SkyscraperCity Forum banner
201 - 220 of 715 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
8,089 Posts
I wonder how much it would it cost to tear down Mt. Davis and do something similar like Angel Stadium.


A's lease settled after Lew Wolff accepts Oakland's changes
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-A-s-lease-settled-Lew-Wolff-accepts-most-5638870.php
Wolff's acceptance closes a bitter divide between Oakland City Hall and the owners of a baseball team who have longed to move to a new, modern stadium in a bigger market. The agreement, however difficult, may also usher in an effort by Wolff to help develop the existing stadium site.

In a letter to City Administrator Henry Gardner last week, Wolff informed city officials of his interest in pursuing a new stadium at the O.co site, and the lease agreement says the team will "engage in good faith discussions" to stay in Oakland.

But if he were to decide to move the team outside Oakland, the lease allows the A's to leave as early as December 2017 by giving two years' notice. The team, however, would have to pay rent for any remaining years on the lease.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,565 Posts
I wonder how much it would it cost to tear down Mt. Davis and do something similar like Angel Stadium.
I doubt they would be able to tear it down. It cost $220 million to build, and most of the bonds for that money are still unpaid. And it's strange to hear you talk about tearing it down, when many discussions assume keeping it as the focal point, and tearing down the older section.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
As the Raiders up their demand for a new home, Oakland is going to have to start seriously working towards the Coliseum City plan. I've always believed if the Coliseum could have underwent a massive renovation, it would be a great baseball venue, but it will never be suitable for an NFL franchise in this day and age.

There is plenty of land on the site to accommodate an extra stadium, but it seems like the developer wants no part of keeping the existing structure. I think the A's would be flexible, but it's far cheaper for them to invest in a renovation and tell the Raiders happy trails. I think the city and county are finally going to be given the squeeze by Davis an the Raiders, but I wonder if they (Raiders) have enough push to make it happen. I've read and heard various pundits claim the NFL doesn't want the team to move, and may try to pursue a ground share with the 49ers, for at least a temporary solution.

I'm not an expert on the Raiders financials, but it almost seems like Davis is in a Maloof type situation, where he doesn't have the money to properly fund any potential project, and will look for a municipality or third party to take on the financial burden. I'm not sure the NFL would be as patient as the NBA was, but I could be totally off base.

As a Raiders fan, I'm biased and prone to looking at any sign of hope, but I think we are about to witness a great deal of movement on the Coliseum front. Enough at least to convince the Raiders to give the parties involved more time to figure the situation out. I know the San Antonio story has little to no legs, but Raiders fans are starting to panic (those I know and work with anyway) and pressure seems to finally start to hit the local governments. I can see Goodell working out a Levi share situation to keep the team put to give Oakland authorities time to sort it out. I know the LA move is still a very real possibility, but I hope we end up seeing the Rams and Chargers return there instead (sorry to the fans of those teams).

