Nate Miley, an Alameda County supervisor best known in this corner of the world for suggesting tearing down the Warriors‘ arena to make way for an A’s or Raiders stadium and for saying that anyone suggesting the Oakland Coliseum could face imminent demolition is “on crack,” presented another outside-the-box idea in an Oakland Tribune op-ed on Monday that is getting attention:
First, let’s at least consider renovating the current stadium for football. This viable, practical option is more cost-effective than building one or two new stadiums. It makes use of the existing Coliseum space and location. It protects the interests of the county and taxpayers by not overcommitting to an agreement.
Miley further told the San Francisco Chronicle’s Matier and Ross that a football-only renovation of the Coliseum could be done for “about $500 million,” which conceivably the Raiders could manage without public funds.
Could this work? Would there be room for a new A’s stadium next door? Would a revamped Coliseum generate enough new revenue to make it worth Mark Davis’s while? (It almost certainly wouldn’t generate as much as an all-new stadium, but at half the price that might still be a better deal.) Who knows, really — but Miley is calling for a feasibility study, which is a terrific idea. One of the biggest mistakes that local elected officials too often make is letting team owners set the agenda; there is nothing at all wrong with responding to demands for a new stadium by saying, “That doesn’t work for us, but how about fixing up your old one?” The worst they can do is say no.
Between these two buildings, I’d say Oracle Arena is in far better shape… So you renovate the (relatively) cruddy one, and tear down the nicer one? That’s the part that makes no sense, and could easily add up to well over $1B ($500M for the renovation, $500M+ for the new baseball stadium).
Seems like a goofy idea to me. Plus, isn’t there still a bond balance against Oracle? That could be an irrelevant point; a little outstanding bond debt has rarely stopped one of these projects.
Renovating O.Co is their worst option, literally doing nothing and moving to LA is a better option.
It’s like when see a young person with a run down Honda Civic and they spend all their summer McDonalds pay checks on a spoiler that too big for the car & a muffler that sounds like a fly’s near your ear…. Upgrading a P.O.S. is never a good move, especially with the longterm in mind.
The team and the league already said no. This idea is DOA.
@Anonymous…
So (if) the team and NFL already said no..so what.
When the team and NFL come to the city/county for (more) money, the politicos, hopefully working for the taxpayers, have a leg to stand on and set the terms for playing in their sandbox. In addition, the politicos have a “viable” alternate plan that could save their job: “I didn’t want the Raiders to leave, but the greedy owner and NFL rejected the reasonable plan I put forth that made sense for our fair city. We are already on the hook for $20M/yr, why would we make our situation worse?”
What do you mean “so what?”.
It means that the plan has zero chance of happening. It’s just nice, cheap talk that accomplishes nothing, just like everything else Oakland, Alameda County, and the Raiders have talked about. This suggestion by Nate Miley was already rejected before he even wrote that opinion piece. That makes it nothing more that retroactive posturing.
Ok, I have an equally good plan:
1. Encourage the Warriors to build a privately funded stadium in SF
2. Tear the roof off of Oracle Arena
3. Cut the stadium in half both ways
4. Pull the corners out, fill in the gaps that mate with the existing stands.
Done. Football stadium.
Seriously – renovation?
@Jordan
Hey Jordan do yourself a favor and look up the concept of the sleeper car. Granted a spoiler and noise maker for the muffler will do zero to improve engine performance and money should be poured into enhancing the engine.
Also yeah if Shea couldn’t of been saved I doubt a fellow cookie in Oakland is worth re renovating.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@Anon
I think we are opposite sides here. Why would you want anything to get accomplished that would stick Oakland with yet more debt? Davis doesn’t have the $$$ to pay his own way like a Kronke and the Raiders don’t have the fan base that will pony up PSLs nor can they likely take advantage of the model that the Niners used. There is now way the raiders can do anything without taxpayers ponying up more $$. If there is a model, I haven’t seen it.
Oakland isn’t doing anything because they can’t. If they are guilty of anything, its not inaction, its not having the balls to tell the public that they are sorry, but the Raiders aren’t a viable opportunity for the city. Revisiting the remodeling proposal is Miley’s round about attempt to do that.
And it’s a stupid attempt because it was already (very recently) rejected.
