SkyscraperCity banner

141 - 160 of 704 Posts

·
Namasté
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
A lot of, if not most, necessary infrastructure is in the old part of the stadium, I believe--Press/radio/TV, locker rooms, training rooms, etc.. Even if you kept Mt Davis it would cost a lot to build a new opposite wing with all new stuff like that. Even the best reno plan won't come cheap--I'm guessing 75% of the cost of building from scratch. Doubtful that Davis finds that very palatable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,931 Posts
The way I see it, the Raiders (just talking about them and not the A's since they already have their plans to leave this place) are going to have to spend money regardless, so why not just stay put and rebuild instead of searching in and around the Bay Area or possibly moving back to L.A. again?

I think it would be cheaper than looking for a new location and building from scratch. I mean, by renovating this to be a football-only stadium, you'd already have about 1/4 of it complete...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,553 Posts
A lot of, if not most, necessary infrastructure is in the old part of the stadium, I believe--Press/radio/TV, locker rooms, training rooms, etc.. Even if you kept Mt Davis it would cost a lot to build a new opposite wing with all new stuff like that. Even the best reno plan won't come cheap--I'm guessing 75% of the cost of building from scratch. Doubtful that Davis finds that very palatable.
What alternative does he have?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,553 Posts
Amy Trask believes door not closed on Raiders shared stadium with 49ers

Straight out of the You have got to be kidding! file:
In a recent interview with Vic Tafur of the San Francisco Chronicle, Raiders owner Mark Davis said progress in talks of a new stadium in Oakland are not moving forward as he had hoped.

"We will play in the Coliseum next year. But there's been no progress," said Davis. "I had high hopes when Colony Capital came in. I still do have hopes, but they're not as high because I haven't really heard anything positive from either group. It's gone silent again. We have to get something done.

"This one-year extension is really based on the hope that Colony Capital can set something done. I don't want to call it a last-ditch effort, but it does seem to be the last chance that Oakland is going to get."

If not Oakland, then where could the Raiders play? The elephant in the room is of course Los Angeles where Davis could see a better chance at getting the shiny new stadium he desires. But there are other options that wouldn't involve uprooting the team completely from the Bay Area. One such option in sharing a stadium with the 49ers in their shiny new Santa Clara stadium.

That is an option Mark Davis has consistently said he doesn't want to explore. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is a complete non-option.

Raiders former CEO, Amy Trask spoke with Yahoo Sports this week. Few people would know more about the realities of Bay Area sports and the Raiders than she would and she sees the option of a shared stadium very much still in play.

"I don't think the door is closed," said Trask. "I don't think the door can be fully closed given the requirement that the stadium be built with another team sharing it in mind."

The big issues as Trask explains is the ability for the Bay Area to support the Raiders in a new stadium especially considering a team and its stadium rely heavily on corporate dollars.

"I think another hurdle is establishing whether this corporate, this business community will support roughly 2 billion dollars of new football infrastructure. And you add to that whatever the Warriors want to do and the A's want to do, that's a lot of infrastructure to support."

The bottom line is always the bottom line. It's for these reasons Trask sees a shared stadium as an option. It would fall into the league mandated 75 mile radius which would allow the team to remain the Oakland Raiders.

"Doors are never closed in business, they really aren't and they should never be fully closed. So, while it's not ideal for the Raiders, Mark has stated that, look there's going to be a brand new stadium, state of the art in every regard. That stadium is magnificent. What Jed York and Hanna Gordon and Larry McNeil have accomplished is phenomenal and it's only 32 miles away. So, if Oakland can't overcome its hurdles, it is within that 75 mile radius."

This time next year, the lease of the coliseum will be up and Mark Davis will have a decision to make. He won't put off that decision again with another one-year extension with the coliseum. At that time, if the Raiders are staying, Levi's Stadium (has a nice ring to it, if you ask me) must be considered a viable alternative to the team heading back to Los Angeles.
The print article is here: http://www.silverandblackpride.com/...iders-shared-stadium-with-san-francisco-49ers

Video of the actual interview with Trask is here: http://www.csnbayarea.com/raiders/trask-logically-raiders-only-have-two-options-new-stadium
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
So I scribbled/photoshopped my thoughts into a little concept for the Coliseum, if the A's moved out.




The upper levels are separated into four stands with open entry plazas in each corner.
The exterior is intended as mesh screen system to give a modern, clean feel at fairly low price
point and could allow for images . A new wrap on the pedestrian bridge along with plantings
could make the walk from the BART station seem pleasant or exiting instead of like entering a
post apocalyptic deathcamp.




