Yet, Seattle plays in a central location in the (main) city (not out in a exurb). So, maybe that 4th of 4 "conditions" (the location/downtown difference) really is significant? The reason the perception has changed in the last 12 years is because MLS has changed (matured/improved across the board and in certain markets, but certainly not in NE), and other I/Os in the league have gotten into better/different stadium realities in their market. NE still plays (30 miles) out in a Kraft NFL venue. The league (and the perception of what fans want and can get from it) has moved beyond where MLS was from 1996-2001. the Revs getting a soccer stadium in Foxboro would be no better (or worse) than MLS's stadium situations in Commerce City or Frisco. the Revs getting a soccer stadium in Boston has the potential (again depending on what the I/O and FO decide to do with their business and MLS efforts) to be more like the MLS stadium situations (and associated fandom) in Toronto, or Houston, or Portland, imo.
Is Sandy in downtown Salt Lake City? Surely Carson is in downtown Los Angeles? Is LiveStrong in downtown Kansas City? Is RFK stadium slowly but surely moving further and further away from downtown DC? Etc, etc. This insistence that the only good location for a soccer stadium is downtown is just silly. Americans are quite used to driving to sports stadiums and this belief that somehow soccer fans are different is just odd. The fact is, if the FO is competent, then the location isn't a real factor. If the FO treats the fans well and gives them a reason to show up on game day, then they will show up on game day. It's as simple as that. You put a new SSS in downtown Boston, but keep the same FO and at best you will get a bump in attendance followed by a slow decline. If the FO sucks, they'll kill the fan base regardless of the location of the stadium.
That's not the insistence. The insistence is that downtown stadiums help (by placing the stadiums in locations that require less travel time or better travel options for more people in the market). "Better locations" are better. Location is important. (Is "a centralized location" for a stadium universally important to the same degree in every market, MLS or otherwise? No. Is there some level of importance to the issue of location on the topics of successful real estate and sporting venue placement? Yes.) Americans are quite used to driving to sports stadiums (in many markets). (The group of) soccer fans (the collection of the types of people that go to MLS games and how they may differ demographically from US sports fans who go to NFL and MLB games) are "different" in some ways -- they're younger, they likely don't have as far of "regular commutes," they're likely more-urban and dependent on public transportation (in many markets), and they're "fewer in number" overall relative to the "group" of NFL fans or MLB fans. (In some ways soccer fans are "un-American" -- if the definition of an American is someone who is passionate about their local NFL or MLB team and would be willing to go out to the home NFL venue 10 times a year -- no matter the distance from their home or no matter the temperature.) Disagree with this. The location of the venue within the market will always be a factor (in some real sense). And getting back to the topic of this thread: In some real (or just perceptive) ways, yes. The definition of what "downtown DC" is has changed (somewhat) in the last 10-16 years. Arenas and stadiums (for the NBA/NHL/MLB teams) have be located/built "more downtown" within the city center of DC. The Nats no longer play at RFK, and the Caps/Wizards are not out in Landover. And the NFL team wants to (eventually or soon) get back into the city. United hoping to move to Buzzard Point, to be closer to both Nats Stadium and the revitalized areas that are popping up along the western Anacostia waterfront (and downtown/Chinatown near the NBA/NHL arena) is an effort to get/keep DC United playing in an appropriate and urban and accessible venue. (not that the RFK site isn't incredibly accessible, but there is something to the logic of a "stadium hub" concept as exists in Houston and many other markets, although the Union had to settle for 12 miles down the road in Chester -- not that that is some awful or unacceptable reality in that market.)
A downtown location may or may not be important in a particular market. In a lot of cities, "downtown" is just the business district, not a place where people hang out. Would the Galaxy have been better off with a stadium in downtown LA? Most people from LA would laugh at that notion. Like you said, stadium location is not a silver bullet for attendance woes. It can certainly help or hurt attendance. In NE, the stadium's location probably isn't helpful, but other factors are probably more responsible for the Rev's attendance decline.
And just for fun, if a downtown sports stadium is the panacea for a bad FO, please explain why the Seattle Mariners (which are located literally across the street from CenturyLink) have one of the worst attendances in MLB. I'll give you a hint, after owning the team for over a decade, the owner still has not attended a single game, including the ones they played in Japan this season.
sure, as long as we're open to discussing all things, even MLB-Seattle in a thread about the hopes for a new MLS venue for DC United... they are not a panacea. But they are (or certainly can be) good medicine. sounds like Seattle isn't much of a baseball town these days. maybe they should move their MLB venue some 30 miles down the road, and that would help address their attendance woes (even more), just as the Revs are helped by playing in a distant exurb in Foxboro, or as United "help" their attendance by playing USOC games ~30 miles up the road at the Maryland Soccerplex.
Your clearly missing the point or refusing to accept it, the absolutely irrelevant mariners is a legit example, 2000 to 2003, team was top in mlb in attendance, it was performing at a high level and the community and FO embraced each other, now nobody shows up, the team stinks and the FO has a horrible rep in town, the location in both situations had only a small impact. Where the Rev play has only a small impact as well, the relationship with the community in that area is obviously not strong, it wasnt when they were dominant, and it wont be if they have a new stadium across from fenway or anywhere else in the city. Your logic would absolutely fail if you were presenting this to Kraft or to local government pitching a new stadium.
Ummm Yes. LAG would have been better off in a downtown location. They do well where they are now, but would have done even better if the HDC was where farmers field is going to be--central location to capture the half the LA basin that won't venture to the South Bay; right next to LA live; right next to public transit that reaches north, south, east and west; and literally walking distance fror a couple of soccer crazy latino neighborhoods. AEG is hellbent on downtown to build FF for a reason. That being said location indeed is important. The front office and competent,committed ownership is more important. ............... You could hand the Rapids to several MLS ownership groups right now, and their attendance would improve significantly within two years despite the Dick's less than ideal location.
I would not worry about trying to make DCU SSS a "National Team" stadium. The country is so large, that the WNT and MNT need to continue to play at various places around the country to keep the buzz up. Especially true with qualifiers, we need to pick sites that give some degree of home field advantage or a place where ticket sales can be controlled and many of MLS SSS will fit into that category just fine. If USA needs a big stadium/event in DC, Fed Express will do fine occassionaly like when when we played Brazil. If anything, we have a nice problem of plenty of soccer friendly places now than in the past- both SSS and some NFL stadiums with grass and field size.
This. "Home field" for the USSF has to vary from game to game. It goes far beyond everyone getting a chance to see them. I am more likely to go to Azteca than Crew Stadium, but I sure as hell appreciate what Columbus fans have done there in WCQ. What news is happening on the stadium front? I enjoyed the grandiose way Levien introduced himself last month, but have not heard much since.
Not much (publicly) has happened, but the best thread (although it wanders like crazy) for news is in the DC forum at: Stadium News, Speculation & Possible Truthiness XXVII: This time with less Zzzzzzzzz