SAN JOSE - Cisco Field / Oakland Athletics Ballpark (32,000)

Dexter Morgan · August 23rd, 2010, 07:54 PM

Oakland Athletics

9x Champion:
1910, 1911, 1913, 1929, 1930,
1972, 1973, 1974, 1989

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Field

Latest renderings:

rantanamo · August 23rd, 2010, 11:46 PM

Love that design more than the previous brick design. Seems to flow right into its surroundings and the infield seats look classic and retain their slight nod to Fenway. Always like to see something a little different. Would love to see more angles.

Benn · August 24th, 2010, 12:48 AM

Very interesting, looks like they are trying to bring the budget down, maybe private financing? Looks like the upper deck's columns coming down in the lower bowl which is a little alarming, and that is a lot of outfield seating, but other than that it looks good and quite unique, and looks like they could keep the pricetag well under $400 million. I wonder how they are planning to handle club seats, can't see any obvious areas, though the area right behind home plate could have some that are obscured by the sign at the moment. Still one expects (even if we don't desire) to see a seperate club concourse somewhere with at least a couple thousand seats.

slipperydog · August 24th, 2010, 04:43 AM

Wait is this back on the map? Story?

Benn · August 24th, 2010, 06:19 AM

New site, new renderings at any rate, looks to be in town somewhere which makes more sense to me, maybe San Jose can support a team financially if they can get the territorial rights.

dfwabel · August 24th, 2010, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benn

New site, new renderings at any rate, looks to be in town somewhere which makes more sense to me, maybe San Jose can support a team financially if they can get the territorial rights.

San Jose has a greater population than both Oakland or San Francisco. In terms of MLB territorial rights, San Jose belongs to the Giants. That issue must be resolved. In addition:

1-The city still must approve this project. At first the vote was to take place in November, but MLB asked them to delay the vote and will pay for part of the cost of a separate, later ballot measure.

2-AT&T owns land within the footprint which the city needs to make the A's project a reality and they are currently refusing to sell.

slipperydog · August 24th, 2010, 07:59 AM

I noticed the proposed site is right next to the hockey arena. Would they take on the San Jose name? It would be kind of strange to have the "San Jose Sharks" and "Oakland A's" playing directly across the street from one another.

krudmonk · August 24th, 2010, 11:06 PM

from Baseball San Jose blog

[img]

Benn · August 24th, 2010, 11:36 PM

Liking it more and more, feels pretty unique despite the brick/kelly green thing going on, really seems to fit its site pretty well too. Interesting little box looking thing going on in right field.

slipperydog · August 24th, 2010, 11:54 PM

At least in this stadium, green seats actually make sense. <cough>Baltimore<cough>

weava · August 25th, 2010, 02:44 AM

Are the A's moving to AAA? That stadium does not give off a "major league" vibe

mrakbaseball · August 25th, 2010, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benn

New site, new renderings at any rate, looks to be in town somewhere which makes more sense to me, maybe San Jose can support a team financially if they can get the territorial rights.

Fremont, California? This proposal was struck down.

Benn · August 25th, 2010, 03:55 AM

No this is a new one in San Jose, right next to the HP Pavilion, read the header.

mrakbaseball · August 25th, 2010, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weava

Are the A's moving to AAA? That stadium does not give off a "major league" vibe

Agreed, 32k seems too small for a major league franchise.

ryebreadraz · August 25th, 2010, 05:19 AM

Too small and that many outfield seats will make this a pretty poor place for an alarmingly high percentage of people there to watch the game. It also looks like the supports for the second level will cause some obstructed seats, but that could just be in the concourse. It's hard to tell from the renderings.

carnifex2005 · August 25th, 2010, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrakbaseball

Agreed, 32k seems too small for a major league franchise.

32 k is more than enough for a small market team. For example, the Pittsburgh Pirates have been getting about 20,000 people per game for the last few years yet made have made a very healthy profit in those years, taking in a $15 million in profit in 2007, $14 million in 2008 and $5 million in 2009.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100823/...rates_finances

slipperydog · August 25th, 2010, 06:14 AM

Site adjacent to downtown San Jose

gavstar00 · August 25th, 2010, 10:03 AM

Would they really look at putting in support pillars for the upper tier? Surely that's taking the retro elements of old ball parks a bit too excessively leading to restricted views from the seats underneath the overhang?

rantanamo · August 25th, 2010, 05:49 PM

A lot of the complaints seem to be complaints at existing ballparks. I know they could simply cantilever the upper deck or move it back, but this setup seems to work ok where it exists, and gets the upper deck much closer. The way the renderings are, they are unnecessary, but we shall see. More like The small capacity = see Fenway and is probably more of a correct size for many teams. The outfield seats are perfect. There really isn't that many and the upper deck isn't too close. Seems that recently designers want to cut off the view of part of the field from the outfield. Not having that problem here.

Benn · August 25th, 2010, 07:59 PM

It would have to be a money issue, cantilevering a stand out is pretty expensive, and they already showing a full span cantilever in the outfield, so it may be a dollars and cents issue. The outfield stand though, I would say get a long ways back, looks like 30 rows behind the deeper side of the outfield, we are talking 430'-480' from the plate minimum to the back row out there. Imagine if that second level weren't overhung though, it would be like the Metrodome's baseball configuration, now there were some terrible outfield seats.

