UPDATE: Trib columnist Art Spander fired off an angry column this morning in response to the news.

Out of today’s Tribune comes the following quote from Lew Wolff:

“We’ve spent most of our time focused on Oakland; now the next goal is to stay in Alameda County,” he said. “We haven’t ruled out any place, but Oakland is difficult because it has lots of priorities that are very important to the community beyond sports.”

Oakland officials were apparently taken by surprise (italics are my emphasis):

“He has not told us anything like that,” said Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente. “Until we are told something different, we are going to continue working. But Mr. Wolff is right, we have many other things on the front plate.”

Among those are a rising crime rate, beleaguered public schools and a hot mayoral race in which De La Fuente, the city’s lead negotiator in the baseball talks, is a candidate.

“It is very difficult. With all these campaigns going on, our plates are so full,” said Alameda County Supervisor Gail Steele, a member of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority.

There had been whispers that the A’s haven’t been a priority for Oakland pols, but this confirms it. It’s hard to see a set of conditions under which the A’s can stay in Oakland unless all other local alternatives fall apart, leaving the two parties to start from scratch. Perhaps it comes from a collective distrust of Wolff, but if it is, no one has said anything publicly about it.

While I was travelling a few weeks ago, I completely missed out on a ballpark study session given for the San Jose City Council on March 1. Previously it was reported at this session that the EIR commenting period would have to be moved out a couple of weeks, but there was more to the session than that. Consultant HOK+Sport was on hand to present the details of their study. Even though the minutes were short, the session provided clarification on a few matters of debate. Excerpted from the Q&A discussion:

8. So we finish the EIR in June, what are possible next steps? Do we build a stadium for the Oakland A’ (sic) and they will come?
No, a development agreement with the A’s would be necessary. The San Francisco Giants territory would have to be resolved. Any team agreement would have to be approved by the major league team owners and the Commissioner of Baseball.
9. Why do we need to go to the voters? What percentage of the vote do we need to move forward?
The Municipal Code provides that the City may use tax dollars to participate in the building of any sports facility with a seating capacity of greater 5,000 only after obtaining approval of the majority of voters. If, however, the proposed source of the public funds is a special tax, a two thirds vote would be required for the tax.
10. OK, so you need a franchise and a developer. What might they bring to the negotiation table?
There is a broad range of possibilities under a development agreement. A developer could add a range of possibilities including development of adjacent properties (assuming they have site control) including residential, commercial and hotel development. They could also bring financing in the form of equity or debt to the project.

There are a total three files to check out: the agenda (posted prior to the session), a study update (also posted prior to the session), and the aforementioned Q&A notes. You can also view the session on the city’s website. Take a look at list of archived meetings, then find the one titled “SJRA Ballpark Study Session.” Considering the 9 a.m. timing of the session, it wasn’t surprising to see the tiny smattering of attendees aside from the city council and presenters.

Some interesting nuggets culled from the session:

