HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 11:42 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
FiveTen Represent!?!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Zurich, Switzerland & Piedmont, California
Posts: 6,337
wow...there is some really great info in this thread.

Those Mandela/Grand and Emerald Views Images are stunning! Go Oakland!!!!
__________________

"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
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2007, 2:40 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I have to admit, with all the action going on in San Francisco, I've been so caught up with it that I've forgotten most other areas. For this reason, I'm thankfull that time was taken to create this thread that shows projects from around the Bay Area. Mandela and Sierra Point look very intresting. With that being said: Great work, thanks for all the information and I look forward to more.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 12:45 AM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
I hear you about Brisbane

[QUOTE=San Frangelino;3025129]Here are some information on developments for "the Peninsula."


But all considered I don't know if we can expect much more. I see South City densifying so that is hopeful that they will move forward from surface lots at least. I hope they at least orient themselves to the Caltrain station (though its a ways away-is this the future TOD they are talking about or some sort of bus system???)

if they need the big box stuff and the automall to help pay for redevelopment so be it (though they are lacking in vision it seems to me) but at least I hope they consider that if they want the future workers to take the train and patronize their little strip mall/downtown without driving they need to make the environment accommodating (though this is some distance from the existing Caltrain stop I think)

When I worked at Oyster point the most frustrating thing (other than public transit) was the lack of anywhere to eat (save for the corporate cafe) or walk to. I would take a shuttle to work from Bart and then I was literally stuck
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 12:58 AM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
Is that skinny yellow box at the very top of the Brisbane plan a train station? If so, it's a shame it's not more centrally located in the development. Better than no station at all I guess, but odd.
The station location might be older than the town of Brisbane which is near to the stop. This open land used to be the dump I believe (by the way which map are you referring to-I don't see transit at all on what was posted)

They are moving the station at Hillsdale in San Mateo to better match development so it is possible

Its tough in the Bay Area with everything so fragmented but in a perfect world I don't see why this station couldn't move???

If Caltrain become what it could be (something akin to Bart) and we had more comprehensive planning we could plan pretty intensive development around these stations. Caltrain's corridor is a great asset that we are greatly under utilizing.

With regard to the light rail being extended that seems to me to be another waste. People in Bay View and Viz Valley aren't working these jobs. Most people live on the Peninsula, come from the East Bay or live in the trendy parts of SF. If you lived near downtown would you ride the T for an hour to get to a Biotech job in Brisbane? The whole T thing sucks and is a huge waste of resources
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 1:01 AM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Traffic

Quote:
Originally Posted by San Frangelino View Post
Here is some news regarding Sierra Point just south of the baylands.

From http://www.examiner.com/a-797547~Bri...t_a_plaza.html




An image from http://www.sierra-point.com/aerial.htm
traffic is going to be a bitch if they build all of these plans and just pay lip service to future TOD
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 7:53 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
I'm referring to this one:


It looks like they are adding a station here. Perhaps you're right that they are actually moving a station here. I don't recall offhand where all the stations are along this part of the peninsula.

You're right that the Caltrain corridor is underutilized. Part of that is because for so many years it was strictly a freight train line and cities always turn their backs on those. But it is changing, slowly but surely, in places like Redwood City and Mountain View, etc.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2007, 10:15 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
A little something interesting I found at http://www.stanford.edu/group/gpj/cg...pal/?q=node/73

Quote:
Redwood City Tries to Revive Development Project Rejected by Voters

Clara Long Mar 13 2007 News
By CLARA LONG

Redwood City, Calif.– In a quest for higher density housing, Redwood City officials are entertaining a proposition for a mixed-use high density development on bay side land, even though a similar proposal by the same company was defeated by popular referendum 3 years ago.

Developer Paul Powers first proposed the project, now known as Peninsula Park, to the city as the Marina Shores Village in 2000. The city council gave him the green light but opponents, led by an environmental group called Friends of Redwood City, orchestrated a citywide referendum rejecting the project. Less than two years later Powers came back to the city with a scaled down but largely similar high-rise project that may still have to run the gauntlet of citizen opposition.