The geometry of the bowl is intended to match Mt Davis while keeping everyone in the
new bowl much lower to the field with good sightlines. A cohesive seat color pattern fading from
black to white to black seems sharp.




The new bowl is two levels served by a single wide concourse (about 90' wide) and has
concessions set into pockets to prevent lines from congesting the concourse.







Mt. Davis gets a new field club with 3,500 seats and sixteen suites like the sidelines suites at
AT&T in Dallas. the Plaza and Club suites are basically as is and the Loge (top) suite level is
mostly converted into a new press box. Concourses and existing Club on this side would get a
refreshing, but are more or less kept as is. The field level also contains locker rooms,
mechanical space, storage etc.




Under the the new south end there is space for locker rooms, storage, prep kitchens etc.




The North and West sides are kept as simple as possible with simply the concourse level. Concessions and restrooms are stacked at the outer
edge of the concourse. Concession stands are rotated 90 degrees to
keep the que lines from clogging the concourse. This concourse is 90'
deep where with concession ques and a 56' clear circulation path.


The total rough count for this little idea comes out to about 62,000 with 84 suites and
7,200 club. The new seating area has maximum of 68 rows, Mt Davis has 86 rows after losing the first 6 row to add in the field club and suites.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,553 Posts
That's impressive. Wish I had better drawing skills. This is just about what I had in mind when I first suggested they rebuild the other three sides about a year ago. And I bet they could build that for less than $600 million.

I have one nitpick, and I only bring this up because of the high quality of these drawings: the TV cameras absolutely have to have the sun behind them, and the media people strongly prefer it. Mount Davis faces toward the west, so there would have to be camera positions and a media level on the "new" side of the field.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
Yeah, a new press box on the west side would bump the cost up a bit (would need an elevator core, stair towers, mechanical etc) but just camera positions would be cheap and easy to fit in if cost is really the driving factor. Even with the addition of a press box to the west side I can't imagine this getting to $600 million, $420 million to about 500 million tops seems about right to me. Although construction costs in California always leave me a bit confused; Stanford and the Earthquakes build stadiums well below typical cost for their size in their prospective leagues while the 49ers and Cal projects seem expensive for what they are. So maybe $600 million is more realistic, you probably have a better feel for budgets out there than I do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,931 Posts
So I scribbled/photoshopped my thoughts into a little concept for the Coliseum, if the A's moved out.




The upper levels are separated into four stands with open entry plazas in each corner.
The exterior is intended as mesh screen system to give a modern, clean feel at fairly low price
point and could allow for images . A new wrap on the pedestrian bridge along with plantings
could make the walk from the BART station seem pleasant or exiting instead of like entering a
post apocalyptic deathcamp.




The geometry of the bowl is intended to match Mt Davis while keeping everyone in the
new bowl much lower to the field with good sightlines. A cohesive seat color pattern fading from
black to white to black seems sharp.




The new bowl is two levels served by a single wide concourse (about 90' wide) and has
concessions set into pockets to prevent lines from congesting the concourse.







Mt. Davis gets a new field club with 3,500 seats and sixteen suites like the sidelines suites at
AT&T in Dallas. the Plaza and Club suites are basically as is and the Loge (top) suite level is
mostly converted into a new press box. Concourses and existing Club on this side would get a
refreshing, but are more or less kept as is. The field level also contains locker rooms,
mechanical space, storage etc.




Under the the new south end there is space for locker rooms, storage, prep kitchens etc.




The North and West sides are kept as simple as possible with simply the concourse level. Concessions and restrooms are stacked at the outer
edge of the concourse. Concession stands are rotated 90 degrees to
keep the que lines from clogging the concourse. This concourse is 90'
deep where with concession ques and a 56' clear circulation path.


The total rough count for this little idea comes out to about 62,000 with 84 suites and
7,200 club. The new seating area has maximum of 68 rows, Mt Davis has 86 rows after losing the first 6 row to add in the field club and suites.
This is EXACTLY what I have in mind. It kinda reminds me of The Carter (TCU's Stadium), so that's a plus. Love the design.

For their sake and IF they stay in Oakland, I'd hope the Raiders would do this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
A couple other little thoughts, especially having to do with the orientation of the stadium.
After comments about sun and Mt Davis facing west I got to thinking about operable screens
that could shade the late afternoon sun.




These screens could be mounted between the light posts and run the entire west sideline which
should take care of evening sun, though some late afternoon sun could
still be an issue.