You guys understand how much taxes an NLF team generates right? No to mention the direct and indirect revenue (gas, food, lodging, transportation etc) they produce. I dont think Oakland with its current economic state can afford to let these multimillion dollar companies (A’s and Raiders) leave. Especially when the city and county are still paying for stadium modifications. Hows that going to work when theres no team playing in it? As for a retrofit, I’m all for it. Only if it means updating Mt Davis (since there is still $100 milll owed for building it) and tearing down the rest of the coliseum and build a rectangle stands around the field.
@Arweeze
You obviously don’t understand that the city/county already heavily subsidize the Raiders and get basically nothing of value in return.
Ive said it before build a new Stadium around MT DAVIS that part is not that old and it wouldnt cost that much. Oakland still has alot of debt on that
makes the most sense.
JC, I agree with your article but it led me to one question. I thought that people already paid for PSL’s when Mount Davis was constructed? Would they be able to sell a new round if they built a new stadium today? In general, do people get a refund on PSL’s if the stadium is later torn down and replaced?
If I remember right, Oakland sold PSLs that expire after ten years. Which explains why no one bought them, because what’s the point of an investment that disappears after ten years?
“what’s the point of an investment that disappears after ten years?”
…you mean, like subsidizing a new football stadium for an NFL team?
“….It’s like when see a young person with a run down Honda Civic and they spend all their summer McDonalds pay checks on a spoiler that too big for the car & a muffler that sounds like a fly’s near your ear…. Upgrading a P.O.S. is never a good move, especially with the longterm in mind…”
And new car dealers everywhere relax, contented and yet strikingly tumescent. If you repeat a lie often enough, your customers will believe it.
Remember back in when you could build a whole new NFL stadium for $500M? Not that the taxpayers should be funding it either way, but it is amazing how much cost of an acceptable stadium has gone up.
For my amusement I looked up the inflation adjusted cost of the current NFL stadiums (from wikipedia, excluding renovations except for major renovations in Chicago, New Orleans, Oakland, and Green Bay, and of course subject to all the normal tricks to hide the true cost of stadium construction):
NYJ 1730
NYG 1730
DAL 1430
SF 1300
CHI 989
NO 813
IND 789
PHI 656
CIN 623
DET 564
SEA 564
DEN 534
ARI 532
OAK 486
HOU 462
STL 433
NE 426
TEN 411
CLE 401
GB 383
PIT 374
CAR 373
WAS 368
ATL 360
MIN 334
BAL 318
TB 244
KC 242
MIA 239
SD 196
JAC 187
BUF 123
I don’t have time to read the whole article but I’ve always said that the Mt. Davis/less than 20 year old side of the stadium is fine and modern enough. What they need to do is tear down the baseball side of the coliseum and replicate the Mt. Davis on that side then build smaller seating in the end zones. You could easily fit 50,000 plus in that and it would cost a lot less than building from scratch.
I think it would be cheaper for the city of Oakland give away Southwest airfare to each existing Oakland season ticket holder to fly into LAX than to build another monstrosity.
facw:
The staggering increase in cost of ‘stadia’ in the past 20 years is truly something to behold. However, we need to look at not only what level of amenity is now considered “acceptable” for a ‘stadium’, but also what constitutes a stadium itself.
Stadia today have the bars and entertainment districts that used to be built up by private concerns around them included within their boundaries. We are not so much building stadia with public funds as we are building entire districts.
30-40 years ago we used tax dollars (sometimes) to build facilities that could accommodate 50-60,000 fans for 3 hours. Now we build entire communities for perhaps twice that number (including tailgaters, bar patrons and the like) for 2-3 times as long.
I would argue that construction costs are only a modest component of the shocking increase in ‘facility costs’ paid by the public.
Yep, not only do you have the question of what to do with the Coliseum, but once the Warriors have their new place in San Francisco, the Bay Area will have three arenas and only two major indoor sports teams (Sharks/Warriors). What to do with Oracle?
Mark, how about the Sharks relocate their minor league team at the Coliseum Arena? Thaey can call them the Oakland Seals. I still have a 1969 pennant ready.
Still seems to come down to Oakland not being able to keep both the A’s and Raiders.
@Sparky – At least some warm bodies could go through the turnstiles a few dozen nights a year!
3 teams is too many for an area the size of the East Bay. One is leaving. Another should go, but the remaining franchise will own that town.