At the heart of the political maneuvering over the waterfront development lies an alignment of interests between the private developer, whose plans maximize the land-use value of the site, and city officials, who are convinced of the need for Redwood City to increase the density of its residential areas.

But some Redwood City residents are not keen to see the waterfront areas of their community start to look like the big city. And those wary of bay side development may be in for a long fight as an adjacent chunk of industrial land, the former Cargill salt fields, comes up for redevelopment.

In 2000, Powers, who represents the San Mateo and Denver-based developer, Glenborough-Pauls, LLC, envisioned a $1 billion housing, retail, hotel and office construction on the east side of Rt. 101 with condominium high rises up to 23 stories. Those opposed to the project cited concerns about the height of the proposed buildings, their environmental impact, and the traffic they would generate.

In Powers’ scaled-back proposal the condominiums shrank to 10 stories, and the overall area is reduced to 33 instead of 46.5 acres. The plan would still intersperse shops, a hotel and nearly 800 new residences on bay-water canals overlooking nearby Bair Island.

Residents were able to stop Marina Shores Village because Powers is required to ask the city for new zoning. An impound car storage lot currently on the property complies with the area’s “general commercial” zoning, which allows for a wide variety of commercial and retail uses but not homes.

“It’s the act of rezoning that’s causing us to be vulnerable to a referendum,” Powers said.

“Here is what a lot people ask me,” Powers said. “You’ve been working on this 7 years, why don’t you just take the zoning you have?”

According to Powers, city officials told him not to use the current zoning when he bought the land.

“The city leadership told us emphatically,” said Powers. “You may have the zoning for office but you need to know up front that we, the city leadership, want housing.”

“You don’t want to fight city hall,” he said.

But Redwood City resident, Matt Leddy, and his group, Friends of Redwood City, did.

Leddy, who is a Horticulture professor at San Mateo college was one of what he estimates to be a dozen activists who ran the 2004 referendum campaign against Powers’ project.

“We told voters about the traffic problems and the height, and then the public made their own decision,” Leddy said.

Blake Lyons, Redwood City senior planner in charge of the project, said community opposition to the proposal “took the developer by surprise” three years ago.

“It wasn’t until more active folks got involved that it got people to pay attention and start to think about it,” Lyons said.

City officials were also taken by surprise. Redwood City’s mayor, Barbara Pierce said the project failed in the referendum primarily because of concerns over the high-rise housing.

“We are basically a suburban community, so when the developer wanted to go really high they pushed the envelope and I think they pushed it too far,” Pierce said. She voted to approve the original project.

Pierce, who gave an interview by phone between sessions at a smart growth and urban design conference in Los Angeles this weekend, said she hoped Glenborough-Pauls would propose a similar project on the site to address what she called Redwood City’s “tremendous need for housing.”

“I think Paul Powers knew the city was interested in talking to him again. And, why not? We,” she said, referring to the city council, “had already approved it.”

But neither city officials nor the developer wants the project to prompt another referendum.

“I think we need to work to involve people in the city process so that they understand that they are not being sacrificed for the developers,” Pierce said.

To that end, the city contracted the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, a San Mateo nonprofit that promotes the use of non-adversarial solutions to conflict, to run its community outreach program for the project. In three workshops last fall Leddy and other Redwood City residents met with city officials and Paul Powers to air concerns about the Peninsula Park proposal.

“The city is very open to comments,” said Leddy of Friends of Redwood City. “The thing is what they do with those comments.”

Leddy said he agrees the city needs new housing, but most of it should be constructed in urban in-fill projects in the downtown area. Buildings on the Peninsula Park site, he added, should stay under 75 ft, or the current zoning.

“You can’t have your head in the sand,” he said. “We’re not against building housing out there. But what is the community getting for the additional height?”

The group has not yet taken a position on the new project.

“We’re waiting to see what kind of options are presented,” he said.

