Oakland's Coliseum City Site Plan

Three months ago, Floyd Kephart, the Chairman of a hedge fund advisory firm, was given 90 days to ink letters of interest with the Oakland Raiders and Athletics in order to get the City’s proposed $2 billion “Coliseum City” development off the ground, a project which has been in the works for over two years.

With Kephart’s extension set to expire tomorrow, and neither the Raiders nor the Athletics having agreed to a development deal, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf is proposing another 90 day extension for Kephart while allowing the Raiders and A’s to propose competing development plans for the site as well.

Coliseum City Entertainment District

As currently envisioned, the 800-acre Coliseum City would rise upon Oakland’s existing Coliseum site and 550 acres of adjacent land on the other side of I-880, with nearly 6,000 units of housing; 500,000 square feet of retail; and nearly 7 million square feet of science, technology, office, and industrial space in addition to a new NFL Stadium and ballpark for MLB.

Coliseum City Master Plan Concept

A high-profile push by Colony Capital and Dubai-based businessman Rashid Al-Malik failed to secure a developer for the project, nor a letter of interest from either the Raiders or A’s, in 2013.

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by sassyboyfrisco

    Building a new public stadium at the corner of murder and homicide (aka Oakland)…well…perhaps that’s the holdup….pardon the pun.

    • Posted by cfb

      Don’t be an idiot. Oakland has a lot of nice parts and has crime is dropping too.

      • Posted by Bertie Anglis

        This resident of one of the “nice parts” was recently robbed/murdered in broad daylight in a nature preserve in one of the “nice parts.”

        • Posted by cfb

          You think people don’t ever get robbed or murdered in nice parts of other cities? Such as SF, for example? Fun fact: multiple people have been shot and robbed in Pacific Heights in SF over the past decade…also, Forest Hill too, among others. Both are ultra wealthy and nice SF neighborhoods. Where are your complaints about that? It must be fun (I guess?) living in a fantasy land where Oakland is somehow an ultra scary and dangerous Mad Max re-enactment x 1,000 + infinity, over every single square inch of land, 24/7, while other cities like SF are somehow sparkling utopias in comparison.

          • Posted by Ham

            It’s not just SF that thinks that, it’s pretty much the whole country. And there’s validity to it.

          • Posted by curmudgeon

            Ham, there’s some validity, certainly. Oakland’s murder rate is about 4X San Francisco’s, and it remains a dangerous City, in parts (particularly East Oakland). However, as cfb points out, the murder rate is dropping significantly…about 50% in a few years, with 2014 clocking in at 80 murders (vs 40 something for SF) STILL WAY TOO MUCH, but heading in the right direction.

          • Posted by Bertie Anglis

            I definitely don’t think that SF is a utopia. Nor do I think Oakland is some post-apocalyptic hell hole. (Mad Max? Really?). The point is that even in the “safe” areas of Oakland, there’s a lot of crime. Oakland boosters frequently claim that violent crime there is limited to the “unsafe” parts of town, and that’s either misleading or deluded.

            Here’s another example of what I mean. Dimond is one of the “safe” areas of Oakland, and this woman was shot in her home.

          • Posted by Ham

            And what’s with that mob of angry people protesting at 5am at the new mayor of Oakland’s home? Because she met with the police leaders? Guess what, a mayor and the police have and should have one of the tightest relationships in government. Another only in Oakland moment. Not even the mayor is safe.

    • Posted by sassyboyfrisco

      here ya go…EDUCATE yourselves…read link to FBI crime rates…as the stats are factual.

      OAKLAND is #2 for 2013 as FBI MOST VIOLENT CRIME CITY in USA.
      …up from #3 in 2012…and on its way to #1 in 2014!!!
      Happy reading…
      2. Oakland, Calif.
      > Violent crimes per 100,000: 1,977
      > Population: 403,887
      > 2013 murders: 90 (20th highest)
      > Poverty rate: 19.5% (135th highest)
      > Pct. of adults with high school degree: 80.9% (62nd lowest)

      Oakland reported nearly 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in 2013. Moreover, the city reported 1,219 robberies per 100,000 residents, the most of any large American city. In addition to violent crime, property crime was also quite high in the city, at over 6,200 such incidents per 100,000 residents last year. By comparison, the national rate was 2,731 per 100,000 residents.

