Lew Wolff opening the door to dialogue on Coliseum City? (San Jose: house, neighborhoods)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Petco Park was built and opened way before that pedestrian bridge was ever built; Petco opened in 2004 and the bridge wasn't completed until 2011. Most people on that side of the park still cross the Trolley and freight tracks at grade as the bridge is a bit out of the way. The only reason that bridge was built was because of the large hotel and parking garage across the street.
Well until the first shovel if dirt is turned, funding for any project is cause for concern but plausible funding sources YES, have been identified, contrary to your claim.
Plausible? Yes. Probable? No. MLB prefers cities/counties to fund stadiums for their teams, as I've said before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
As much as you would like to think otherwise, the league is not 'balking' at anyone that dangles half-a-billion dollars in their face. What we know is the league rejected the team's bid to move to San Jose and an investment group wants to build at Howard Terminal.
We also know that the league rejected a similar type proposal back in the early 2000s, when a similar ownership/investment group presented them with a plan to keep the team in Oakland and build a new stadium. At that time, Bud Selig was adamant that the A's move out of the Bay Area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Isnt that the point? To get a return on their investment?
That is the point, which is why MLB is hesitant to allow such an action. If a team owner wants control over the stadium and surrounding areas, he's not going to want to share that revenue with some investor. MLB knows this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
There is some level of emotion to every stadium initiative everywhere, no? Howver, the fact is, the claim can no longer be made that Oakland has no viable funding source, in fact it appears that lots of money is waiting to be spent on sports venues in Oakland.
You're right; almost every city has played tug-o-war with their teams and elected officials over new arenas and stadiums. What those other cities had that Oakland doesn't is public funding (or a political climate that would condone public funding) for a ballpark. Yes, they do have private investment. But where is the public funding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
In the context of this discussion, for you to talk.about the 'truth' sounds ironically emotional considering you just talked about emotion. lol
This makes no sense, but nice try.
Last edited by CityGuy88; 12-30-2013 at 12:10 PM..
Reason: Typo / Clarification
What kind of benefits are you looking for? A lot of these sports venues seem to be catalysts that help accelerate redevelopment of neighborhoods. Kind of exactly what Oakland needs in this area. Yeah developers make money but citizens generally benefit from new businesses, homes, more vibrancy, etc..
It depends, not necessarily. PacBell park helped to kickstart a change that was already planned. At the end of the day, what makes the area vibrant is all of the new residents and workers there all the time. PacBall Park isn't driving additional visitors outside of game day, and game day patrons, unless the live or work nearby aren't really supporting the local eateries and restaurants.
Baseball of course is better than football as there are 80 home games a season. But for the weekday games, people come after work, so they are less likely to linger. And it needs to be a quick hop from work or on the way home.
I think cities give up far too many concessions to lure teams, without having them contribute to the infrastructure side.
I am an advocate for the Howard Terminal spot, as it helps to connect JLS to West Oakland, and area redevelopment is quite needed. But without residences, retail, commercial, restaurants and etc, the area will be a ghost town outside of game day. I'd like to judge the proposal in light of the full neighborhood development plan.
This is nothing new. For years, teams blackmailing communities into publicly funding new stadiums have claimed these very facilities would spur development in the neighborhood and create jobs. As promises go, this claim holds as much validity as any made by the Cubs that a World Series is on the horizon.
For example, Minnesota's Metrodome opened 31 years ago and will be destroyed after the final Vikings game this December so that a $1 billion football stadium can be built in its place. But in those 31 years -- even when it was home to record-breaking crowds in baseball and the NBA, as well as the NFL -- the only surrounding business the Metrodome generated was Hubert's sports bar.
Seattle's $517 million ballpark opened in 1999 but few new surrounding businesses have prospered in the area. Meanwhile, the once-thriving Pioneer Square neighborhood has fallen on hard times since the Kingdome (which was closer to Pioneer Square than the new stadium is), was destroyed. There is little beyond the Mets' $800 million new stadium in Queens than car repair and salvage shops.
