HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2021, 4:37 PM
crazy amy b crazy amy b is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34 View Post
It's a nice rendering, but I have to believe it to see it. In other words, I believe there's a slim chance that this proposal gets built, even as the Oakland A's claim they want to build the stadium and the towers. As many of us who are familiar with CA knows, the state doesn't fund stadiums unlike other states, meaning that sports teams based in CA either have to fund it themselves or they have to go into a private partnership. There's really no kind of money in Oakland like that unless you're going to talk to one of the Silicon Valley moguls and even them, it's just a slim to none chance that the A's stay in Oakland. I can see the A's moving to Las Vegas, Portland, or even San Antonio before I believe that a new stadium gets constructed in Oakland.
Highly uninformed take.

The A's are in the process of purchasing the entire Coliseum site. When this plan falls through, they'll simply rebuild the Coliseum and redevelop the parking lots. Leaving Oakland makes zero sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2021, 6:15 PM
thoughtcriminal thoughtcriminal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy amy b View Post
Highly uninformed take.

The A's are in the process of purchasing the entire Coliseum site. When this plan falls through, they'll simply rebuild the Coliseum and redevelop the parking lots. Leaving Oakland makes zero sense.
if they are in the process of buying the coliseum site, why are they pursuing the other site, which they said they would also finance themselves (at least the ballpark part of it, not the whole development)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2021, 6:47 PM
crazy amy b crazy amy b is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal View Post
if they are in the process of buying the coliseum site, why are they pursuing the other site, which they said they would also finance themselves (at least the ballpark part of it, not the whole development)?
Because Bay Area real estate is $$$$$

Why develop one subsidized piece of land when you can develop two?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2021, 10:55 PM
Manitopiaaa Manitopiaaa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Alexandria, Royal Commonwealth of Virginia
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy amy b View Post
Because Bay Area real estate is $$$$$

Why develop one subsidized piece of land when you can develop two?
By that logic, why can't they leave Oakland if they're buying land there? A company can buy land for real estate development $$$$$ and still move.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2021, 11:43 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
the team is asking the city for $855 million----normally I would be 100% against a single penny of any public money, but in this case, given how much we are getting in return and given the size and scope of this project and the transformative affect this could have on the waterfront, and the subsequent investment that could come about, I think this is actually a good investment on the city's part.
The money is for "infrastructure improvements". Much of that is probably the sort of thing the city would have to do to make the site developable in any case, whether by the As or anyone else. So I wouldn't necessarily look at it as money going to the team without seeing the details and what's going to things useful only for a ballpark on the site and not, say, an office building or housing towers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2021, 11:48 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal View Post
if they are in the process of buying the coliseum site, why are they pursuing the other site, which they said they would also finance themselves (at least the ballpark part of it, not the whole development)?
I assume the portion of the development that is NOT the ballpark is intended, like most development, to make a profit and that that profit is planned to help (or totally) finance the ballpark.

The Giants, of course, have done the same thing just across the Bay: First they built the ballpark, (quite a long time ago, now) and now they are doing "phase 1" of the adjacent mixed-purpose (office and housing) development known as Mission Rock (it has a thread--go look at it if you are interested). This latter part is unquestionably intended to make money for the team owners and the team itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2021, 11:57 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcexpress69 View Post
Where are the parking garages?? Not everyone is gonna commute by rail or walk from their nearby condos.
You don't understand the Bay Area. We don't do parking lots. See my comment just above about what the Giants are doing (with link to thread). That development is where their parking lots USED TO BE. Probably the As would do the same thing: Build the ballpark, use the rest of the project's land for parking until they are ready to develop it. But fully built out, there will not be acres of parking like in other places. It's not our way. Maybe some of the $855 million Oakland is supposed to provide will be for improved transit to the site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 1, 2021, 12:03 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
of overly-litigious NIMBYs kill this, or at least massively whittle it down?
Only if it threatens them in some way which is hard to see. It's on Port of Oakland land or appears to be so no housing being bulldozed and nothing next door. Views being blocked? Not that I can see. There may be some contingent that objects just to increased traffic but with little parking that's hard to understand (and that argument didn't work to block the Warrior's arena in SF).

The towers may be another matter. That could be a zoning question (height limit) but the usual reason to chop heights is because towers shade things (especially things like parks, school play yards etc) and that doesn't appear to be true here either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 1, 2021, 12:18 AM
crazy amy b crazy amy b is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
By that logic, why can't they leave Oakland if they're buying land there? A company can buy land for real estate development $$$$$ and still move.
Because then you don’t get a subsidy.