Anyway, just a fan rant that has been gnawing at me lately. And one more thing; its disappointing the Coliseum is in such horrible shape, when much older ballparks (Wrigley, Fenway) are in great shape. It's just not acceptable.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,565 Posts
As the Raiders up their demand for a new home, Oakland is going to have to start seriously working towards the Coliseum City plan. I've always believed if the Coliseum could have underwent a massive renovation, it would be a great baseball venue, but it will never be suitable for an NFL franchise in this day and age.
It's actually better for football. Unless you have a complete rebuild of the rounded section, there will always be that huge amount of space between the fans and fair territory. Kind of like a soccer stadium with a bunch of track and field stuff between the seating and the pitch. If the Raiders and Oakland could build another Mt. Davis-style structure on the west side, they would have an affordable and nicely serviceable stadium for a number of years. It would look like an overgrown Tim Horton's, but it would work.
There is plenty of land on the site to accommodate an extra stadium, but it seems like the developer wants no part of keeping the existing structure. I think the A's would be flexible, but it's far cheaper for them to invest in a renovation and tell the Raiders happy trails. I think the city and county are finally going to be given the squeeze by Davis an the Raiders, but I wonder if they (Raiders) have enough push to make it happen.
They don't. Oakland and Alameda County do not have the cash to spare. This has to be a private partnership between the developers and the Raiders. And the Raiders have not shown the type of business acumen necessary for deals like that. They need some new dealmakers on board, and they need them in a hurry.
I've read and heard various pundits claim the NFL doesn't want the team to move, and may try to pursue a ground share with the 49ers, for at least a temporary solution.
If the Raiders ever tried to play at Levi's, there would be so many cops around, the place would resemble a war zone. And I would support the use of said cops. People say that all of the violence at Raider games is from a few bad apples, but the percentage of bad apples among Raider fans is much higher than anywhere else (except maybe Seattle). The bad apples would know that the Niners and their fans paid for the place, and would be tempted to trash things.
I'm not an expert on the Raiders financials, but it almost seems like Davis is in a Maloof type situation, where he doesn't have the money to properly fund any potential project, and will look for a municipality or third party to take on the financial burden. I'm not sure the NFL would be as patient as the NBA was, but I could be totally off base.
The Raiders did sell a 20% (non-voting) share of the team for $150 million a few years ago, because they needed the cash. They're the only team in the NFL with anything resembling financial trouble.
As a Raiders fan, I'm biased and prone to looking at any sign of hope, but I think we are about to witness a great deal of movement on the Coliseum front. Enough at least to convince the Raiders to give the parties involved more time to figure the situation out. I know the San Antonio story has little to no legs, but Raiders fans are starting to panic (those I know and work with anyway) and pressure seems to finally start to hit the local governments. I can see Goodell working out a Levi share situation to keep the team put to give Oakland authorities time to sort it out. I know the LA move is still a very real possibility, but I hope we end up seeing the Rams and Chargers return there instead (sorry to the fans of those teams).
I'm not surprised that they are panicking. It's fear of the unknown, and there are an awful lot of unknowns. The only certainty is there are no municipal dollars to be had. Not that long ago, California was in deep financial trouble, so the politicos are anxious to keep things stable for a while.
Anyway, just a fan rant that has been gnawing at me lately. And one more thing; its disappointing the Coliseum is in such horrible shape, when much older ballparks (Wrigley, Fenway) are in great shape. It's just not acceptable.
It's not in that bad of shape. The problem is that much of the plumbing is deeply encased in concrete, unlike Wrigley and Fenway, which are largely steel frameworks. And if push comes to shove, I'm sure that an easy deal for the sort-term use of Candlestick Park could be arranged.

What the Raiders could do is go ask the Forty Niners for help. I'm not talking about financial help, or moving into Levi's. I'm talking about help with the corporate movers and shakers, and help with the financial people. Help getting the right people talking, and getting the deals in place. Lately the Niners' cash registers can't seem to stop ringing, so they have to be doing something right.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,746 Posts
It's actually better for football. Unless you have a complete rebuild of the rounded section, there will always be that huge amount of space between the fans and fair territory. Kind of like a soccer stadium with a bunch of track and field stuff between the seating and the pitch. If the Raiders and Oakland could build another Mt. Davis-style structure on the west side, they would have an affordable and nicely serviceable stadium for a number of years. It would look like an overgrown Tim Horton's, but it would work.
I still really like Benn's plan, TBH. One huge concourse would save a shitload on costs associated with building multiple floors.

If the Raiders ever tried to play at Levi's, there would be so many cops around, the place would resemble a war zone. And I would support the use of said cops. People say that all of the violence at Raider games is from a few bad apples, but the percentage of bad apples among Raider fans is much higher than anywhere else (except maybe Seattle). The bad apples would know that the Niners and their fans paid for the place, and would be tempted to trash things.
...if push comes to shove, I'm sure that an easy deal for the sort-term use of Candlestick Park could be arranged.
Have the Raiders contemplated a move to Berkeley while the stadium is being (re)built?

They'd stay in East Bay, and, more importantly, they wouldn't have to shack up with the Niners.

What the Raiders could do is go ask the Forty Niners for help. I'm not talking about financial help, or moving into Levi's. I'm talking about help with the corporate movers and shakers, and help with the financial people. Help getting the right people talking, and getting the deals in place. Lately the Niners' cash registers can't seem to stop ringing, so they have to be doing something right.
They are. Namely, playing good football.

 

· Moderator
Joined
·
23,849 Posts
A's Owner: We Want New Stadium, In Oakland

Lew Wolff says he's ready to build a new baseball stadium in Oakland.


The A's are staying in Oakland -- and they may even stay near the Coliseum in a new ballpark built just for them.

A's owner Lew Wolff said Wednesday he's begun talks with an architect to design a "new venue" for the baseball club -- in Oakland, and on the present-day site of the Coliseum, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The A's will stay in Oakland at least through 2018, under terms of a new lease that was finally ratified on Tuesday.

Negotiating the lease took 15 months of often contentious negotiations, with the threat the entire time that the A's would complete their long-rumored, even-more contentious move to San Jose.