      [Editor’s Note: Speaking of educating oneself, from the FBI with respect to the use of their Uniform Crime Reporting data as ranked by your source above:

      “UCR data are sometimes used to compile rankings of individual jurisdictions and institutions of higher learning. These incomplete analyses have often created misleading perceptions which adversely affect geographic entities and their residents. For this reason, the FBI has a long-standing policy against ranking participating law enforcement agencies on the basis of crime data alone. Despite repeated warnings against these practices, some data users continue to challenge and misunderstand this position.”

      The FBI’s base report and stats: Crime in the United State 2013. Now back to the Coliseum City plans…]

      • Posted by Frank C.

        People used to say the same thing about NYC in the 70s and 80s, and throw out similar terrible stats. Do you get off on dumping on Oakland? Do you also think that because Oakland has crime problems, that it always will, or that it’s impossible to improve? Or that its current trend is not improving?

      • Posted by Orland

        And all largely irrelevant to the issue of the proposed development at hand.

  2. Posted by B

    Neither team wants to be there, sorry. Raiders would love to move back to LA and the A’s want to go to San Jose or Fremont. They give lip service when asked but they are not putting any effort into making Oakland work.

    • Posted by cfb

      The A’s aren’t ending up in SJ. That’s giants territory, and SJ keeps losing at its attempts to change that.

    • Posted by Orland

      Guess what. .. LA wants “their” Rams back from St. Louis and the A’s aren’t going anywhere.

      Now, let’s find a solution to the current unacceptable situation.

    • Posted by flowmotion

      I think it’s very possible that Lew Wolff will build a baseball stadium in exchange for the Coliseum land/development rights. However, first the Raiders have to go (and they will go).

  3. Posted by cfb

    I hope this gets built, stadium or not. A bunch of new housing and office space sounds nice

    • Posted by foggydunes

      Agree- would it work out economically to develop this without the sports facilities? Also, all of the SF vs Oakland nonsense is just silly– new housing and office space near BART would help all of the Bay Area. And I like that it looks like they’re looking at improving the waterfront/wetlands/creeks.

  4. Posted by eflat

    I think it is a great plan. too bad the A’s and Raider’s don’t see that. The football stadium is especially appealing to me, now that Jed Dork has taken the 9ers 45 miles south, I have no intention of going to Levi Stadium to see the 9ers, just watch them on TV. No intention of spending any of my dollars on the 49ers until the Yorks go back to Youngstown and sell the team

  5. Posted by woolie

    I’m highly skeptical this area can support prices needed for high-rise development, but it’s a nice vision.

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      you’re right to be skeptical. High rise development is difficult to support even in downtown. The creators of this plan were architectural visionaries, and don’t have a lick of economic sense.

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      It might be a bait and switch. Get approved based on a highrise proposal. Then back down to something smaller because of “changed economic realities”. I hope the city of Oakland protects them against such weaseling.

    • Posted by VancouverJones

      It’s good idea to trade height for public amenities. This works especially well if the first 4 floors frames the public realm and the remaining floors are offset from the street. It’s a win, win situation. The developers sell more units and public space/services are improved. We can also avoid the arguments for the midrise buildings which create a nicer humans scale built environment (this is a very nuanced approach which doesn’t work well with our current sound bite approach to development). And really, where else can this be built? If we get rid of the stadiums, you essentially a have blank slate in a very desirable, dynamic part of California.. right next to freeway, an existing mass transit line and the water… plus good weather :). What’s not to like? The only way it would not work is if they went with “towers in the park” model.

