SkyscraperCity Forum banner

OAKLAND - Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum (63,132)

219476 714

Oakland Raiders

3x Champion:
1976, 1980, 1983


Oakland Athletics

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

Before the addition of "Mt. Davis" this was a much more beautiful ballpark
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
I couldn't agree more. I've been to alot of Raider games at the Coliseum over the years, and it's actually a great place to watch football. It's not the reason that the Raiders aren't selling out.

If you could magically plop Reliant, Jerryworld or MetLife into Oakland, you would have a really nice half empty stadium and mostly empty luxury boxes.
This is true. But there are no bench seats, like you have at Lambeau. There are no supporting columns blocking views, like you have at MetLife (and Candlestick!). The access and egress are excellent, with close proximity to both a 10 lane freeway and major mass transit. Almost all of the seats face the center of the field, and you have none of those enormous distances to the field that you get with end zone seats at Soldier Field. It's definitely showing it's age, but it's not that bad.
Everyone says that the coliseum is 40 years old. Mt. Davis isn't. That section of the stadium opened in 1996. It's Ironic that those are the seats that they are tarping off because nobody wants to sit there. That side of the stadium was built to modern specs, (club levels, suites, etc.) which had the effect of pushing the upper deck too high and too far removed from the action. People (Raider fans anyway) want to be close to the action, not high above it.
They can't afford to court free agents anyway. No Albert Pujols or Josh Hamilton deals for them.
This sort of thing does wonders for the A's when they court free agents.
:wallbash::wallbash: Everybody likes to talk about the sewage overflow, but if the sewer backed up in your house, would you tear down your house or would you fix the plumbing. The Coliseum has definitely not kept up with the times, but the sewage thing is overrated.
Actually, there are worse...

But yes, they seriously need to do something with it. Earlier this year, there was a sewage overflow in the facility.
Thinking waaay outside the box, but it sounds like what Oakland needs is a new multipurpose stadium. Before everybody starts screaming that it's a horrible idea, stop and think about it. This isn't 1965. Surely, with todays technology and some imaginative thinking, a single stadium could be designed that would perfectly meet the needs of both teams.

This is an architecture forum. Architects drool over the opportunity to break new ground. Architects are supposed to meet the customer's needs. A modern multipurpose stadium for the city of Oakland would be a chance to do both.

Think about it --- then flame away.
The article is here.
  • Like
Reactions: Knitemplar
I would agree with all of those arguments, particularly that it's never been done well, but when is the last time that anyone even tried to do it. Off the top of my head, I would say the Metrodome in 1982 was the last multi-purpose stadium built. There is zero comparison of what can be done today compared to what could be done in 1982.

Just because it's never been done doesn't mean it can't be done.
It's something that never has been done very well. I don't to call a true multipurpose stadium impossible, but the differences in field geometry and culture of the respective sports are so great no one has ever made a facility that is good for both. It's either a decent ballpark that's terrible for football or a good football stadium that's a terrible ballpark. Not that I don't support innovative design, but history would suggest it's a futile exercise.

I would suggest they try hard to keep the prices down and do something like Pittsburgh did with PNC and Heinz.
On second thought, Skydome in 1989 was probably the last baseball / football multipurpose stadium, but that was still 25 years and light years worth of innovation ago.
I think in some cases that that may be true, but in the case of Oakland I think that the Raiders would be happy with about 55,000 seats and the A's about 40,000. By the time you remove some of the field seats that would be in place for football, there wouldn't be much of a difference.
Another problem with a multi-use stadium is that, even if the shape and sight lines are decent, you're still going to have 30,000-40,000 empty seats for baseball. No MLB team is going to be happy with a stadium that's half empty or worse even on the best of nights.
I'm familiar with all of the arguments against trying it, but I think that it is possible and that Oakland's situation is somewhat unique. The Raiders and the A's don't need a perfect stadium, they just need a better stadium. If they were to share a new stadium on the same site, they could both get what they need, even if it's not necessarily what they want.