• Excavating the site to have a below-grade field is considered the main option in order to reduce height.
• The PG&E substation may not have to be moved, but if it isn’t the ballpark design would be constrained. One option under consideration pushes the ballpark towards the northeast corner of the site and preserves the substation.
• Council member Ken Yeager asked for an example of a similar ballpark/existing neighborhood development. HOK couldn’t cite a recent development that closely resembled the Diridon/Arena/Delmas Park situation. Camden Yards was the only one with a neighborhood close by.
• Council member Chuck Reed asked for a clarification on the legality of the pursuit of a ballpark. City attorney Rick Doyle addressed this previously in a memo, which he paraphrased during the session by saying that the money spent on the preliminary study and EIR process is required to get to the point of being able to present something to the voters. Reed expressed concern about the lack of a financing plan and asked “somebody, and it’s not gonna be someone at this dais” to scope out the scheme. He then brought up the Baseball San Jose group and found County Assessor Larry Stone, who is a BBSJ leader, in the audience.
• Council member Forrest Williams asked about territorial rights, since he has received numerous questions from his constituents. Economic Development Director Paul Krutko cited the need for a partnership with a team. Krutko also incorrectly cited the DC-Baltimore situation, which is not the same because the Orioles had TV market rights to DC, not exclusive stadium territorial rights. Mayor Gonzales then pointed out that the Arena was built on spec, which isn’t realistic now or in the future regarding a baseball stadium. Williams followed up by saying that he’s been echoing many of the same statements, but that the public is looking for something more solid, more substantial. Williams asked about an optimal size, and one of the HOK presenters noted that Coors Field was built too large (50,000) because the public was caught up in getting a team. Once the novelty of having a team and a new ballpark wore off, the Colorado Rockies, mired in a lack of on-field success, has had difficulty selling out the stadium.
• Vice-Mayor Cindy Chavez wanted information on surrounding development and economic impact. Redevelopment head Harry Mavrogenes talked about development in the area between HP Pavilion and the ballpark site. Recently the Planning department submitted design guidelines for this area and other transit-close areas in and near downtown. Diridon/Arena, including Diridon South, is part of this newly expanded downtown area.
• Council member Nanci Pyle brought up the concept of soccer as an alternative, a dual-use stadium, or a dual-stadia concept. HOK replied that dual-use stadium would be an option should the substation be moved to the south end of the fire training site.
• Council member Dave Cortese brought up the idea of pushing the A’s to make a decision. He also promoted a separate socioeconomic study, focused on the impact on the immediate area and surrounding neighborhoods, with research done on other cities who have done similar urban stadium projects. Cortese finished up by posing the issue of financing not as a future bridge to cross when a team comes, but as an issue that needs to be proactively addressed to avoid missing opportunities should they arise. He also called for laying out a detailed, real timeline that the public can view and assess. Mavrogenes replied that the timeline could be produced in the next 30-45 days. I’m looking forward to a non-fluff economic report, if they really have the cajones to commission one.
• Representatives from Ballpark Tax Watchdogs, the Shasta/Hanchett Park Neighborhood Association (west of site) and the Burbank/Del Monte Neighborhood Advisory Committee (southwest of site) spoke during the public comment period. Word of advice to Ballpark Tax Watchdogs: if you’re going to arm yourself with information, don’t just refer to a book that’s almost a decade old, especially when the plea’s bound to fall on deaf ears (namely the Mayor’s). Instead, check out the Field of Schemes website or an article published today in the Boston Globe. They’re a little more up-to-date. S/HNPA and BDMNAC expressed their disgust over the lack of disclosure regarding the ballpark process and plans. Their outrage appears to have brought results, since the EIR commenting period was extended to April 20 and four public outreach meetings were scheduled shortly thereafter.

I was surprised at the lack of certainty within the city council. It wasn’t just about the EIR – there was no real consensus on how San Jose should proceed. Cortese was right in calling the situation a Catch-22. It made the most sense to push the process out not just to accommodate a more comprehensive review of the EIR, but to allow the numerous variables in the situation to settle. If the A’s really do move to San Jose, it will be a result of equal parts hard work and serendipity.

P.S. Read that Boston Globe article (registration required) I cited earlier if you get the chance. It’s the most well-balanced treatment of the subject matter I’ve seen, perhaps, ever.

An AP article I found on SI.com broadly covers the trend towards smaller stadia. The A’s are mentioned first. Towards the end is an admission by A’s officials that season ticket sales have increased “from 7,000 last year to about 8,000 so far this season.” I’m assuming that’s counting full season ticket packages or their equivalent, combined partial packages.

The many-hatted Maury Brown got an interview with HOK Sport principal Earl Santee. The interview’s not up yet, but in the interim Santee provided Brown with more drawings of the Nats’ next home. The one I was most interested in was a cross-section, just to see how it compared with drawings I’ve worked up.

I properly scaled and overlaid one of my own cross-section images and here’s what I got:

The DC cross-section is somewhat faded in the background for better contrast. Look at how high it is. The lights on my concept are lower than the middle row in the upper deck. My top row is only 83′ above the field compared to 115′ in DC. I’m no architect, but I have an understanding of space and sight lines, and the DC design would be offensive to me if I didn’t already know that the extra height is a necessity borne of the premium facilities the building will contain. I also acknowledge that at 41,000 seats, it’s a full 6,000 more than what I’ve put together, but it wouldn’t be too hard to add a few thousand in the outfield or on a temporary basis within the seating bowl since there’s plenty of space to do so.

The $611 million, triple-deck ballpark will actually have six circulation levels (not seating levels) whereas mine has four (four-and-one-half, really). That’s a lot of extra concrete and steel. Building some 30-40 feet higher will necessitate more hefty structural work. Since the DC ballpark will have 78 luxury suites on two separate, unconnected levels, there will be additional costs associated with added concourse and lobby space. Like China Basin, there will be two club areas: one at field level behind the plate and another taking up the entire mezzanine. Extra amenities like the “innovative” conference center and the more familiar centerfield restaurant will both be decked out appropriately for both gameday and non-gameday use (think maple tables and cabinets).

