in Oakland. Alameda County attendees would be expected to drop by ~160K fans, while Santa Clara county would be up 570K. Of note is San Jose, which I project to consist of only about a quarter of all ballpark attendees (470K fans/year). My number is half of the estimate stated in the San Jose economic report. I can’t quite reconcile how the two values are so far off. Perhaps the report relied more on figures from Sharks games and other MLB venues. Maybe they don’t think the relationship between attendance and distance from the ballpark is linear. It’s even possible they fudged a bit. It’s tough to say without knowing their method and having access to the numbers they do. I can only say my numbers seem reasonable and that’s good enough for me.

I would think that my numbers are much more encouraging to a future ballpark in San Jose than those outlined in the report. One million fans from San Jose may be difficult to achieve. However, since I think it is unlikely the report would want to come up with estimates that would suggest a ballpark is not feasible in San Jose, I can only assume they believe 1 million fans from San Jose is reasonable. Perhaps it would be driven by a huge influx of local corporate ticket sales. If 1 million fans truly end up coming from San Jose alone, based on my estimates, the Diridon ballpark is going to be a huge success. I realize I’m beating a dead horse here, but if I’m right I hope the demand for tickets will justify adding more seats to the venue sooner rather than later.

That’s Phoenix, as in Municipal Stadium, not Oakland. In January I wrote about the A’s discussing renovations to Muni with City officials. Apparently the officials couldn’t wrap their brains around the radical concept – team pays for it up front, gets reimbursed or compensated later – so that went nowhere.

Hopefully this time Phoenix and Mayor Phil Gordon are more open to the idea now that local developers want to lure the A’s from Muni/Papago Park to a newly built complex on the Salt River Reservation. The reservation is only a few miles to the east, sandwiched between Scottsdale and Mesa. It’s a well-integrated part of the community despite its sovereign status, as Scottsdale Community College sits on reservation land. The two Tucson-based teams, the Diamondbacks and Rockies, are already set to move to the reservation following the 2011 season.

“The Oakland A’s aren’t moving,” Gordon said. “Mr. Wolff is a man of his word, and he isn’t going to be playing city against city or nation against city.”

Mayor Gordon touts his good relationship with Lew Wolff, and I have no reason to doubt that. Still, interest from a private party may have been just the ticket to get Phoenix to the table. Not only would it be a shame if the A’s left Phoenix, it would suck if there were no spring training games played at Muni, which remains a venerable yet casual baseball-only institution in the Valley of the Sun.

Picked this up from V Smoothe @ SFGate’s in Oakland blog.

The Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce is distributing a letter to member businesses, imploring them to show their support for “a new, state-of-the-art, transit-friendly ballpark
within its currently defined MLB territory” by signing the letter and sending it back to the Chamber. The Chamber will then package the letters as part of a presentation that will be sent to MLB at the end of the month.

[PUT YOUR COMPANY LETTERHEAD OR LOGO HERE]

September __, 2009

[Read & delete: DO NOT send this to Bud Selig directly. Return all letters to the Oakland Chamber of Commerce! We will forward them all as part of Oakland’s PROPOSAL to Major League Baseball. Thank you!]

Mr. Bud Selig
Commissioner
Major League Baseball
12 E 49th St # 24
New York, NY 10017

Re: Support for a New Baseball Park in Oakland for the A’s

Dear Commissioner Selig:
It is my understanding that Major League Baseball (MLB) has appointed a three-person committee to evaluate the options for the development of a new, world-class ballpark for the Oakland Athletics. As part of the MLB analysis, I understand that the appointed, three-member MLB committee will review the level of support in the business community for the Oakland A’s, including specific interest in luxury suites,
season tickets and other forms of corporate support.

As a member of the business community that operates within the A’s territory, I am pleased to inform MLB that should the A’s succeed in moving forward on a new, state-of-the-art, transit-friendly ballpark within its currently defined MLB territory, [INSERT BUSINESS NAME HERE] would be interested in supporting the A’s, including pursuing the rights to a luxury suite and/or a package of season tickets
subject to a more formal evaluation based on ticket price and availability.

We strongly support the City of Oakland’s efforts to retain the Oakland A’s. As you are aware, since making Oakland its home in the late 1960s, the A’s have won four World Championships, bringing pride to our community. We are proud to offer our support for the retention of this historic organization.

The Oakland A’s represent one of America’s great urban franchises, which in years past enjoyed strong support from the region’s business community – and will enjoy strong support going forward should the franchise make a real commitment to Oakland.

In prior years, the Oakland A’s had strong attendance and business community support. From 1982 – 2004, average annual home attendance (excluding the strike year of 1994) was over 1.87 million.

American League average home attendance during the same period was 2.1 million. In recent years, notwithstanding the recent economic challenges confronting the entire country, the East Bay region (Contra Costa and Alameda Counties) has continued to grow and represents an economically robust and vibrant region. Oakland and neighboring Emeryville have a thriving economic base, including serving as the headquarters for major corporations such as Kaiser Permanente, Clorox, Cost Plus, Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Waste Management, Ask.com, Pixar Studios and Novartis. The University of California system, the world’s finest public university system, is also headquartered in Oakland. The Port of Oakland, already one of the country’s largest, is moving forward with a significant expansion further contributing to regional economic prosperity. The Tri Valley area extending east of Oakland and home to such corporations as Chevron, Safeway, Ross Stores, Sybase, and Polycom, is one of the fastest growing regions in the United States, and represents an untapped opportunity for the Oakland’s A’s.

We look forward to the committee completing its work and, hopefully, attending games in a new world-class, baseball-only ballpark in the City of Oakland.

Sincerely,

I wonder if a ballpark at NUMMI/Warm Springs would’ve elicited this kind of effort. That site fit the “a new, state-of-the-art, transit-friendly ballpark within its currently defined MLB territory” criteria, didn’t it?

Ever the realist, V Smoothe also reflects on Lew Wolff’s quotes in yesterday’s Bloomberg article:

The most delusional Oakland partisans will surely find a way to spin these lines, just like they have with all similarly unambiguous statements, as part of an elaborate scheme from a shrewd businessman to get some great deal out of Oakland, while the moderately more rational ones will continue to insist that Major League Baseball and territory rights will come to their rescue. But for those not blinded by love and hope, it’s pretty hard to deny that it’s looking increasingly clear that the best option for everyone involved (except, of course, Oakland) is for the team to move down south, and it’s really only a matter of time before that’s final.

Can’t say I have much more to add to this.