Really, yes. I assume the Earthquakes will get their stadium at the airport, but if that falls apart, everything is on the table.
SC? To play where, exactly? Cow Palace? I love definitive, Shermanesque statements. Where are the Raiders going now? Is this 1980? Where's Bill Robertson, has he been briefed? And where are the A's going?
Only holds 10,000 correct, but they don't sell out each game or have SRO to increase it. Fact is the Earthquakes have failed a few times. If they could draw more fans then present a 20,000 seat or better stadium would be built in no time.
Yes i have been to Oakland and even had the pleasure of watching an A's game with about 7,500 other fans. We wanted to boo, but we were almost outnumbered by the players. How the A's stay there is uncomprehensible. Why they haven't moved to Sacramento, Las Vegas, or even Fargo, ND is beyond me. Either way if you do travel to or through Alameda County be sure to stock up on uncontaminated water and Stimpaks.
Santa Clara. Or more specifically what is now a parking lot for Great America Amusement Park, across a ditch from the main Cisco Systems campus in San Jose. Frankly, it's a pretty good location.
Sacto and Vegas are smaller markets without major league stadiums and major league aspirations, it seems like. As for Oakland...well, there's no there there. That's about as apt as it's been put.
The A's are going to San Jose, somewhere else in Oakland, or out of the Bay Area. The owners and MLB will not allow them to remain in the Coliseum for much longer. They've all made that very clear. The Raiders meanwhile have stated they want a new stadium and will potentially have several options soon be it Santa Clara or Los Angeles. I'm not making "Shermanesque" statements. Anyone who hasn't been under a rock in the Bay Area knows these things.
Yes because THAT's what's holding up the stadium... Please refrain from commenting on things you know nothing about... thanks.
LOL! what a GOOF...first off no matter what you see in the news or how high the crime rate is, oakland(kill me for saying this) is a beautiful city...the downtown kissing the bay with financial district(s.f) in view(kinda), also the bay bridge in view...ever been to seattle? its like a 24/7 car wash, always raining(so is london but its a 300x better city ) and boring city...........yeah, oakland is no fall out 3.......it aint no candy land either, nor is san jose OR LA.........so why dont you go back in your hole and not talk about the bay area from a tourist POV.
...and I've seen 3,500 fans at the Colisseum on fireworks night. Not sure what the A's abysmal attendance has to do with anything. Like futurequakeskeeper said, in all actuality, Oakland is one of the most beautiful cities the country.
Certain parts of Oakland are indeed pretty, but I don't know I'd go that far to say its one of the most beautiful cities in the country. But it's better than many give it credit for. The Oakland Hills immediately spring to mind. Conversely some parts of Oakland could stand in for Fallout 3 (Baby Iraq and West Oakland come to mind). It's all a matter of where you are in the city. Oakland's problem is that its bad parts are worse than most other cities of equal size. Oakland is California's Newark or Detroit, ignoring that is just trying to bury your head in the sand. I mean come on, Oakland's murder rate is still 3.5x the national average.
This was said about Gertrude Stein's childhood home being gone upon her return. It's not an indictment of the city.
Making it clear and making it happen are two very different things. Their lease expires this year, right? Let's see the options. The actual options. When you say absolutely they're moving soon, that's Shermanesque. The woods are littered with the bones of people who thought they had stadium solutions figured out.
LOL at Oakland being California's Newark or Detroit. I've never been to Newark (I've only heard terrible terrible things) but I have been to Detroit on more than one occasion and I can't possibly put into words how offended I am right now lol. I honestly don't know how anyone can spend any amount of time in either city and possibly draw a comparison between the two. Absolutely ridiculous. Obviously Oakland has its bad parts. Geographically the city is actually physically divided in half by the 580 freeway, with the areas below the freeway being predominantly bad and the areas above featuring some of the most sought after real estate in the country. 50-50 in terms of the hood vs. million dollar plus homes. That's definitely NOT Detroit. I'm not going to get into too many details but Oakland really is the hidden jewel of the west coast. Washington DC, San Jose CA, and Bridgeport CT, are the only cities in the country with a higher percentage of residents with bachelor's degrees. In terms of languages spoken it's the most diverse city in the country by far with over 150 different languages documented. The best weather, the best food, beautiful scenery, a diverse and educated populace, located at the center of a thriving metro area, yeah, that sounds like post-apocalyptic Fallout 3 to me.
You must've missed the part of my post where I said Oakland has some really nice parts and indeed you are right most of the nice parts are east of 580. Be offended all you want, but to deny it doesn't have parts that are some of the most dangerous places to be is just naive. I'm sorry you don't like to hear the reality, but the reality is that Oakland per capita is the most violent and dangerous city in California, bar none. And it is 6th most dangerous in the country with Newark and Detroit being two of the more dangerous cities when talking murder rate, when talking violent crime Newark is shockingly safer. And this is after Oakland's crime rates have fallen in the last few years.
And you can cite statistics all you want, referring to Oakland as the "Detroit of California" is pretty ignorant. Anybody whose actually been to both cities can tell you that they're really incomparable. There's more to any city, Detroit included, than crime stats. Don't let the internet dictate everything you know.
I don't. I've been to Oakland more times than I can remember and have visited Detroit as well. Many parts of Oakland could stand in for Detroit. Don't let your love of Oakland cloud your view of it. Oakland has some VERY nasty areas.
How many fans would Seattle draw if they played in a stadium that had bench seating with no legroom and porta potties outnumbering normal bathroom facilities? Having 10,000 show up at Buck Shaw is not bad considering the conditions.
The roughest areas of any mid-major city could stand in for Detroit (whatever that even means), it doesn't make a direct comparison valid. Again, referring to Oakland as the Detroit of CA is absurd and few people, if any, will agree with you on that .
Oakland is the most violent and dangerous city per capita in California. Do you dispute that? Saying Oakland is California's Detroit may have been off base in that I should be saying it is California's St. Louis, since St. Louis is actually the most dangerous city in America per capita and one of only 3 cities over 200,000 more dangerous than Oakland (the other two being Detroit and Memphis). You can choose to ignore this reality, but I'm not going to candy coat the situation in Oakland just because you don't like the facts.
God help us if the Quakes are still in Buck Shaw in 20+ years when the Bay Area is considered for a second team.