The sad part of this is that it doesn’t appear that there are many places to cut costs unless quality is sacrificed. The decision to use glass and limestone-colored concrete instead of glass and limestone is an indicator of this. The lack of escalators to the upper deck is another. The District will absorb the vast majority of the bill, and unless they can figure a way to make a private group (such as the team) pay for underground parking, there’s a good chance that costs will only increase over time.

The next two weeks are going to be very interesting. Not just because of the prospects of a new season, but because Lew Wolff is set to make some sort of announcement around Opening Day about the ballpark effort. Beyond that, there are other key dates of which to make note, because they could have a definite impact on how each city moves forward.

• April 3 – Opening Day is the “deadline” Wolff imposed last year. After this date, it is presumed that Wolff will formally expand discussions with other cities. Since Fremont is already in some talks with the A’s, it could be said that Wolff is already ignoring his own deadline. Then again, he made the rules, no? The intrigue lies in how far the search will be expanded. Will it still be confined to Alameda County? What about Contra Costa County? And what of Santa Clara County, which seems to be putting a lot of pieces in place? Sacramento? Portland? Vegas? Will Wolff make a definite statement about the A’s future in Oakland? Will he impose another deadline?
• Spring ’06 – Fremont’s initial study should be available, as well as more advocacy-based information from Fremont.
• May 4 – San Jose Ballpark EIR review and comment period ends. Community outreach meetings are scheduled for March 28 @ 7 pm, April 1 @ 10 am, April 19 @ 7 pm, and April 26 @ 6 pm. The first three are in SJ City Hall Council Chambers, the last meeting will be in City Hall room 1446. I’ll probably be at most of them.
  
• June 6 – Statewide primary elections. Mayoral offices in both Oakland and San Francisco will be up for grabs. Oakland has three candidates, San Jose has ten (!). Should either election result in a majority winner, there will be a run-off on November 7. Note: I plan to attend at least two San Jose and two Oakland debates.
• July 12 – SJ Planning Commision public hearing to consider certification of Ballpark EIR. Previously submitted comments will be made available for review 10 days prior to the hearing.
• September 30 – End of regular season.
• November 1 – Estimated end of the season including postseason.
• November 7 – General Election, including run-offs for Oakland/SJ mayors if necessary. SJ’s ballpark ballot measure will not be on this ballot.
• January 15, 2007 – Estimated end of one year deadline made by Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman over the availability of Union Park ballpark parcel.

You’re probably wondering why the Fremont information is so vague. There’s an effort to respect the delicacy of the ongoing discussions. That’s all I can say about that for now.

Note: there was a problem with the previous version of this post as it caused errors in the publishing engine. Comments were lost.

I’ve had more time to look at the drawings and the flyover (available at the Washington Post’s website). I’ll give you my amateur opinion on this HOK-penned design. I tend to concur with the mixed sentiment about the ballpark: it’s not a cookie-cutter in either the retro or retro-futuristic mode, but it’s not overwhelming either. Part of that has to do with the fact that there’s nothing immediately outside the stadium that evokes a postcard-like photographic moment. The Washington skyline will only be visible from the seats in the right field upper deck. The Anacostia River is be somewhat removed from the site as it’s a block south of the first base façade – no splash hits there (not that we need more of those).

The whole package feels a little too safe. Only a few elements struck me as bold, namely the triangle office building behind home plate and the circular restaurant in center field. Everything else looked like an amalgam of things I’d seen before – if not in a ballpark per se, in other recent architecture. The ballpark will no doubt serve its purpose well, but it remains to be seen if, in its final physical form, it inspires fans and passersby or just blends in harmlessly with the rest of the neighborhood.

Things I liked:

• Lights tucked into the roof structure. The light standards used in most new ballparks are all variations on the same riff. It’s about time that someone pulled the lights back onto the roof rim. I’ve always liked how it creates a special glow at night. See photos of Yankee Stadium for proof.
• Sunken playing field. With the playing surface situated 24 feet below street grade, fans entering the stadium will be treated to fantastic views of the field.
• Triangle building behind home plate. The team’s administrative offices help define the large home plate plaza. It could be great if the ground floor is well integrated into the plaza design. It looks like that will occur since it will have transparent glass walls. The key is what’s in between the walls. There might be a team store there, but the best use would be a museum dedicated to the legacy of District baseball.
• The roof. I’ve seen some reports that it’s a perforated metal roof (360?) or a louvered roof. Either way, it should make for a good accent.