August 23rd, 2010, 07:54 PM	#1
Dexter Morgan Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Rutherford, NJ Posts: 299 Likes (Received): 0	SAN JOSE - Cisco Field / Oakland Athletics Ballpark (32,000) Oakland Athletics 9x Champion: 1910, 1911, 1913, 1929, 1930, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1989 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Field Latest renderings: Last edited by www.sercan.de; October 5th, 2012 at 12:05 PM.

August 24th, 2010, 12:48 AM	#3
Benn Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 1,406 Likes (Received): 5	Very interesting, looks like they are trying to bring the budget down, maybe private financing? Looks like the upper deck's columns coming down in the lower bowl which is a little alarming, and that is a lot of outfield seating, but other than that it looks good and quite unique, and looks like they could keep the pricetag well under $400 million. I wonder how they are planning to handle club seats, can't see any obvious areas, though the area right behind home plate could have some that are obscured by the sign at the moment. Still one expects (even if we don't desire) to see a seperate club concourse somewhere with at least a couple thousand seats. Last edited by Benn; August 25th, 2010 at 07:01 AM.

August 24th, 2010, 11:36 PM	#9
Benn Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 1,406 Likes (Received): 5	Liking it more and more, feels pretty unique despite the brick/kelly green thing going on, really seems to fit its site pretty well too. Interesting little box looking thing going on in right field. Last edited by Benn; August 24th, 2010 at 11:43 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

August 23rd, 2010, 11:46 PM	#2
rantanamo Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 2,869 Likes (Received): 6	Love that design more than the previous brick design. Seems to flow right into its surroundings and the infield seats look classic and retain their slight nod to Fenway. Always like to see something a little different. Would love to see more angles.

August 24th, 2010, 04:43 AM	#4
slipperydog Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,796 Likes (Received): 40	Wait is this back on the map? Story?

August 24th, 2010, 06:19 AM	#5
Benn Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 1,406 Likes (Received): 5	New site, new renderings at any rate, looks to be in town somewhere which makes more sense to me, maybe San Jose can support a team financially if they can get the territorial rights.

August 24th, 2010, 07:59 AM	#7
slipperydog Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,796 Likes (Received): 40	I noticed the proposed site is right next to the hockey arena. Would they take on the San Jose name? It would be kind of strange to have the "San Jose Sharks" and "Oakland A's" playing directly across the street from one another.

August 24th, 2010, 11:06 PM	#8
krudmonk sucks Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sannozay Posts: 1,647 Likes (Received): 4	from Baseball San Jose blog [img]

August 24th, 2010, 11:54 PM	#10
slipperydog Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,796 Likes (Received): 40	At least in this stadium, green seats actually make sense. <cough>Baltimore<cough>

August 25th, 2010, 02:44 AM	#11
weava Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 880 Likes (Received): 13	Are the A's moving to AAA? That stadium does not give off a "major league" vibe

August 25th, 2010, 03:55 AM	#13
Benn Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 1,406 Likes (Received): 5	No this is a new one in San Jose, right next to the HP Pavilion, read the header.

August 25th, 2010, 05:19 AM	#15
ryebreadraz Registered User Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,584 Likes (Received): 1	Too small and that many outfield seats will make this a pretty poor place for an alarmingly high percentage of people there to watch the game. It also looks like the supports for the second level will cause some obstructed seats, but that could just be in the concourse. It's hard to tell from the renderings.

August 25th, 2010, 06:14 AM	#17
slipperydog Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,796 Likes (Received): 40	Site adjacent to downtown San Jose

August 25th, 2010, 10:03 AM	#18
gavstar00 Registered User Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: N/A Posts: 290 Likes (Received): 8	Would they really look at putting in support pillars for the upper tier? Surely that's taking the retro elements of old ball parks a bit too excessively leading to restricted views from the seats underneath the overhang?

August 25th, 2010, 05:49 PM	#19
rantanamo Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 2,869 Likes (Received): 6	A lot of the complaints seem to be complaints at existing ballparks. I know they could simply cantilever the upper deck or move it back, but this setup seems to work ok where it exists, and gets the upper deck much closer. The way the renderings are, they are unnecessary, but we shall see. More like The small capacity = see Fenway and is probably more of a correct size for many teams. The outfield seats are perfect. There really isn't that many and the upper deck isn't too close. Seems that recently designers want to cut off the view of part of the field from the outfield. Not having that problem here.

August 25th, 2010, 07:59 PM	#20
Benn Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 1,406 Likes (Received): 5	It would have to be a money issue, cantilevering a stand out is pretty expensive, and they already showing a full span cantilever in the outfield, so it may be a dollars and cents issue. The outfield stand though, I would say get a long ways back, looks like 30 rows behind the deeper side of the outfield, we are talking 430'-480' from the plate minimum to the back row out there. Imagine if that second level weren't overhung though, it would be like the Metrodome's baseball configuration, now there were some terrible outfield seats.