Honestly, I don't think that designing a suitable stadium is even the biggest obstacle. Getting the Raiders, A's and City of Oakland politicians to work together and act like grown ups would be the biggest obstacle.
Yeah, but it's not really a problem new technology can solve, one wants a somewhat asymmetrical nearly square field, the other a highly symmetrical field a good deal longer than it is wide. Football stadiums want steeper lower levels, baseball shallower. Baseball wants substantial cantilevers, football doesn't want anyone too far under an overhang. To do both the stadium you are describing would need to be a literal shape shifter. It might doable to get a stadium that is acceptable for both in today's climate, but it wouldn't be anything beyond that.
We'll see how unwelcome they are when there is actual money on the table.
A very gusty move for someone who is reportedly not welcome at the Rose Bowl and LA Coliseum. :lol:

Might want to check if Harbaugh has an LA realtor (or SA?).
After looking over the report, I am convinced more than ever that what Oakland needs is a modern multi-purpose stadium. I know all of the arguments against, but I can't imagine that there is any other way to keep both teams. They certainly won't be building two stadiums in Oakland. I'm not sure they can even manage one. With today's technology, I think it is possible to build one stadium to service both teams well.
I totally agree that this is where this whole thing is headed and I think that it is a shame. I'd just like to see someone throw a creative "hail mary" to try to save both teams.

Furthermore, Oakland is constantly referred to as a "small" market. The Bay Area has a population of seven million people. Even if you were to concede two thirds of that market to the Giants and 49ers, you are still left with a population larger than the Charlotte, Portland or Indianapolis metro areas. Only Montreal would be larger, and then only marginally so.
The A's want a cozy venue that seats 32-35,000 fans max. I can't see them ever agreeing to play in a 60,000 seat stadium, even if it is "state-of-the-art".

Before that happens they'll move to a market more condusive to selling out a smaller venue--Portland, Montreal, Charlotte, Indianapolis...the clock is ticking on Oakland, although if the Raiders move to LA (about 50/50 chance if not better at this point), the A's will be in a better position to get their 35,000 seat ballpark in Oakland.
If a little bit of gold paint is going to change votes one way or the other, then the NFL has bigger problems than anyone imagined. I don't think these businessmen are that petty.

As far as the gold numbers themselves, in my opinion they look awful. Furthermore, they don't even make any sense. If they are intended to commemorate the 50th Super Bowl, then use them at the Super Bowl. Not all season long.
Just when you thought that the Raiders were learning to play with others. From Comcast Sports News Bay Area:

I wonder how many votes this will cost Mark, in whatever he tries to do.
No. I hear what you are saying, and you are probably right that it's not good to aggravate the other owners.

We might be jumping the gun though. Let's wait and see if the ugly gold numbers appear once the infield is sodded. The Raiders never paint anything other than standard white lines and markings on the field until the baseball season is over and I would guess that the gold numbers would fit into that category.
You totally missed the point. The Super Bowl is a marketing extravaganza worth hundreds of millions. Nothing petty about that. Mark Davis is thumbing his nose at the league, and one of his own sources of income.

In addition, the owners know that one of their strengths is the perception of a united front. If Mark starts trying to pull the same s**t that his dad did, I suspect that it will irritate some of the other owners.

But what does seem petty is the fact that the game that he is refusing to help market will be played in the other stadium in his metro area.
I agree. I grew up in San Jose and have been a Raider Fan since I was old enough to say football. If they were to move outside of California, I'm afraid that it would be all over for me. I REALLY don't see this as any more than a bargaining chip though. I guess we'll see.
I wonder how that will work when football season arrives? While that area of the stadium is beyond the left field wall for baseball, those are pretty decent sideline corner seats for football. I'm curious how they will handle the transition.
I suppose you're probably right. It's just that most NFL standing areas are high up in the end zone ala JerryWorld. This standing area would have a pretty sweet view of the field.
They'll probably just leave it as a standing area/party deck. Lots of NFL teams have those.
After the Raiders and Warriors leave, the A's will get a new stadium on the Coliseum property. It is truly the only site that makes sense, and there's no way that Oakland is going to let them leave when they are the only team left.
Warriors and Raiders are building arenas in other cities so they are gone for sure.

The A's wanted to go to San Jose (they still do, but they don't talk about it). The problem is that the Giants have pushed the NL to protect their market (the NL dominates LA and the Bay Area) by keeping the A's penned up in Oakland. I would guess after SJ their second choice is Montreal or Mexico City, but they have to play out the string of "doing our best to find a stadium in Oakland" so as not to lose the PR war any worse than they have to.

Of course, this last paragraph is just my opinion. But stadium options in Oakland are looking pretty bleak again.
With there only being two seasons left for the Raiders in Oakland and with the excitement created by the return of John Gruden, has there been any discussion of removing the tarps from Mt. Davis for the football season?
Tonight's game 5 of the Bay Bridge Series drew 56,310, the largest home crowd for the A's of all time, and the largest crowd in the majors this season. They watched the A's nick the Giants, 4-3 in 11 innings. This nice panorama was taken from the very top of Mt. Davis. Tweeted by David Lombardi.

1 - 19 of 19 Posts