… and the things I didn’t like:

• Played out seating bowl shape. It has a combination of features from Comerica Park and Great American Ball Park, both HOK-designed stadia. Maybe it’s too much to ask for something bold, but there is a template they’re following. Even the gap in right field, which contributes to the “neighborhood” concept in the seating bowl, is predictable and unsurprising.
• Third base line façades. Look at the view from the northwest and you’ll notice four separate structures instead of one continuous façade. It might look better in person, but right now it makes me think I’m looking at four small airport terminals.
• The garages. This appears to be a necessary evil. 1,200 spaces are planned, which is the same as what HOK planned for the San Jose ballpark concept. I suppose that 1,200 spaces is a design guideline or requirement for new MLB stadia. The garages, located in left field and center field, are prettied up so that they don’t look offensive. Make no mistake, however, they’re still garages and there’s little to hide the fact that they’re obscuring either the view of the Mall from the ballpark or the view of the ballpark from the Metro station.
• Materials. Red flags were raised when the District was forced to consider skimping on materials as cost estimate started to rise considerably. The biggest cutback will be the use of not limestone, but concrete painted to look like limestone. Perhaps they’ll skimp on the glass curtain walls too? It doesn’t sound good.
• Height. There’s a difference of 115 feet from the field to the top row of the upper deck. That makes that last row higher than the roof of Ameriquest Field, no low-slung stadium in its own right. The roof rim has to be at least 20 feet taller. I know I’m not buying upper deck seats there. BTW, if you’re fortunate enough to have a seat in the upper deck, you’ll be huffing and puffing in disgust up an endless series of ramps while the suite and club-seat folk luxuriate on private escalators. Hasn’t anyone in DC learned from the JKC/FedEx Field debacle?
• Press box location. I haven’t visited a press box in years but I’m guessing that what I observed hasn’t changed – that most of the people inhabiting the press box are well past the age of 30 and don’t usually have the best vision. I remember a few years back when the late Bill King openly groused about the booth at PNC Park, which is similarly placed atop the upper deck. I wouldn’t be surprised if that contributed to his policy of not doing interleague games.
• Dimensions/fences. There are the usual “quirky” wall angles that obscure the fact that the dimensions are all too ordinary. Two wall heights, 12 feet and 8 feet, are being used. Boring and once again predictable.

I understood from reading the agreement the District signed with MLB that the Navy Yard ballpark wouldn’t be a revolutionary design. I just didn’t expect it to be so little of a departure. The façade, which the media has focused on, is only one part of the design. It’s disappointing that fans in the cheap seats will have such inordinately poor views compared to the wealthy and well-connected. If there’s any doubt what the purpose of the ballpark is, read this Post article and understand where that $611 million is going.

Now that a lease has been signed and a date has been set to evict current landowners, it’s time to show conceptual drawings of the new Washington Nationals’ ballpark.

The 41,000-seat stadium will have:

• 22,000 lower bowl seats
• 2,500 regular club seats (mezzanine)
• 12,100 upper level seats
• 1,800 indoor club seats
• 78 suites (1,112 seats) on three levels
• 10,000 square-foot restaurant/bar
• 6,000 square-foot conference center
• 10,000 square-foot picnic area
• 10,000 square-foot youth traning area
• 28,000 square feet of concessions space
• 7,700 square feet of souvenir/merchandise space
• 1,100 restroom fixtures

What’s your take on the design? Would you like to see the A’s have something like this? Or perhaps something more retro? I’ll say one thing: working media aren’t going to like the high perch of that press box at the top of the stadium.

A report in this week’s Sacramento Business Journal goes over the ongoing struggle to get the A’s on the radio in the Sacramento area. Most of the article isn’t revelatory, but it does point out that a Modesto station (probably KTRB) backed out of a deal with the A’s in January. What’s discouraging is that there still are no prospects on the horizon, making Sacramento A’s fans SOL unless they get XM. One interesting tidbit: 5% of A’s season ticket holders come from the Sacramento area.

Meanwhile, in San Francisco, the on-again, off-again discussions about a downtown arena have heated up, especially since the city lost a chance to bid on the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The 49ers, fresh off a newly signed CBA and a renewed G3 loan program, are stepping up their stadium plans by soliciting architecture firms for their 72,000-seat venue that will eventually replace Candlestick/3Com/Monster Park. The 49ers’ stadium could have an indirect impact on the A’s because it’s likely that the new stadium will have at least twice the number of luxury suites that the ‘Stick currently has (64). That could in turn further saturate the Bay Area market, making the sale of luxury suites at an A’s ballpark a bit more difficult.