For early or night games/other events they could be retracted and stored at the back of the
upper deck. This seems like a pretty solid alternative to a west side press box, given likely cost
compared to having to build a new press facility above the west sideline and the added benefit
of keeping glare out of the eyes of people in the upper deck/upper suite levels as well as press
areas.




Also this is the sort of feel I was thinking for the new concourse, open, reasonably light, crisp
and modern. Also how the concessions stands are oriented to keep the main circulation path open.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Lew Wolff is considering building a temporary venue for the A's if they can't agree to a longer term lease deal with the Coliseum. They talk about it being in San Jose, next to the new Quakes Stadium (Quakes owned by Wolff), on the land designated for mixed use development. Would the stadium being temporary be able to bypass the Giants so called "territorial rights", or are San Jose and Wolff just banking on winning the lawsuit against the MLB? Wolff has consulted with 360 about designing a temporary home. Interestingly, San Jose Municipal Stadium has been looked at as a possible site for the A's on a temporary basis, though its only 4,000+ seats and extremely limited on expansion space. Is Lew trying to pull an MLB version of the Quakes? Sacramento news outlets reported Raley's Field is a potential temporary landing spot for the A's while they work out their long term stadium issues in the Bay. Article mentions Wolff has no intention of leaving the Bay Area market.

My own personal theory, but the article does mention the Coliseum City project is still being actively pursued, which leads me to wonder if maybe the Raiders are looking at a serious bid to rebuild the Coliseum, which will leave the A's homeless, and unable to sign a multi year deal past the 2015 season.

Here's an article on the temporary stadium:
http://www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_25305734/oakland-may-seek-temporary-stadium
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
19,613 Posts
Some bigger images:



Update:

OAKLAND -- The Port of Oakland is getting behind a plan to build a waterfront baseball stadium for the Oakland A's on the site of a recently abandoned shipping terminal.

Next week, the Board of Port Commissioners is expected to approve entering into exclusive negotiations with a group of prominent local businessmen who want to lay the groundwork for a stadium on the 50-acre site in the hopes that A's ownership or a future team owner will build it.


A's co-owner Lew Wolff has repeatedly said the proposed stadium at Howard Terminal won't pencil out, but that hasn't deterred the port or the business consortium, which includes Clorox CEO Don Knauss, developer Mike Ghielmetti and former Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream CEO T. Gary Rogers.

They sought the one-year agreement and hope to eventually secure an additional two- to three-year option period during which they would work to obtain the necessary permits and perform an estimated $1 million environmental review on the site. For now, the businessmen, operating as Oakland Waterfront Ballpark, LLC, are proposing to deposit $100,000 with the port, half of which could be used for studies such as land appraisals and site surveys.

Wolff has said the terminal, just north of Jack London Square, is too far from BART and would require a costly environmental cleanup. He declined to comment Monday.

Oakland business leaders prefer the port site to the A's current home in East Oakland because a waterfront stadium could spur additional development around Jack London Square and the city center.

The port, whose shipping business is operating well below capacity, is considering new uses for the terminal, which was vacated recently. A ballpark or any nonmaritime-related development still would need approval from state regulators.

The A's, the only Major League Baseball team that still shares its home field with an NFL club, have failed for five years to get permission to move to San Jose, which has a stronger corporate base to help fill luxury suites and premium seating.

The push for a waterfront stadium is seen as part of a strategy by Oakland leaders to persuade MLB that the city has viable stadium options, while pressuring Wolff, and his partner, John J. Fisher, to either build in Oakland or sell the team.

The future of the team's current home remains uncertain. While the A's are seeking a 10-year lease extension at O.co Coliseum, negotiations are continuing with the Oakland Raiders for a new football stadium that could necessitate demolishing the stadium.

Wolff has broached building a temporary stadium should he lose access to the Coliseum when the team's lease expires after the 2015 season.
http://www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_25362391/oakland-port-moves-forward-ballpark-plan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,553 Posts
Has Wolff ever hinted that he'd sell the team? Really like the above proposal.
I've never heard a word about him selling the A's. But the empire that he's trying to build (and having some success with) is mostly around SJ, so moving the A's down there fits with his grand scheme.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Has Wolff ever hinted that he'd sell the team? Really like the above proposal.
Wolff won't sell. He's made lots of comments here or there about having no interest in releasing control of the club. He's going to push the San Jose issue until he gets his ruling, or MLB forces him to stop (if they can do that???). I've actually got to meet him several times, and he's a really nice guy, and one of the topics I got to ask was the A's to SJ deal. He gave me what I would call a fairly PRish answer, but he made it pretty clear he was in it for the long haul, and the South Bay was where the A's would call home (obviously, not on those words). A lot of the A's front office people I've been able to chit chat with have further reinforced this point, and gone even further basically stating he is committed to seeing the A's secure the deal they want (South Bay) and he is willing to put his wallet behind it.