None of that was mentioned Wednesday, when Wolff said that he loves Oakland and will make "the sincerest effort" to build a new ballpark for the A's in Oakland.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/As-Owner-We-Want-A-New-Stadium-In-Oakland-270412111.html
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,565 Posts
For a few moments I actually thought that was a serious article. But between the Raiders raising $1.2 billion for the stadium all by themselves, the taxpayers expected to pay off the remaining $120 million for Mt. Davis (just so it can be demolished!), and Alameda County not being involved in the deal, I realized that this is just the latest bit of male cow droppings that the Comicle has stepped in.
 

· Unregistered User
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
Apparently every new football stadium has to cost over a billion dollars now. Ridiculous.

Take a look at what Baylor just built and take notes, Oakland. I know there are a lot of other factors at play, in terms of capacity, construction costs, land costs and "earthquake-proofing", but they built something gorgeous and it only cost them $266 million. Surely they could build something just a little nicer for less than $1 billion, right?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,220 Posts
Take a look at what Baylor just built and take notes, Oakland. I know there are a lot of other factors at play, in terms of capacity, construction costs, land costs and "earthquake-proofing", but they built something gorgeous and it only cost them $266 million. Surely they could build something just a little nicer for less than $1 billion, right?
A few things on that...:

- McLane Stadium is a college stadium for a private school in a small city where usually, a lot less than 50,000 show up for a game. Which means...
- Baylor's stadium's capacity is less than that of a the average NFL stadium. Hell, it's more than 10,000 less than the smallest stadium in the NFL.
- Keep in mind that the money used to build this stadium came from donors. I'm not too sure you can do that with NFL facilities.

I understand what you're trying to say, but Baylor's stadium (or any other college stadium, for that matter) is a horrible comparison. And after all, the NFL is a multi-billiion dollor business, so this is more based on what's going on market-wise than anything. And it's 2014. The price of building new stadiums ain't gettin' any cheaper...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,565 Posts
A few things on that...:

- McLane Stadium is a college stadium for a private school in a small city where usually, a lot less than 50,000 show up for a game. Which means...
- Baylor's stadium's capacity is less than that of a the average NFL stadium. Hell, it's more than 10,000 less than the smallest stadium in the NFL.
- Keep in mind that the money used to build this stadium came from donors. I'm not too sure you can do that with NFL facilities.

I understand what you're trying to say, but Baylor's stadium (or any other college stadium, for that matter) is a horrible comparison. And after all, the NFL is a multi-billiion dollor business, so this is more based on what's going on market-wise than anything. And it's 2014. The price of building new stadiums ain't gettin' any cheaper...
Also, more than 80% of the seating at McLane is bench seating. And the place only has 39 suites, and 1,200 club seats.

So if we take McLane's basic design, but expand it to the informal minimum NFL specs, we would be building 60,000 chair seats (basically doubling the floor space needed at McLane), 5,000 club seats (more than four times the space needed) and 100 suites (2.5 times the space). So even by the simplest application of Galileo's square-cube law, you've more than doubled the cost, just for 15,000 more behinds. Then you have to design for earthquakes, and hire workers that have to afford to live here, property values being a few times higher than in central Texas. Now you are talking a solid billion.

I still think that if they just bulldoze all of the outdoor stadium except Mt. Davis, and build what would look like a 60,000 seat version of Tim Horton's Field, they could get it done for $600-700 million. $300 million from PSLs, $200 million from the G-4 program and $100 million from naming rights, and there you are. A place that the Raiders could call home, with no lease hassles, plumbing problems or annoying baseball teams butting in.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,220 Posts
And I'm sorry I kinda glanced over you mentioning capacity, which was the main point of my post.

Take a look at what Baylor just built and take notes, Oakland. I know there are a lot of other factors at play, in terms of capacity, construction costs, land costs and "earthquake-proofing", but they built something gorgeous and it only cost them $266 million. Surely they could build something just a little nicer for less than $1 billion, right?
But it's still a major reason why you can't compare the two. Also, will pretty much explained the rest of it.

I still think that if they just bulldoze all of the outdoor stadium except Mt. Davis, and build what would look like a 60,000 seat version of Tim Horton's Field, they could get it done for $600-700 million. $300 million from PSLs, $200 million from the G-4 program and $100 million from naming rights, and there you are. A place that the Raiders could call home, with no lease hassles, plumbing problems or annoying baseball teams butting in.
My thoughts exactly. I personally view the Coliseum to be better off as a football stadium and its life as a baseball park died when Mt. Davis was built. I just don't think getting rid of the newest part of a stadium is a good idea. But since that "annoying baseball team" has signed a lease to keep them there a bit longer, what can you do?
 
201 - 220 of 715 Posts
Top