Community opposition to new high-rises in peninsula cities is a growing phenomenon, according to Richard Walker, a University of California Berkeley geography professor who studies urban development.

“The fact of the matter is people don’t want the density,” he said. “The peninsula is not the ‘burbs’ anymore. It’s the center”

But he added, “there are legitimate concerns about space and environmental impacts and traffic.”

Walker said the kind of ‘mixed-use’ development Powers envisions has become the darling of city planners and developers alike in recent times.

“Developers love them because they can maximize their return and reduce risk at the same time” he said. If one sector of the real estate market falters—as prices for office space have in recent years—projects are buoyed by high prices in another sector.

Powers expects the city’s consultants to finish a Peninsula Park addendum to the previous Marina Shores Village environmental impact report by the end of the month. At that time, the project will go before the city’s Planning Commission.

The story of Peninsula Park may foreshadow an even bigger struggle over development. Cargill Inc. announced last June that it would soon wind down its salt production operations on 1,400 acres immediately south of the proposed Peninsula Park project. Cargill then formed the Redwood City Industrial Saltworks LLC in partnership with DMB Associates, a regional residential developer with a reputation for overcoming community opposition to development. The partnership is seeking only to “determine the future use of” the property at this point, according to their website.

The Friends of Redwood City are ramping up for a battle.

“If they develop out there, the traffic would be a nightmare,” said Leddy. “We need that marsh for the health of the bay,” he said.

John Bruno, the spokesperson for Redwood City Industrial Saltworks, said the company does not yet have a specific plan to present to the city. DMB Associates, he said, generally finds it most effective to ask for public input through direct mailings and workshops before initiating a development proposal.

“We find it’s a very disarming approach to go into a community and just listen,” he said.

After 7 years of constant attention to the Marina Shores Village and Peninsula Park projects, Paul Powers was unruffled when asked if the prospect of another housing development on the former Cargill land make him nervous about competition.

“The last thing we worry about on the peninsula is competition from more housing,” Powers quipped. “Nothing ever gets approved.”

“Poor Paul,” said Leddy at Powers’ comment. “We agree to disagree.”

© Stanford University

For those unaware, the Marina Shores Project was approved but defeated in citywide vote 3 years ago. The projects most prominent feature would be housing in the form of 17 towers 15-23 stories tall. It was to be east of the downtown Redwood City and the freeway, but quite a ways from the Caltrain station. If you would like to download some old documents http://www.redwoodcity.org/cds/planning/ms/

Here are some old images of a model made for the project @ http://www.creatormodels.com/landplan.html

To find out more about the Peninsula Park Project http://www.ci.redwood-city.ca.us/cds...ark/index.html



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2007, 10:20 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
(Double Post)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2007, 10:24 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
Also @ http://www.creatormodels.com/landplan.html Images of the office and Harvest Hall that are suppose to happen at Jack London Square.





and here is an image and rundown from http://www.portofoakland.com/realesta/deve_01i.asp



I believe I read in the Business Times that the Harvest Hall will now mostly be offices rather than a large market. There is a good rundown on what's happeneing there at http://www.tndwest.com/jacklondonsquare.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2007, 6:48 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
Another find from http://www.urban44.com/bart.html

West Oakland BART Station



Quote:
The West Oakland BART Station project is currently proposed as two high-rise residential/commercial buildings, one facing 7th Street and the other facing 5th Street
The proposed 7th Street high-rise is a concrete frame Type I construction with a glass curtain wall. It is projected to be 31 stories – 22 floors of residential with 5 penthouse levels, and over 4 stories of commercial space. Each residential level will have 20 units, for a total of 440 units. Each penthouse level will have 6 units, for a total of 30 units. Residential units will vary from 1 bedroom/1 bath to 2 bedroom/2 bath units ranging from 785 SF up to 2,232 SF. Penthouse units will be 2 bedroom/2 bath units, each approximately 2,000 SF.
The proposed 5th Street high-rise would have an identical residential configuration, but only 2 floors of commercial space, for a total of 56,000 SF. The 5th Street building will also have 4 levels of above-ground parking and 3 levels of below-ground parking, with 185 spaces per level, for a total of 1,285 spaces.