  6. Posted by VancouverJones

    1) Stadiums are NOT required for this area to be successful. All you need to do is to build an actual neighborhood… with good schools, good public transportation, high quality public space, a mixture of neighborhood serving and regular businesses and a range of housing types. People now WANT to live in cities. Those who are there now desperately want things to improve and the new comers have said over an over that they would bored to tears in the exurbs. Please, do not respond with a reference to Detroit. Detroit is the way it is because the city was abandoned (white and capital flight). Those who remained had a small measure of political power but sadly could not obtain any economic power. And besides, Detroit will come back…just as a smaller version of itself. Anyone who doubts how “the political power/ without economic power” model works need only look at the gentrification of Washington D.C.. But, I digress…

    2) Something very special is happening around the estuary: Alameda Point, Brooklyn Basin, Jack London Square, Northern Waterfront, Alameda Landing: If these neighborhoods are fully connected and urbanized we have a chance to create a wonderful, vibrant landscape that has never existed before in California. People are seriously underestimating the power of place in this case.

    3) The current model of publicly funded billion dollar stadiums HARMS the public good. It is a horrible allocation of scare public resources. Greg Easterbrook’s suggestion that a law be passed that would prevent professional sports teams from copyrighting games played in publically funded stadiums is a wonderful idea. This would force the team owners to pay for their own stadiums. They would still make boat loads of money since they produce a wonderful entertainment product.

  7. Posted by Booger

    You know what will make Oakland nice? GENTRIFICATION!

    Maybe in 20 years, Oakland will be able to get its act together. I think this may happen once San Francisco is completely unaffordable. Redwood City and all of the Peninsula is already headed in that direction.

    Oakland is a joke!

    • Posted by Willow

      Booger: Where have you been the last 10 years? The Brooklynization of Oakland is well under way. Go check out Uptown, JLS, North Oakland, Temescal, West Oakland etc. Add to that the traditional nicer neighborhoods like Rockridge, Lake Merritt & Montclair and Oakland is already out of reach for many people.
      Like the Mission and Hayes Valley, people are moving to Oakland in significant numbers in spite of the very real crime problem…

      • Posted by Brian M

        Doesn’t matter to people like “Booger”. All he sees is that there are still too many Blahhhs living there. Hence, the call for ethnic cleansing.

        • Posted by Brian M

          Not even sure why “booger” cares anyway. There is always Los Altos or Irvine. Safe and already gentrified!

  8. Posted by tommybabe

    Stats shown above from @sassyboy re OAKLAND as a most violent crime US city look RIGHT ON to me!
    No matter how the crime data is sliced and diced…Detroit and Oakland are definitely TOP 5.
    All large cities have crime…but Oakland, esp. West Oakland…is a WAR ZONE.
    Definitely no place to build new public arenas UNLESS Oakland crime is reduced significantly.

    • Posted by Brian M

      I’ll tell you what’s a war zone…the outer suburbs. Distracted soccer moms fixing their makeup while chatting on their cell phones while piloting the Q45s and Armadas. Oops. Didn’t see that pedestrian! My hubbies lawyer will make it all better.

      But we never factor in the realities of life in Autotopia. Because we all drive, and we can sneer at the crime associated with the poors and the blahhhhs while the 60 mile commutes pile up the casualties, the air pollution, and the global warming is ignored.

      • Posted by NoeValleyJim

        Yes it is amazing that people move to the “safe” suburbs from the “dangerous” inner cities to raise their children, when even a casual look at the statistical evidence is that it puts their children’s lives in more danger. They are far more likely to die in auto accident and far less likely to be a victim of violent crime. But the autos are far more dangerous overall.

  9. Posted by JamesOak

    I’d rather rent or own a place in Oakland than share an apartment in SF with 2-4 other people. Sure it can be fun to have roomies, but after a while one needs to think about growing up. If you can afford SF market rate rent, that’s awesome. If you can afford to buy in SF, even better. SF is pretty and offers a lot more attractions and entertainment, but it’s only a 15 minute BART ride away. Yah you have to be a little more careful about your surroundings in Oakland, but having moved from the city, it’s not what people think it is. Stay out of the bad areas and you’ll be fine. Same applies to bad hoods in SF.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles