So I read the article and watched the video. My immediate question is why now? The biggest hurdle for the A's and the Raiders was the Oakland couldn't do a thing to help finance any stadium construction. But now that the Raiders are leaving town, suddenly the A's can find the ends to bankroll a ballpark all by themselves? IMO, this has all the makings of a Dean Spanos 'we tried to stay' chicanery. But considering that there isn't another market as lucrative as Oakland for the A's to move to, maybe it has some legs.
As an A's fan, I've learned to be skeptical about any shiny new architectural drawings for a ballpark. My view, on anybody's new ballpark or stadium or arena is, let me know when they break ground.
You're right that there's no better place to go. If the attempt to build at the Laney College site is a ploy (and I don't know that it is), then the ploy is, "We tried to get a brand new ballpark in a perfect location in the city, but that didn't work, so we're going to remodel the Coliseum and stay there."
(09-13-2017 10:29 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]As an A's fan, I've learned to be skeptical about any shiny new architectural drawings for a ballpark. My view, on anybody's new ballpark or stadium or arena is, let me know when they break ground.
You're right that there's no better place to go. If the attempt to build at the Laney College site is a ploy (and I don't know that it is), then the ploy is, "We tried to get a brand new ballpark in a perfect location in the city, but that didn't work, so we're going to remodel the Coliseum and stay there."
That seems more plausible. Though I'd have to image the reno for the Coliseum would be extensive.
(09-14-2017 01:01 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2017 10:29 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]As an A's fan, I've learned to be skeptical about any shiny new architectural drawings for a ballpark. My view, on anybody's new ballpark or stadium or arena is, let me know when they break ground.
You're right that there's no better place to go. If the attempt to build at the Laney College site is a ploy (and I don't know that it is), then the ploy is, "We tried to get a brand new ballpark in a perfect location in the city, but that didn't work, so we're going to remodel the Coliseum and stay there."
That seems more plausible. Though I'd have to image the reno for the Coliseum would be extensive.
Tear down "Mount Davis", the football stands built when the Raiders moved back from LA, make big upgrades to the infrastructure, etc. Similar to
Angel Stadium after the Rams moved out and Disney bought the team. Not as cool as a brand new ballpark, but half the cost or less.
(09-14-2017 06:19 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2017 01:01 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2017 10:29 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]As an A's fan, I've learned to be skeptical about any shiny new architectural drawings for a ballpark. My view, on anybody's new ballpark or stadium or arena is, let me know when they break ground.
You're right that there's no better place to go. If the attempt to build at the Laney College site is a ploy (and I don't know that it is), then the ploy is, "We tried to get a brand new ballpark in a perfect location in the city, but that didn't work, so we're going to remodel the Coliseum and stay there."
That seems more plausible. Though I'd have to image the reno for the Coliseum would be extensive.
Tear down "Mount Davis", the football stands built when the Raiders moved back from LA, make big upgrades to the infrastructure, etc. Similar to Angel Stadium after the Rams moved out and Disney bought the team. Not as cool as a brand new ballpark, but half the cost or less.
I know Mt. Davis would be demo'd, but I always thought the seats in the lower bowl were too far away from the field. I just figured redoing that section, along with whatever the issue is with the plumbing there would be the three priorities.
(09-15-2017 08:34 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2017 06:19 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2017 01:01 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2017 10:29 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]As an A's fan, I've learned to be skeptical about any shiny new architectural drawings for a ballpark. My view, on anybody's new ballpark or stadium or arena is, let me know when they break ground.
You're right that there's no better place to go. If the attempt to build at the Laney College site is a ploy (and I don't know that it is), then the ploy is, "We tried to get a brand new ballpark in a perfect location in the city, but that didn't work, so we're going to remodel the Coliseum and stay there."
That seems more plausible. Though I'd have to image the reno for the Coliseum would be extensive.
Tear down "Mount Davis", the football stands built when the Raiders moved back from LA, make big upgrades to the infrastructure, etc. Similar to Angel Stadium after the Rams moved out and Disney bought the team. Not as cool as a brand new ballpark, but half the cost or less.
I know Mt. Davis would be demo'd, but I always thought the seats in the lower bowl were too far away from the field. I just figured redoing that section, along with whatever the issue is with the plumbing there would be the three priorities.
It could be done. Wouldn't be nearly as expensive as removing and disposing of Mt. Davis. I suppose it would be good for the team if they could sell the best seats at higher prices. To me, it doesn't seem "too far away" when you sit near 3rd or 1st base in Oakland, but it is a noticeable difference when you go to a newer ballpark built only for baseball like Petco Park or AT&T Park.
If it were me, I would also consider adding another deck of boxes/suites to increase the "premium seating" revenue. If you're comparing this to the Angel Stadium renovation, the A's are never going to sell 3 million tickets a year like they do in Anaheim, so aiming for smaller capacity and higher average price seems like the way to go.