Plus there isn’t a market in the US that would be an upgrade from Oakland. There’s way more money in being the Bay Area’s second team than there is in being Portland or LV’s only team.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 1, 2021, 12:24 AM
crazy amy b crazy amy b is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I assume the portion of the development that is NOT the ballpark is intended, like most development, to make a profit and that that profit is planned to help (or totally) finance the ballpark.

The Giants, of course, have done the same thing just across the Bay: First they built the ballpark, (quite a long time ago, now) and now they are doing "phase 1" of the adjacent mixed-purpose (office and housing) development known as Mission Rock (it has a thread--go look at it if you are interested). This latter part is unquestionably intended to make money for the team owners and the team itself.
And the Giants only pay a couple million bucks a year to the city to lease the land for both the stadium and the entire Mission Rock development. A massive subsidy that no other developer would receive.

The Warriors didn’t get a subsidy. They actually bought their land from Salesforce and so their development is significantly smaller than what the Giants are building and the A’s are proposing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 2, 2021, 8:10 PM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy amy b View Post
Highly uninformed take.

The A's are in the process of purchasing the entire Coliseum site. When this plan falls through, they'll simply rebuild the Coliseum and redevelop the parking lots. Leaving Oakland makes zero sense.
We'l see what the near future holds for the A's. If the A's stay in Oakland, great! But then again the A's haven't had any recent success like the Giants had last decade and there's more nostalgia for the Raiders and even the Warriors than the A's at this point. Plus the Giants are a more popular team all over the Bay Area than the A's. Once again, if the A's stay in Oakland great, but I wouldn't be surprised if this proposal doesn't fall through and the A's possibly moving.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 2, 2021, 9:01 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
^^One winning season for the As and a corresponding loser for the Giants would probably reverse those popularities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 7:02 AM
crazy amy b crazy amy b is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34 View Post
we'l see what the near future holds for the a's. If the a's stay in oakland, great! But then again the a's haven't had any recent success like the giants had last decade and there's more nostalgia for the raiders and even the warriors than the a's at this point. Plus the giants are a more popular team all over the bay area than the a's. Once again, if the a's stay in oakland great, but i wouldn't be surprised if this proposal doesn't fall through and the a's possibly moving.
The A's are never leaving. The only question is what part of Oakland they are staying in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 10, 2021, 3:14 AM
brian_b brian_b is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
looks great! build it! two waterfront stadiums in the bay area, how cool!
No way man, this is terrible. They’ve arranged it so you get the behind-home-plate view of a couple of container gantry cranes, with the Alameda “skyline” in the background and in the far distance you will see planes taking off from the airport. Yuck. They are going to maximize late afternoon sun for those nationally televised games that start at 5:30pm-ish, so that’s good. But the whole place will have a pervasive smell of burning diesel and bunker oil thanks to being immediately downwind of an actual operating port. The neighborhood is a bunch of warehouses and crap stores, and will never integrate with downtown unless they tear down the horrible 880 freeway. Screw that.


Quote:
in any event, the A's really do deserve a new stadium. they're still playing in one of the last multi-use stadiums left in MLB, made all the worse by the horrible proportions of "mt. davis".
Tear down that abomination in the outfield now that it is a baseball-only stadium. Return it to the original configuration and you get the beautiful view of the hills off in the distance, with the esthetic of the absolute best time in California’s optimistic history (1960s). And then redevelop the parking lot.

Finally, it preserves the proper baseball field configuration, in which the left field line points north (to within a degree or two). Fenway, Wrigley, Camden Yard, Candlestick, the original Comiskey, Dodger Stadium, Seattle, Anaheim, Kansas City, etc

old and new Yankee stadium were pretty close

Last edited by brian_b; May 10, 2021 at 3:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 13, 2021, 5:01 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
It looks MLB is ready to play hardball with Oakland about getting the new stadium approved.




Quote:
MLB tells Athletics to explore relocation if no new ballpark

JANIE McCAULEY
Tue, May 11, 2021, 2:19 PM


OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Major League Baseball instructed the Athletics to explore relocation options as the team tries to secure a new waterfront ballpark it hopes will keep the club in Oakland long-term.