More grist for the mill: Give Mark Purdy some credit for not spending the entire week on the Bonds saga, not that he won’t revisit it as the season goes on. In Sunday’s column, Purdy writes about a discussion he had with Wolff, and throws out some conjecture to boot. It’s no secret that Purdy has been the Bay Area media’s biggest booster of the baseball-in-San Jose effort, even to the detriment of the San Jose Earthquakes, who are, of course, non-existent for the time being.

The concepts:

• Even though the A’s move to Fremont, they’ll be called the San Jose Athletics of Fremont. Now that certainly won’t go over well with the keep-em-in-Oakland crowd. I’m not even sure how it fits into Fremont’s goal of getting on the map. Since I’m not privy to the different conversations being held by the dealmakers, I can’t say how likely or unlikely it is. There are certain “currencies” that could be in play to make this happen, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
• Moving to Fremont is a leverage ploy to force the Giants to discuss territorial rights, with the idea that if the A’s move to Fremont the Giants wouldn’t get any compensation or indemnification even though the A’s would be physically located in Silicon Valley. Purdy himself admits this is a bit “out there.” It’s an idea that has been around for some time in the South Bay, but it would require a chain of events to occur that currently shows few signs of happening. For good measure, he even links the A’s pursuit of the Earthquakes 3.0 and a downtown soccer stadium.

Wolff, for his part, couched his words carefully, though there is definitely a pattern of him letting the words “South Bay” and “San Jose” to occur more frequently in his quotes. No one should be surprised by this, since the corporate interests in the Valley are the big prize when all is said and done.

This is all speculation. Purdy does nail one point right on the head, that “even though the A’s ballpark issue has been around for years, the ride is really just starting.” In all likelihood, April 3rd won’t be the day everything is resolved. It’ll be around that time that things get thrown wide open.

The saddest thing about today’s revelations about Barry Bonds is that a day that was supposed to be meant in remembrance of the late Kirby Puckett has been completely sidetracked by more steroid news. A few years back I was in San Francisco on a day off from work. I happened to be walking through Union Square when I saw a ceremony was being held in the little stage area. The event was for the Glaucoma Research Foundation, for whom Puckett had been a spokesperson. He was there, speaking and accepting a check on behalf of the foundation. Puckett was embarking on a new life as a public person living with glaucoma, as well as being the public face of glaucoma research. Until details emerged about his sordid divorce and other legal troubles, it was assumed that his transition to retirement was a smooth one. Sadly, Puckett’s demise came all too soon as he apparently spent that last couple of years in seclusion, irreparably ruined both mentally and emotionally.

One can only guess how Barry Bonds’ retirement will look. It’s hard to imagine the man getting even more crusty than he’s been in the past, but if he isn’t voted into the Hall of Fame, it stands to reason that he’ll only get more and more bitter as time passes. I’m in no place to judge Bonds – I was there for home runs 498 and 499 and several more. I sat and stood in numerous places in Pac Bell just to find the optimal place to watch a Bonds homer. I fell in love with the Field Level seats down the RF line, near the visiting bullpen. The ball came off his bat like fireworks – I half expected each ball to explode in mid-air. I’m an A’s fan, but I appreciated the magnificence of Bonds’ feats. I feel somewhat complicit, but I don’t feel guilty. I understood what was probably happening. I wondered when looking at Bonds’ transformation just as I did when I looked at Mark McGwire’s neck or Jason Giambi’s arms. In the end I voted with my wallet. I may not actually be complicit, but as a fan I at least tacitly approved of it. It was the nature of the game. I won’t be a hypocrite about the issue. I’m not asking Bonds to retire and renounce his records just as I’m not asking the A’s to forfeit the 1989 World Series. It’s easy to get on a high horse. I won’t do that.

The new, heavily detailed descriptions of the Bonds routine have already stirred up the media, which was supposed to be focused on Puckett’s legacy and the World Baseball Classic. From here on out, it should be interesting to see if the drug testing program is once again reopened. Bud Selig thought he put the whole drug issue to bed. Now there’s another cloud over the sport. Selig has said he won’t erase or asterisk the records broken and made during the recent “juiced” era. Will he now revisit that stance?