The Project has completed a Phase I environmental assessment. The Phase II assessment was started in July 2006.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2007, 10:36 PM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Redwood city project

as much as I am for development I really would like to see them focused around mass transit

The Harbor project will be 10o% auto dependent as will Sierra Point in Brisbane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 12:27 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Yep. That's the problem I have with the Redwood City thing. Sure, it's dense. But It's totally disconnected from everything except roads. I suppose they could add ferry service, but I really don't see that happening anytime soon.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park

Last edited by peanut gallery; Sep 25, 2007 at 10:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2007, 11:18 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
If these Proposals from http://www.northpointdevelopment.com..._projects.html are legit then San Jose will have 3 sets of Towers to add to its stock.

From: http://www.northpointdevelopment.com..._projects.html

88 North First Street, San Jose, CA




Quote:
Description: With twenty-two stories of luxury highrise residential homes having every conceivable amenity, Northpoint Development's "88 North First Street" project in the heart of downtown San Jose will attract the successful executive as well as professional dual-income couples and high-income singles. This premier site is located on the corners of First Street, Second Street, and St. John, directly across from St. James Park. Step out the door and the light rail system and planned BART extension connect the new homeowner to all parts of Silicon Valley. Completion of entitlements is expected no later than January 2008.
Project vision: The project is envisioned as a multi-tower complex providing 9,000 square feet of upscale retail space, and 414 residential units located on the top sixteen floors. Typical one-bedroom residential units will be 800 square feet, with two and three-bedroom models from 1000 — 1500 square feet. The top two floors will consist of luxury penthouses with two and three-bedroom configurations from 1200 — 2200 square feet. Competing luxury high-rises are the CIM tower selling many units at a price over a million dollars, along with the K-T Properties project selling many of their units for over a million dollars. The competitors sites are in less desirable locations than Northpoint Development's "88 North First Street", in part because their locations are within the flight path of San Jose International Airport.
Amenities will include a state-of-the-art health club, rooftop garden, and generous balcony space. A luxurious, expansive lobby will stimulate the senses upon entering the doors of 88 North 1st St. Retail space will be marketed to small, upscale restaurants, boutiques, and coffee shops.
300 South Second Street, San Jose, CA.




Quote:
Description: Located on San Carlos Street between Second Street and Third Street, adjacent to the State of California building and the Federal Building, and one block from the San Jose State University campus, Northpoint Development's lively "300 South Second Street" project will attract the new Silicon Valley technology professionals with its world-class architectural design, dual towers, twenty-two floors of 598 modern, upscale residences, and 36,164 square feet of colorful shopping, unrivaled food and exciting entertainment. Completion of entitlements is expected no later than August 2008.
Project vision: This mixed-use residential project consists of dual towers of twenty-two floors with 900 square foot one-bedroom residential units, and two- and three-bedroom units vary from 1050 — 1200 square feet. A wide variety of optional upgrades will be available, and most of these units will be marketed towards move-up homebuyers and corporations buying secondary living space. The top two floors are designated for penthouse units, with large living spaces (from 1800 — 3000 square feet), 12 ceilings, and an express elevator. The penthouse interiors will be selected by purchasers working with in-house interior designers to create unique custom-designed suites.
The retail/pedestrian plaza will consist of 36,164 square feet of retail and restaurant space and over 17,400 square feet of open, public space. The vision includes a jazz club, coffee shops, various restaurants, cleaners, and other fine retail establishments. People will be able to stroll through our landscaped paseo and open plaza between San Carlos, 2nd St., and 3rd St., visiting interesting kiosks, shops, outdoor dining, and entertainment. This covered, but open plaza is sitting beneath 598 new front doors connecting the most dramatic residence in all of downtown San Jose. This Plaza will have a lease value in excess of $25,000,000.
Fifth Street Tower, San Jose, CA.