MLB released a statement Tuesday expressing its longtime determination that the current Coliseum site is “not a viable option for the future vision of baseball.”

“MLB is concerned with the rate of progress on the A’s new ballpark effort with local officials and other stakeholders in Oakland,” MLB said. “The A’s have worked very hard to advance a new ballpark in downtown Oakland for the last four years, investing significant resources while facing multiple roadblocks. We know they remain deeply committed to succeeding in Oakland, and with two other sports franchises recently leaving the community, their commitment to Oakland is now more important than ever.”
Full article: https://news.yahoo.com/news/mlb-tell...191934903.html
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 13, 2021, 4:07 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 31,262
Oakland should tell them to pound sand.

My concern is that they'll leave for Vegas and there's already a push from MLB to encourage gambling on games. IIRC, the Diamondbacks are considering adding a sports book booth somewhere in their ballpark.

I'm a Reds fan with sympathy for the Black Sox (long story short, I don't consider the Reds' 1919 World Series victory legitimate). The day an MLB team moves to Vegas is the day that I stop being a baseball fan. The hypocrisy is too much.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 13, 2021, 4:15 PM
thoughtcriminal thoughtcriminal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001 View Post
Oakland should tell them to pound sand.

My concern is that they'll leave for Vegas and there's already a push from MLB to encourage gambling on games. IIRC, the Diamondbacks are considering adding a sports book booth somewhere in their ballpark.

I'm a Reds fan with sympathy for the Black Sox (long story short, I don't consider the Reds' 1919 World Series victory legitimate). The day an MLB team moves to Vegas is the day that I stop being a baseball fan. The hypocrisy is too much.
MLB's hypocrisy is out of control. they pontificate about the integrity of the game, and then do everything they can to screw it up. Replay, the DH, runner on second to start 10th inning, and most of all gambling. they were against gambling until they figured out how they could make money from it. with all of the gambling sites now, and especially if they move the A's to Vegas, they should at the very least reinstate Pete Rose, who never threw a game and only ever bet on his teams to win.
I'm sure as a Reds fan you'd agree with that.
Now move the A's back to Philadelphia.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 13, 2021, 5:58 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 31,262
Pete Rose is an awful human being, but I think he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Hell, Ty Cobb's in the HOF.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 13, 2021, 6:02 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,889
As I stated in the original post, I wondered if this entire outlandish project was proposed deliberately knowing lots of residents would object, so the team could then say we did everything we could now we're leaving...I definitely think that's true now.

But the city itself is extremely incompetent when it comes to 1. Thinking about the future because 2. They are so suspicious of any hint of gentrification since 3. It's more important to preseve the ghetto and abandoned warehouses than actually build things people like. Oakland for you.

But I digress,. the coliseum is a dump, we all know it, that location is shit for a sports team, yet so many here wonder why oh why would they want to relocate closer to downtown-the clueless reaction by locals is just stupifying.

Anyhow we have a shady billion-dollar sports organization and a city infested with WRONGHEADED NIMBYS, I can at least understand 'saving' a nice area, but why are we fighting tooth and nail to 'preserve' ugly, dilapidated areas? OAKLAND I hate your stupid ass sometimes.

Oh well, that's life. If they move they move, I actually would be very interested to see what happens to the coliseum site in the next decade, knowing Oakland tho, whatever is proposed will still be in litigation in 10-20 years anyway, my kids will be parents themselves and we'll have our first Trans-President and Oakland will still be arguing over what to do with a massive, empty, unused parking lot.

Rant over.
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 13, 2021, 6:20 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001 View Post
Oakland should tell them to pound sand.
On the surface it might be the prudent thing to do (and most fiscally responsible). I supported the new arena here in Sacramento because I knew it would draw people into the central city and create a more vibrant core.
But indoor facilities host many more dates per year that a stadium. In our case it worked financially (so far). Oakland (and Alameda County) though have been down this road before.

I think it's a gamble they're going to have to take. The A's are Oakland's last franchise. I personally don't think that having professional sports make or break a city. Austin is a perfect example of a very successful and booming city that didn't have professional sports (although now with the MLS). But transformative projects like the waterfront proposal rarely come around. Well except for the 'pie in the sky' proposals. If Oakland can find a way to get it across the finish line it would be great for the city. But they can't get taken to the cleaners like they did to lure the Raiders back to Oakland; only to lose them (again).
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:13 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.