The latest images from the A's stadium saga, these being a possible San Jose stadium.
Registered User
The latest images from the A's stadium saga, these being a possible San Jose stadium.
"Andre Dawson has a bruised knee and is listed as day-to-day...Aren't we all?"
Registered User
Are those c c co co col col COLUMNS?
Registered User
I like this design a hell of a lot better than the other one.
Registered User
Not a fan of the seat angles in the left field corner, not to mention the fact that you enter the upper deck seating from the top and have to walk quite a bit to get down to the front row. Other than that, not a bad design, less gimicky of an outfield arrangement than the Oakland version.
Enter Sand-man.
Really nice. Fits that city and fanbase perfectly. Classy looking joint.
Registered User
maybe they'll have a few $$$'s for players after the neukom bow-tie and the gi-ants $tick it to 'em...
Registered User
Kind of reminds me of that minor league park huntington or something. Better than what they have but I li ke the old one better.
The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time.
Registered User
If columns bring fans closer to the field and the team recognizes obstructed view seats and discounts tickets for them, I've got no problem with it. Upper decks on most new stadiums are way too far from the field. I think fans will enjoy that "on top of the field" view like they used to have at Tiger Stadium, Old Comiskey, and so many others.Originally Posted by chip
Birds and Fish
They're still calling it Cisco Field? I thought the name died with the Fremont proposal.
Marlins' magical, mystical backstop fish! Now starting for the Toronto Blue Jays!
Good Grief.
Where are these images from?
Google couldn't provide me with any recent news on the stadium. Is there actually progress?
Last edited by JohnCropp; 08-23-2010 at 06:10 PM.
8 17 14 31 37 41 42
Registered User
Cisco has been getting free pub out of the A's park proposals for several years now. Doubt they've paid a dime for their prospective naming rights.
Good Grief.
The angling of the seats down the third baseline make it seem like it would work well as a football venue as well.
Or soccer...
8 17 14 31 37 41 42
Registered User
1. That upper deck is too large for it to not be terraced.
2. That building down the left-field line will obstruct the views of whomever sits in the top-right quadrant of the adjacent section.
3. If you're going to build columns in the seating bowl, at least align them with the aisles like at US Cellular Field.
Registered User
There hasn't been an upper deck built that low and close to the diamond since...1912?
Registered User
The best way to keep up with everything going on is http://newballpark.org/. These images came from a post on http://www.athleticsnation.com/2010/...eld-renderings.
"Andre Dawson has a bruised knee and is listed as day-to-day...Aren't we all?"
Good Grief.
It looks to me that the upper deck has been patterned off of Dodger Stadium.
If I counted correctly, the Cisco upper deck has about 40 rows while the Dodger Stadium upper deck has about 40 with the last ten or so behind an aisle.
Last edited by JohnCropp; 08-24-2010 at 05:41 AM.
8 17 14 31 37 41 42
Registered User
I like it. It's small and quaint. The OV seats don't bother me bc I know that most games wan't draw crowds large enough to warrant the sale of those seats. If demand is high enough for people to buy OVs, they'll suck it up and like it. It doesn't seem to bother anyone at Wrigley and Fenway.
The benefit of having an upper deck close to the field outweighs the negativity of having a few OVs.
Last edited by RfkFedEx; 08-24-2010 at 09:37 AM.
Registered User
Here is a quick take on what I think a section through the ballpark would look like.
I only count about 22 rows in the upper deck. I’m also showing what the sight lines could be like if they push the upper deck that close to the field.
Registered User
The support columns don't look like they push the upper deck that far out over the lower deck. Could just be the picture, but the overhang looks tiny, and it would be hard to justify support columns in a brand new ballpark unless they really push the upper deck closer to the field. Maybe it's just hard to see in the picture, and the overhang really is bigger. The intimacy of this place comes from the upper deck not being really high up. But other HOK-era parks seem to have bigger overhangs than this one without any columns, like Busch, Petco, and the new Marlins ballpark.
If the ballpark layout looks like chip's drawing, then those are some really awful seats in the back third of the lower deck. I love the idea of having an old-style upper deck, but it's going to be a hard sell to build a park with obstructed views in every section, especially when the Giants don't have any columns at all. Team owners aren't going to improve upper deck seats at the expense of so many higher-priced lower deck seats.
Last edited by marlins739; 08-24-2010 at 09:53 AM.
1997 2003
Parks I've visited: 30 for 30, plus 5 closed
Registered User
It looks to me like the upper deck is strait above the shadow line on the first base side.
So I counted the number of rows back to the shadow and started the upper deck there. I then count the rows from the shadow back to the columns and place them there. I ended the lower deck in line with the last row of the upper deck which is a total guess on my part.
Registered User
I love it.
Registered User
Here is something interesting.
My section drawing with my section of Dodger Stadium sharing the same home plate location.
Registered User
Looks good, hope they build it.
Registered User
Registered User
'ya mean the taxpayers?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks