The best answer is 'sort of'. If you look at the post card with the curvy edge (football on the left), you see a people walking around just above the not-yet-used baseball bleachers. Back there were the concession stands used for the temporary football bleachers (and they were really just bench bleacher seats out there, while the rest of the stadium is chair seating). But the Raiders did have a a lot of walking vendors hawking beer, soda and hot dogs out there, so it wasn't as bad as it seemed.
1 - 20 of 727 Posts
It was never without any scoreboards. What happened was they were originally planned for the deep outfield, but when the place opened the Raiders were the only tenant. Since a view of the deep outfield would be blocked by the temporary seats (and to save money), they came up with a temporary solution. At each end of the football field there are mid 60s light bulb versions of the ribbon boards so common nowadays, on the facade of second level. It basically gave just the score, the inning or quarter, and the down/to go/ball on area becomes ball/strike/out. Add a clock at one end and you have a scoreboard. And the pic that you posted (from opening night of 1968, the only sellout the A's had until the 72 World Series) shows that unchanged.How many years did the Coliseum not have a scoreboard? :nuts:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ghostoffire/3609832766/
But Charlie Finley had plans for those wide open spaces. Each of the two outfield light stands would soon hold a large (100 X 30) scoreboard. The first one, in right field, was up and running by June of 1968. It's counterpart in left field was ready for the 1969 season. These were each remove during the 1995 construction of Mount Davis, but the older ribbon boards are still there (in an updated form). They are visible in the pic below.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hercwad/3592174658/#/photos/hercwad/3592174658/lightbox/
That's a good point. The fans are so far away in Oakland, its like a football or soccer stadium with a running track between the field and stands.I liked this stadium before mt Davis. Now it just sucks hope the plans for the new stadium happen soon. The diamond seems to be a long way from the stands. Also the yankees suck :horse:
The reaction around here is pretty much 'Oh boy, another corporate name that we can ignore!'
The really bad part is that for six years they are only getting $7.2 million. I wonder if Al Davis negotiated that price himself.
The really bad part is that for six years they are only getting $7.2 million. I wonder if Al Davis negotiated that price himself.
It 'caught on' in the late 70s (when the place was falling apart, and baseball attendance was usually less than 5,000 per), but was first uttered somewhere (and mentioned in print) around 1969-70. That's why the prime suspect is Reggie.I believe the nickname "Oakland Mausoleum" caught on in the late 1970s not late sixties as someone mentioned at Holtz's site. By that time, in the late 1970s, Reggie Jackson was already a Yankee.
Oakland Raiders CEO Amy Trask Hopes a New Stadium is a Short-Term Priority
The Raiders are doing everything possible to make sure they are not forgotten:
The Raiders are doing everything possible to make sure they are not forgotten:
The rest of the article is here: http://sportsradiointerviews.com/20...ders-ceo-amy-trask-new-stadium-possibilities/The Oakland Raiders haven’t really been shy about stating that it’s time for a new stadium. They also aren’t hiding the fact that they’d like a new facility to come at the same location that the Coliseum currently sits on. That’s the point that the Raiders’ CEO Amy Trask makes in the following interview when pressed about what’s going on with the possibilities there.
Trask also hopes that a new stadium comes as a short-term priority for the folks around the city and county as it does for the team itself. And at this point, it doesn’t sound like the Raiders are ruling anything out, as Trask doesn’t exactly spurn the possibility of the Raiders playing at the San Francisco 49ers new stadium.
Amy Trask joined KNBR in San Francisco with Murph and Mac to discuss the possibilities of the Raiders getting a new stadium, if it’s a short- or long-term possibility, if there’s any chance the Raiders play in the 49ers’ new facility and working with new owner Mark Davis.
When’s your new stadium getting built?:
“We have not been at all shy about talking about how much we do like the site in Oakland. We think it’s an absolutely tremendous site for a stadium. It’s centrally located in the Bay Area. It is, of all football stadiums in the United States, the best served by public transportation. … But, that said, you’re absolutely right, we do need a new stadium. … We are actively looking at stadium options. But we do like the site on which we play and … we think that that site is optimal not only for a new stadium.”
It all depends on the definition of "renovation". But it is pretty much agreed that the Coliseum is a better fit for football than baseball.
The Raiders have never really specified what their preference would be. They have made no secret of their envy of the Niners' project in Santa Clara, but they have missed the boat to be anything other than a tenant there. Other than that it's been really quiet in Raiderland, and after dealing with The Madness of King Al for so many years, the silence is kind of strange. Part of that might be how the Niners are just shoveling bushels of good news stories out the door. But something has to be going on in Alameda. We just don't know what.Nice renders! That would actually be (as much as I hate to say it as a Broncos fan) a really solid stadium.
Is there a strong push for renovation or just a new stadium?
Nicely done. You even have the Sun in the proper direction for a late afternoon in October in the first pic. Impressive. And the Raiders would probably be delighted with this project. One nitpick is having the two-tiered end zone stands to the north. Something like that would be perfect for the Black Hole, which is always at the south end.Ok, now it's not gonna happen.... obviously. I thought I'd just get that out of the way.
But I made a crude and slightly off, but identafiable Sketch Up representation of what I thought a renovation to the O.com Coliseum would look like. So....
This is the direction I'd think the Raiders would go if they decided to renovate instead of build a new stadium if and when the A's left.
But this is just fantasy, of course....
So, assuming 23,000 seats in each peak of Mount Davis, and 9,000 in each end zone, I think that this will seat about 64,000, with about 180 suites. How does that sound?
OK, now you know. Not really a big deal, unless you are one of the Black Hole Gang. I have no idea why they are always at the south end zone, they just are.I didn't know where the Black Hole was. I probably would have designed it differently if I did.
Oakland Raiders to reduce capacity of stadium
This is the article in the Murky News. The new "capacity" will likely be about 53,200. Season ticket prices have been lowered, too.
http://www.mercurynews.com/raiders/...ders-reduce-capacity-stadium?source=autofeed#
This is the article in the Murky News. The new "capacity" will likely be about 53,200. Season ticket prices have been lowered, too.
The rest of the article is here:By Jerry McDonald
[email protected]
mercurynews.com
ALAMEDA -- Capacity for Raiders games at O.co Coliseum will be reduced by nearly 10,000 to 53,200 in 2013, and approximately 4,850 season-ticket holders from the east side high-rise structure known as "Mt. Davis" will be relocated, the club announced Wednesday.
Raiders CEO Amy Trask described the decision as a "tool" to ensure games remain on local television as well as to promote more of a community and family-friendly atmosphere.
Fans who paid $260 per season ticket on the east side structure will be moved to the west side third deck, and their tickets will cost $250 this season -- or $25 per game including preseason games.
All seats in the west side third deck from sections 304 through 330 will be $250 per season ticket -- even those that previously cost $610 or $460 depending on how close they were to the 50-yard line.
"It certainly makes this entire third deck very, very attractive to families -- especially families with a lot of kids," Trask said.
All other season ticket prices will be reduced $10.
In reducing the maximum capacity from 63,132 to 53,200, the Raiders will have the smallest venue in the NFL. Soldier Field, home of the Chicago Bears, seats 61,500.
With invoices having gone out to season-ticket holders starting Tuesday, Trask said it's too early to tell if the Raiders' 4-12 season in 2012 will cause a reduction in the amount of renewals for 2013.
Reaction to relocation has been met with concern with some season-ticket holders, although Trask said the Raiders will work with fans who want to stay near those they consider neighbors and friends.
Some people are just a little hesitant about change. ... It's not an insignificant but not an overwhelming number," Trask said.
The east side structure, built under terms of a deal that brought the Raiders back to Oakland from Los Angeles in 1995, probably will be covered with a tarp. Fans and media have long called it "Mt. Davis" after Al Davis, the late Raiders owner.
http://www.mercurynews.com/raiders/...ders-reduce-capacity-stadium?source=autofeed#
The only things actually wrong with it are it is more than 40 years old, and has narrow concourses. Plus the feedback loop where everybody has decided that it's the worst, without any evidence. It's actually a very good place to watch football. Baseball, not quite as good.The Coliseum needs to be replaced. That's all I can say about this venue.
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.Well you can fix the concourses, sure. But if it's 40 years old, it's gonna need a bit more work than that.
Considering how the NFL works with stadiums, the days on this place are numbered if they don't renovate.
To be subtitled "Do we have a snowball's chance in Hades of pulling off the same plan that the Niners did?"Feasibility study by AECOM to be relaesed on Monday:
http://newballpark.org/2013/07/11/oaklandjpa-releasing-a-feasibility-study-not-an-eir/
The documents forecast that the Raiders could only raise $100 million in seat license sales, an average of $2,000 per seat. In comparison, the Niners have already raised more than $800 million. The plan is $200 million from the team, $200 mil from the NFL, $100 mil from seat licenses, and $300 mil in taxpayer money magically appearing. There was no mention on what to do about the ~$100 mill the taxpayers still owe from the 1995-96 renovation.Raiders propose $800 million, 50,000-seat stadium near site of current stadium
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/e...ant-50000-seat-800-million-stadium-in-oakland
I wonder just how much it would cost to rebuild the "old" section at the Coliseum as several have said. Could they knock down the old stands and put up newer stands for $600 million? Get your $200 million from the NFL, maybe $100 million from a new naming rights deal, then you would only need $300 million from PSLs. An aggressive new marketing campaign (which the Raiders have needed for years) could do the trick. Not a penny in tax dollars. Does this sound feasible?
Edit: totally spaced on some of the numbers above. The team has said they would kick in $200 million, which would drop the PSL requirement down to $100 million. But still, could this rebuilding happen for $600 million? I'm not a construction expert.
Edit: totally spaced on some of the numbers above. The team has said they would kick in $200 million, which would drop the PSL requirement down to $100 million. But still, could this rebuilding happen for $600 million? I'm not a construction expert.
This is a misleading article. It says the teams have thrown a "monkey wrench" into the works, but when you read further, nothing has actually happened. This is really just a rehash of previous statements and opinions. The A's want to move. We know that. The Raiders want to build something new on the grounds of the current stadium, but don't have the money. We know that. Andy Dolich is nothing but a marketing has-been. We know that, too.
This sort of thing does wonders for the A's when they court free agents.
That would also help tap into the central valley fan base, bringing the team much closer to Sacramento and Stockton.
I saw that. An impressive job over 22 hours. After the Niner game, I went channel flipping, and was totally caught off guard that the Raiders were still only in the second quarter. Had completely forgotten about the whole thing. Made for a lot of football yesterday.Overnight timelapse video from Saturday evening (A's) to Sunday afternoon (Raiders)
http://blog.sfgate.com/raiders/2013/10/06/timelapse-watch-the-coliseum-go-from-baseball-to-football/
1 - 20 of 727 Posts
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Katarzyna DJ
7540 Replies
calatravavx
2630 Replies
Srdjan Adamovic
1861 Replies
Recommended Communities
Join now to ask and comment!