These cities and stadiums are not the exceptions. The exceptions are the facilities that actually do generate significant surrounding business. Most facilities have not done so, and that includes Turner Field.
Commercial development near the ballpark? Here's what it looks like around Turner Field.
This is why new stadiums should not be viewed as economic drivers or as guaranteed ways for teams to become "competitive." Only five teams have won the World Series while playing in a stadium built during the retro-park era that began in 1992 with Baltimore's Camden Yards. Meanwhile, the Red Sox have won more World Series than anyone else in the past decade while playing in 101-year-old Fenway Park.
Ballparks are not financial game-changers for a city. They are where we gather together as communities to support our local teams and cheer our heroes. That in itself is a significant and wonderful thing. If a stadium provides anything more than a home for our team -- rich memories, proud feelings of community, comfortable seats and some minimum-wage concession jobs -- well, that's just a bonus.
What happens inside the ballpark is vastly more important than whether new sports bars or a hotel open outside its walls, especially since any new business would simply be taking revenue away from competitors in other locations.
I am fine for a new stadium, but taxpayers shouldn't pay. And much more important is the plan for the area outside of game day.
Petco Park was built and opened way before that pedestrian bridge was ever built; Petco opened in 2004 and the bridge wasn't completed until 2011. Most people on that side of the park still cross the Trolley and freight tracks at grade as the bridge is a bit out of the way. The only reason that bridge was built was because of the large hotel and parking garage across the street.
Sure. Safeco Field was also built years before their pedestrian bridge was built. The point is in both the cases of Petco Park and Safeco Field, pedestrian bridges were eventually built.
By the way, a comparison to Petco Park when discussing a Howard Terminal ballpark is indeed like comparing an apple to an orange. Petco Park is not surrounded by water on one side the way that a Howard Terminal ballpark would be. Petco Park is pretty much accessible from all sides of the stadium. A pedestrian bridge there may not be the vital artery it would be for a Howard Terminal ballpark.
Plausible? Yes. Probable? No. MLB prefers cities/counties to fund stadiums for their teams, as I've said before.
And you may continue to repeat this to your heart's content, but the league rejected Lew Wolff's plan to do just that in SJ.
Quote:
We also know that the league rejected a similar type proposal back in the early 2000s, when a similar ownership/investment group presented them with a plan to keep the team in Oakland. At that time, Bed Selig was adamant that the A's move out of the Bay Area.
Yes, that was then and this is now.
Quote:
That is the point, which is why MLB is hesitant to allow such an action. Ifa ob his radar a team owner wants control over the stadium and surrounding areas, he's not going to want to share that revenue with some investor. MLB knows this.
Well, aside from going by facts, I shy away from putting words in people's mouths and passing off my opinion as fact, or in this,case, the 'truth'.
Quote:
You're right; almost every city has played tug-o-war with their teams and elected officials over new arenas and stadiums. What those other cities had that Oakland doesn't is public funding (or a political climate that would condone public funding) for a ballpark. Yes, they do have private investment. But where is the public funding?
Like I said, Im willing to let the process take its course and spend some money if need be.
It depends, not necessarily. PacBell park helped to kickstart a change that was already planned. At the end of the day, what makes the area vibrant is all of the new residents and workers there all the time. PacBall Park isn't driving additional visitors outside of game day, and game day patrons, unless the live or work nearby aren't really supporting the local eateries and restaurants.
Baseball of course is better than football as there are 80 home games a season. But for the weekday games, people come after work, so they are less likely to linger. And it needs to be a quick hop from work or on the way home.
I think cities give up far too many concessions to lure teams, without having them contribute to the infrastructure side.
I am an advocate for the Howard Terminal spot, as it helps to connect JLS to West Oakland, and area redevelopment is quite needed. But without residences, retail, commercial, restaurants and etc, the area will be a ghost town outside of game day. I'd like to judge the proposal in light of the full neighborhood development plan.
I am fine for a new stadium, but taxpayers shouldn't pay. And much more important is the plan for the area outside of game day.