However, I can also see him eventually tiring of the fight, and wasting resources on a cause that sees no significant progress. But if he's truly in the fight till the end, it'll be interesting.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
19,613 Posts
Oakland Raiders say talks for new stadium in 11th hour, ask for public help

Although there was a small renovation in 1995, it’s safe to say the Raiders organization is in dire need of a new venue. However, the team has struggled to make progress on such, despite working on the issue for more than a decade.

Now with the Raiders’ lease set to expire after the season, owner Mark Davis is hopeful the team can put together $400 million for a new stadium but knows time isn’t on its side.

“I would probably say [negotiations are in] the 11th hour,” Davis said. “It’s always the 11th hour because we’ve been waiting a long time on this project. If it doesn’t happen, then we have to start looking at the other options. … We want to stay in Oakland. We want to get something done.”

Those other options are a kind way to suggest relocation would be on the menu, possibly including a move back to Los Angeles as Davis previously hinted.

Davis also didn’t shy away from implying that outside donations may be needed, saying, “[money] has to come [from] somewhere, whether it’s private, public — somewhere.”
http://nfl.si.com/2014/05/22/oaklan...new-stadium-in-11th-hour-ask-for-public-help/
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
19,613 Posts
Mark Davis: Lots of talk, no action on a new Oakland stadium

Raiders owner Mark Davis would like a little less conversation and a little more action on a new stadium in Oakland.

Davis says that when he has conversations with Colony Capital, the real estate firm that has been in discussions about a new development that would include a football stadium, those conversations seem positive. And then they don’t go anywhere.

“All the talks we have with them are positive, but there’s no progress after the talks,” Davis said, via CSNBayArea.com.

The Raiders’ current stadium is old and outdated, and a new stadium is probably necessary if the Raiders are going to stay in Oakland much longer. Davis says he wants that to happen, but he isn’t sure if it will.

“Everybody is trying,” Davis said. “Whether it can get done, I don’t know.”

If it doesn’t get done soon, the Raiders may soon be looking for a new city to call home.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...fzgMAG&usg=AFQjCNF0MnnqWnmNpXGhBAuNvLG6JwPzog
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,036 Posts
Oakland A's Finalize 10-Year Lease to Remain at Coliseum
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11135012/oakland-athletics-reach-10-year-lease-deal-stay-coliseum

A's finalize 10-yr lease extension for O.co. Selig calls it "crucial 1st step towards keeping MLB in Oakland"
Athletics will continue to call O.co Coliseum their home over the next decade. While some will still likely debate whether or not it was the right decision, it is still home to tradition and excellence for the last several seasons.
The Raiders’ Mark Davis on the A’s tentative 10-year Coliseum lease extension: “It does make a problem, there’s no two ways about it”
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawaka...lease-extension-make-problem-theres-two-ways/

-DAVIS: It’s not just what I want to do, it’s what the developers want to do as well. They feel the same way as I do that in order to do a really comprehensive building development there, you have to tear the Coliseum down to start with. You can’t be putting the stadium in a corner here–because of infrastructure and all that. And I keep bringing that word up, but it’s a key word in this process. So the stadium’s got to come down. So it does make a problem, there’s no two ways about it.

The A’s lease is up in 2015. If we could come to a deal with Colony Capital to build a football stadium there, we would like to be able to tear that Oakland Coliseum down the minute the 2015 baseball season’s over. And that would get us into a stadium by 2019, I believe. On that site. Colony Capital, if in fact they’re going to go ahead and do this deal, they need to start building as well, some of the things that they want. So it’s a tough situation. I’ve said that if the A’s were going to buy in and the A’s say yeah, we want to build on this site as well, I’m all for it. Let’s build two stadiums and let’s do it. Selfishly I would like to be the only one there, but for the good of everybody, I’m all for it. Let’s do it. But make a commitment to it if you want. But it doesn’t look like it’s going to fit. Lew’s vision and Colony Capital’s vision don’t seem to mesh. So that’s where the problem is. If Lew Wolff was going to do the development there and build a stadium and the Raiders wanted to do it as well, we’d still have to find that $500M funding gap.
 
141 - 160 of 704 Posts
Top