Quote:
Description: Designed in cooperation with the First Methodist Church, the seller of the site, the "Fifth Street Tower" residential project is a reflective glass skin T -shaped tower that is located immediately across Santa Clara Street from the new City Hall building. Completion of entitlements is expected no later than September 2009.
Project vision: This residential tower of 384 units will consist of twenty-two floors built above two levels of underground parking, 9,000 square feet of retail space, and town homes along 6th St. The latter will likely be purchased by the businesses and professionals that work on a daily basis with the various departments of the new City Hall. The residential floors are designed for small families and move-up buyers, consisting primarily of one- and two-bedroom condominium homes with custom options and amenities that exceed those of other projects being planned by competitors.

Delmas Tower, San Jose, CA.





Quote:
Description: "Delmas Tower" is a 72-unit, 8-10 story mid-rise residential condominium project with pool and health club located on the border of mid-town and Metro San Jose, near all downtown freeways, the light rail, the new BART extension, and railroad and bus transportation. It is a short walk to all of downtown San Jose, including the nearby Adobe headquarters, downtown San Jose's largest employer. Entitlements will be completed by January 2008.
This two phase project will include an additional 85 condominiums in a four story, over podium structure along Auzerais Avenue, which is adjacent to Delmas. This phase has significant environmental issues that are currently being mitigated by the seller.
Project vision: These well-appointed, luxury condominium homes range from one-bedroom units of 800 square feet to two- and three-bedroom units up to 1500 square feet. Each unit of "Delmas Tower" will have a balcony that is the full width of the living room, allowing residents to take full advantage of San Jose's 300 days per year of sunshine. A second phase is located around the corner at Auzerais Street, and will consist of three, four, and five tier structures designed to interface well with the surrounding community of single-family homes.

Last edited by San Frangelino; Sep 14, 2007 at 4:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 6:03 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Thanks for digging those up San Frangelino! There is so much going on around downtown SJ.

Do you happen to know if the rendering for 300 South Second is looking west on San Carlos? I hope so, as it would put the taller tower right on the corner.

That last one looks like a horrible location from the satellite photo. Perhaps it's not actually as bad as it seems. But in that image it looks like they're dumping 10 story condos in the middle of a bunch of single-story, single-family, detached homes. It looks totally out of scale and character with the surrounding environment.

BTW: you picked up the Second Street map URL for the Fifth Street Tower. You might want to edit that.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2007, 4:41 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
Do you happen to know if the rendering for 300 South Second is looking west on San Carlos? I hope so, as it would put the taller tower right on the corner.
Hard for me to tell. The website doesnt really note a standing location.

Quote:
That last one looks like a horrible location from the satellite photo. Perhaps it's not actually as bad as it seems. But in that image it looks like they're dumping 10 story condos in the middle of a bunch of single-story, single-family, detached homes. It looks totally out of scale and character with the surrounding environment.
Thats what I thought too, but apparently the Delmas area just west of downtown and south of Diridon station is being up sized with infill projects. http://www.dbarchitect.com/ just finished an 8 story building in the area that I thought seemed out of place, but I suppose now if they want to add 10 story towers nearby, it wouldnt be. I just wonder what the residents of the single family homes feel about it.

Heres an image of the area. Note: the proposed towers would be adjacent to the freeway on the street a block south of David Baker's 8 story building.


Quote:
BTW: you picked up the Second Street map URL for the Fifth Street Tower. You might want to edit that.
Thank you for noting that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2007, 5:49 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
I guess we're just seeing the growing pains of densification. I didn't realize how close that location is to Diridion. It makes sense to go vertical around there. I imagine the current residents don't like it too much.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 3:57 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
From:http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg.../MN1SS8P0A.DTL

New A's ballpark in Fremont would be surrounded by upscale eateries, shops
Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
(09-18) 21:56 PDT Fremont -- At the A's proposed new ballpark in Fremont, home runs wouldn't fly into the bay or the salt flats. They'd land in your plate of spaghetti at an upscale Italian restaurant.

