Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Atlanta' started by DavidP, Oct 28, 2009.
Discuss, in light of the recent AJC articles. Sorry, don't have a link.
well since you have no article... can to tell us what you are talking about then?!
This may be what he was referring to...
New Stadium vs Renovation
Open air vs Dome
Personally I would like a new stadium, and definately open air. However, I do like the location of the Dome (even though the Doraville plant is closer to home for me). I just think that any stadium should be in Atlanta.
Yes, that's it.
Oh yeah, thanks for the link.
Well I personally prefer open air. I really think if Blank wants to get a MLS team they must have a seperate soccer specific stadium though. Ideally they should move the Falcons to an open air stadium at the Doraville location, gut the dome and put in a soccer stadium downtown. The biggest problem is that would be mega expensive. Realistically they'll probably renovate the dome and maybe build a really cheap soccer stadium out in the burbs somewhere.
I just feel that having a soccer stadium downtown with marta access would attract fans, while falcons games will attract crowds no matter where they play. All we need now is a team to play in whatever stadium we might get...
what i dont get is....why cant they do what Chicago do and just play somewhere else if the Dome is so bad for Blank? Legion Field in Birmingham or Sanford Stadium are ok places to play until the Dome is torn down and gutted.
They could play at Tech (or even UGA), if they'd let them, while the Dome is being retrofitted/rebuilt/etc. Personally, I doubt the Dome is that "bad;" it's just that it may not have some of the bells and whistles that some of the newer stadia have, i.e. abundance of luxury boxes, etc. Blank just spent a buttload of money on refurbishments. Of course, he wasn't in the mix when it was built; that was Rankin Smith's doing.
I don't want Atlanta's team sharing an NFL stadium, especially in light of New England's and Red Bulls experience. And yes, I'm aware Seattle has been successful in an NFL stadium, but I believe they are the exception.
Well, Blank seems to put 150% in everything he does (Is that actually possible? ), so I doubt you'd have the same problems the Revs and the Bulls have, especially if Blank owned the team. Of course, he doesn't own the Dome, but his MLS team would certainly not be treated like the proverbial "red-headed stepchild." I'm sure the World Congress Center (owns the Dome) would gladly accommodate MLS, seeing tat they might lose the whole thing if they make Blank mad.
I would hope that an Atlanta MLS team gets a separate stadium somewhere in the 18,750-20,000 range that could be expanded to 25,000 if the demand is there. You could do it relatively cheaply and it would help to increase demand if the place was packed as opposed to playing in an NFL stadium. FWIW, I used to live north of Boston and went to numerous Revs games at the old Foxboro Stadium and the Razor. Miserable fan experiences and it stinks being in someone else's home.
Interesting article from Portfolio.com giving their opinion on what cities could support new franchises in various sports. Interestingly enough, while they hit quite a few cities in the south-east, they do not show Atlanta as a valid option in MLS.
Very interesting that they have cities like Bradenton FL, Columbia SC, and Little Rock, but not Atlanta. Maybe the argument is that we've already got too many sports.
It's more like they're propagating the myth that we're all a bunch of inbred rednecks that don't like "sissy" sports like "sawker," when all they have to do is go out to places like Douglasville or Hiram, and see all the Camaros and F-150s parked at the soccer fields, and see Bubba and Clem, both with "C" licenses, coaching little Elvis and Bobbie Sue.
In all actuality, based on past performance, MLS shouldn't even exist, because Seattle, San Jose, and NY were the only places that drew decently (15,000+) out of current MLS cities that had MLS teams. No other current MLS/NASL cities (TO, Chicago, LA, Colorado (either time,w/Dynamos or the Caribous), New England, Dallas, am I leaving anybody out?) drew close to 20,000, or even 15,000, on a regular basis; most were in the 5-12,000 range.
"You could do it relatively cheaply..."
Really? Pray tell, where? Bremen, maybe?
Perhaps cheap wasn't the correct word. Comparablly inexspensive? An MLS stadium could be built for less than an NFL stadium . How much is the KSU stadium going to costs?
KSU - $16 million, I think. But it only seats around 8500, more or less. It was, however, built to be expanded to 20,000, if and when KSU gets football.
I think Boris spent about $20 mill on his, but that was including all the site prep work, I imagine. But he has a 3-4000 seat stadium, a couple of fields, and a gravel parking lot, but I'm sure he makes some $$ with the fields with his leagues and tourneys.
I mean if the Beat stadium looks like the renderings and only costs $16mil, that IS cheap. My High school's new gym facilities cost us $66mil.
There's a little bit more to a gym than there is a stadium.
I don't see the problem with designing it from the get go to be good for both like Seattle did. It isn't like they built it 100% for the seahawks and then threw in the Sounders, it was designed with both in mind from the beginning.