Well it's kind of the same in this area as it is around AT&T and Petco Park's. There is an existing neighborhood that's already in the midst of some redevelopment, a new ballpark would only add to that.
The additional businesses that might not otherwise be there if it wasn't for AT&T are drawing the visitors on non-game days. It's not like all of those businesses that cater to ballpark patrons are closed on non-game days. Have you seen the businesses around there on game day? All those people aren't neighborhood residents so yes the ballpark definitely does drive in outside patrons to the area on game days. I don't really get how you can say all of those people aren't supporting the local businesses on game day when those places are packed. People that don't live in that area get there early before the games.
And without a ballpark many of residences, businesses, restaurants, etc..that would add vibrancy to the area may never materialize. You act like all of this stuff needs to be in place before a ballpark but it's the ballpark that would encourage this stuff to occur.
With glaring examples of what a ballpark could do in an area like JLS in SF and San Diego I don't really get this argument your making.
The San Diego Padres ballpark, PETCO Park, was the first integrated sports facility/redevelopment project ever attempted. In the end, the City of San Diego paid $301 million of the $474 million cost for the ballpark.
By 2007 (three years after the ballpark opened), redevelopment projects worth approximately $4.25 billion had been completed, were underway, or were planned. Of these, $4 billion was privately funded. The previously blighted area was well on its way to a dramatic redevelopment.
The project turned out to be a huge success for the Padres, the City of San Diego, and the taxpayers of the City. However, there were many obstacles that had to be overcome, including a 16-month halt in construction.
Sure. Safeco Field was also built years before their pedestrian bridge was built. The point is in both the cases of Petco Park and Safeco Field, pedestrian bridges were eventually built.
By the way, a comparison to Petco Park when discussing a Howard Terminal ballpark is indeed like comparing an apple to an orange. Petco Park is not surrounded by water on one side the way that a Howard Terminal ballpark would be. Petco Park is pretty much accessible from all sides of the stadium. A pedestrian bridge there may not be the vital artery it would be for a Howard Terminal ballpark.
If you have been to Petco Park and/or the SD Convention Center you would see why it's a fair comparison. There is a TON of pedestrian traffic over those trolley and freight tracks, not just for Petco but for the Convention Center too. Thousands of people cross safely all the time and that's why I don't see that tracks here being that big of a deal. Most people probably even would use a pedestrian bridge if they can cross at street level.
Well it's kind of the same in this area as it is around AT&T and Petco Park's. There is an existing neighborhood that's already in the midst of some redevelopment, a new ballpark would only add to that.
The additional businesses that might not otherwise be there if it wasn't for AT&T are drawing the visitors on non-game days. It's not like all of those businesses that cater to ballpark patrons are closed on non-game days. Have you seen the businesses around there on game day? All those people aren't neighborhood residents so yes the ballpark definitely does drive in outside patrons to the area on game days. I don't really get how you can say all of those people aren't supporting the local businesses on game day when those places are packed. People that don't live in that area get there early before the games.
And without a ballpark many of residences, businesses, restaurants, etc..that would add vibrancy to the area may never materialize. You act like all of this stuff needs to be in place before a ballpark but it's the ballpark that would encourage this stuff to occur.
With glaring examples of what a ballpark could do in an area like JLS in SF and San Diego I don't really get this argument your making.
I don't want the park to be seen as some big huge savior. I am only in support if investors pay, I don't want another PSL fiasco......
But right now al the talk is around the potential park, and nothing else about what is planned in the surrounding area. The only time Howard Terminal is discussed is when they want a sports team there. I am skeptical for both Coliseum City and Howard Terminal, as it only seems like discussions are around stadiums.
And you may continue to repeat this to your heart's content, but the league rejected Lew Wolff's plan to do just that in SJ.
No, MLB is rejecting Lew Wolff because of the Giants' territorial rights to the South Bay; NOT because they have an affinity for the City of Oakland or disdain for the City of San Jose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
