Are you even worried about losing the Raiders? (San Diego, Oakland: high school, to move)

[bay2bay]

Originally Posted by the happy guy

Agreed. Howard Terminal would be an extraordinary site. The ballpark itself only requires 12.5 acres, and the site is 50.3 acres. That's almost 38 acres for supplementary development on site. The ballpark should have the retro-classic design, like AT&T Park. The ballpark should be on the (technically) eastern side of the site, as close to the water as possible, and the view of center field should be directed towards the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel, which would allow all the marinas, boating activity, and Brooklyn Basin to be visible. Moreover, the right center, center field, and left center should be as low as possible (to maximize the waterfront view), with a large scoreboard on right field (which would block the view of undeveloped areas of Alameda). Of course, the cranes should be removed.

I love the cranes!

[the happy guy]

Originally Posted by sav858

The view towards center field would have to face north/east so I don't think you could see the Inner Harbor channel with that ballpark oriented that way.

Yea, but fortunately the east-northeast orientation rule has been ignored by every baseball team.

Lost in the Sun: The Physics of Ballpark Orientation

[sav858]

Originally Posted by the happy guy

Yea, but fortunately the east-northeast orientation rule has been ignored by every baseball team.

Lost in the Sun: The Physics of Ballpark Orientation

How is it ignored when the majority of parks in your link are facing north and/or east?

[the happy guy]

Originally Posted by sav858

How is it ignored when the majority of parks in your link are facing north and/or east?

It's ignored because the rule book declares a East-Northeast orientation, and no team has that specific orientation. But yes, most ballparks orientations are between North and East. For the A's to have that Inner Harbor view, it would need an orientation between East and SouthEast.

Originally Posted by bay2bay

I love the cranes!

I would rather have them removed to provide more space, and to not obstruct any views.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by the happy guy

It's ignored because the rule book declares a East-Northeast orientation, and no team has that specific orientation. But yes, most ballparks orientations are between North and East. For the A's to have that Inner Harbor view, it would need an orientation between East and SouthEast.



I would rather have them removed to provide more space, and to not obstruct any views.

I didn't mean literally every park faces exactly northeast but rather either north and/or east in some capacity.

Looking at some renderings of the park, it looks like it would be one of the few parks to face southeast though so it would have water view. I like keeping the cranes too.





I wonder though if it faced northeast if you could get a decent skyline view of Downtown Oakland.

[the happy guy]

Originally Posted by sav858

I didn't mean literally every park faces exactly northeast but rather either north and/or east in some capacity.

Looking at some renderings of the park, it looks like it would be one of the few parks to face southeast though so it would have water view. I like keeping the cranes too.

I wonder though if it faced northeast if you could get a decent skyline view of Downtown Oakland.

To optimize the waterfront view and location, the ballpark should be in the south eastern area of the site (unlike what's showed in the rendering). lol I feel like the cranes are too obstructing and limiting. Why keep them?

It seems that if it did face northeast to come capacity, it would have a view of Downtown. I'm not sure if it would be the best or decent. Ideally, it should capture both parts of the skyline, the hillside, and the horizon.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by the happy guy

To optimize the waterfront view and location, the ballpark should be in the south eastern area of the site (unlike what's showed in the rendering). lol I feel like the cranes are too obstructing and limiting. Why keep them?

It seems that if it did face northeast to come capacity, it would have a view of Downtown. I'm not sure if it would be the best or decent. Ideally, it should capture both parts of the skyline, the hillside, and the horizon.

Yeah I was wondering the same thing, why would they put it farther west on the site rather than closer to Jack London Square. Maybe to be closer to West Oakland BART but even then the walk is still far and not nearly as inviting as the walk from the 12th St station.

I dunno, I just like the cranes because it seems very "Oakland", better than some stupid Coke bottle lol.

[sav858]

I was playing around with Google Earth, attached are two pics if the ballpark was angled Northeast towards downtown and the hills, looks like you would have a good view (just have to forget all the Matson shipping containers in that shot). One pic is from 40ft and the other from 80ft.

I kind of want it angled towards downtown and the hills, I don't particularly find that inner channel that scenic.

[the happy guy]

Originally Posted by sav858

I was playing around with Google Earth, attached are two pics if the ballpark was angled Northeast towards downtown and the hills, looks like you would have a good view (just have to forget all the Matson shipping containers in that shot). One pic is from 40ft and the other from 80ft.

I kind of want it angled towards downtown and the hills, I don't particularly find that inner channel that scenic.

Inner Harbor would be beautiful. It offers an amazing view of the strait, coastal Oakland and Alameda, and Brooklyn Basin. Downtown Oakland would definitely be viewable from the concourse though.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by the happy guy

Inner Harbor would be beautiful. It offers an amazing view of the strait, coastal Oakland and Alameda, and Brooklyn Basin. Downtown Oakland would definitely be viewable from the concourse though.

I guess I just feel it's too industrial overall. If they can angle/build it to maximize the view of it all (downtown, hills, and water) then that would be amazing. Plus you have a lot of development potential if there is land to build high rises that look down into the park similar to Petco in San Diego.