If approved by Fremont's City Council, the $450 million Cisco Field would open in 2011 in a now-vacant lot in the city's Irvington district. It would be surrounded by high-end retail stores, restaurants overlooking the outfield, and housing for at least 3,000 people, A's officials told Fremont Tuesday night.

"This is the biggest project Fremont will ever see," said Mayor Bob Wasserman. "If it's approved, it will create a pride here. It will make the city a whole place."

Though finances weren't part of the discussion as the A's outlined the latest details of their 200-acre, $1.8 billion development plan to Fremont officials and residents at Fremont City Hall, the team has asserted that a new ballpark would raise millions of dollars a year in public and private revenue.

On Tuesday, the A's said they would comply with city officials' request to move a proposed elementary school closer to the stadium. It had been planned for several blocks away.

Cisco Field - which would be located 25 miles south of the the team's current stadium on Oakland- would seat 32,000 and be the smallest ballpark in Major League Baseball. Almost the entire outfield would be rimmed with elevated seated. That way, pedestrians, shoppers and diners walking in a mall area below could watch the game for free through windows beneath those elevated seats.

The team, tentatively to be called the Athletics at Fremont - at one time it had been the Silicon Valley Athletics at Fremont - would play in a classic ballpark with plenty of bricks reminiscent of Boston's Fenway Park or AT&T Park in San Francisco, said Keith Wolff, the A's co-owner.

"On game days, the ballpark will provide energy and excitement," Wolff said. "On nongame days, it will be like a sculpture or a park."

The public would also be able to watch games for free from a public park just beyond center field. That park would even have its own scoreboard.

The development would include 11,000 parking spaces cloaked by four- and five-story residential buildings, with more than 3,000 units in all.

Most of the 60 or so Fremont residents who attended Tuesday's meeting supported the project.

"Fremont, for many years, has needed something to keep people here," said Bill Rinetti, owner of Massimo's restaurant there. "People will stay here and spend their money here, and the whole city will prosper."

Not everyone was thrilled with the project. Some complained that the ballpark wouldn't be close enough to BART - it's five miles from the nearest station - and that the shopping area would attract too much traffic.

There were also environmental concerns.

"Everyone here seems to be intoxicated with the idea of bringing a professional ball team to Fremont," said Vinton Bacon of Fremont who works for the Sierra Club. "This project brings more suburban sprawl and is inherently environmentally unfriendly."

The A's plan to submit a formal development application to Fremont within four weeks, Wolff said. The A's have said they are leaving Oakland because they couldn't secure land for the expanded development the owners envisioned.

"We tried to do it in Oakland. That was our first choice," Wolff said. "The officials were great, our fans are amazing. We just couldn't get the land."

E-mail Carolyn Jones at carolynjones@sfchronicle.com.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2007, 5:20 AM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
I find the whole A's staduim thing to be a shame on many levels

More bad planning
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2007, 8:15 AM
BigKidD's Avatar
BigKidD BigKidD is offline
designer&stuff
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: KCMO (Plaza)
Posts: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco_Zig View Post
I find the whole A's staduim thing to be a shame on many levels

More bad planning
That's no worse than them potentially being called the Athletics at Fremont. And I thought the Angels name was rubbish.
__________________
“Most planning of the past fifteen years has been based upon three destructive fallacies: the cataclysmic insists upon tearing everything down in order to design from an absolutely clean slate; the automotive would plan for the free passage of the automobile at the expense of all other values; the suburban dislikes the city anyway and would just as soon destroy its density and strew it across the countryside.” Vince Scully
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2007, 5:56 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigKidD View Post
That's no worse than them potentially being called the Athletics at Fremont. And I thought the Angels name was rubbish.
Agreed. I even thought "Fremont A's of Oakland" had potential, but this is just sickening. I also dont like the size of the stadium in terms of seating capacity, it should be able to sit at least 40000. The development around the stadium seems like a good idea, but the central point of focus is all wrong, in my opinion.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
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 > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:00 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.