Apparently PSV wants to build on Butler Shores by Lady Bird Lake. It's a tight space, but it could work: http://www.statesman.com/sports/soc...austin-soccer-stadium/9bF8P50sw5ybPPdZB2CoiK/ In another thread in this forum I suggested a location in Pleasant Valley in south Austin. But it's become clear since then that PSV is determined to build downtown. So my suggestion won't work.
A stadium with zero parking, with a playing surface below the water table of an adjacent body of water. With no architect credit anywhere on the rendering (unless they hastily added one after the fact). Sounds solid.
I am concerned about parking as well. I would prefer if they built a parking ramp next to the stadium. Although that would pretty much eliminate the remaining green space. I am sure they are not going to build below the water table if it's unsafe to do that. As for the lack of an architect credit on the rendering, I don't know who drew this up, but it looks professionally done. What difference does it make who drew it up? This is just a conceptual drawing. The actual stadium won't look like this.
Quite the conundrum. On the one hand, stadium! On the other hand, no place for the people to, ya know, put their transport. So...are they going to truck in one metric ********ton of dirt (thereby making it physically harder to fit into the given footprint)? I can fire up any of a number of tools on the laptop in front of me and do the same thing. It matters because this is a naked admission that they've got nothing but vaporware and are desperately trying to keep up with the information coming out and providing cover for their amateur hour antics that have been months-to-years in the making. It's pathetic.
My first thought when I read that the stadium would be below ground level, was that it's going to be like a flipping furnace in there in the summer. Can they air condition an outdoor stadium?
They forgot the teleportation devices in the renderings, which is the only way you’re gonna get 20,000 people to the intersection of Lamar and Riverside on game days.
I agree. Any downtown location is going to create big traffic and parking problems. But MLS is convinced that downtown stadiums are the way to go.
Except in New England, DC, Colorado, Dallas, New Jersey, Chicago, NYC (arguable), LA... And Columbus' stadium is closer to the city center than a good portion of the league.
I thought it was clear what I meant. But since it wasn't, I will explain. MLS is NOW convinced that downtown stadiums are the way to go. MLS was not convinced of that 10 years ago.
---------Minnesota is half way between the 2 downtowns, but a very urban location. Drove by the site in October.
No, but very, very urban, not far off in suburbia like your Rapids for example. Or like NSC where they used to play. I went there, really far out. Dicks and NSC really have nothing to walk too, fine for tailgating though, hosting soccer tournys etc. The new location is at an intersection of 2 of the most major boulevards in the region, the east/west street has the light rail and the north/south street has the rapid bus. Also 2 colleges nearby and lots of commercial activity, which over time will morph into more restaurants, bars etc. Plus if the rest of the site plan comes to be, its like a city within a city, plus some public open space. I have been to away games for all current 22 teams in the league and I have no worries with Minnesota's stadium set up.
Not saying there's a concern. Just saying its hard to take the idea that "MLS is convinced that downtown stadiums are the way to go" when the last expansion team isn't having a downtown stadium and in its history the league has only built two downtown stadiums. The league is convinced a sustainable stadium plan i the way to go, that's all. Shockingly, that's different depending on the city. In Austin's case, they don't have a sustainable plan yet, I'm unconvinced they'll have one before the move is official.
---------------LAFC is also about as downtown as one is going to get as well in LA. Looks like Miami one day will be also. Sacramento is truly downtown next to the regional train station and light and looks like Nashville will be just south of downtown, much like the distance LAFC will be. I am good with these upcoming choices. MLS is not the NFL or MLB where cities will find a way and location for a stadium, or for an indoor arena for that matter. -- The MLS should simply state the stadium if not "downtown", should be at least "urban", rather than "suburban".
Then they'd have to admit that Columbus isn't so bad after all, as it's very much urban - more so than a bunch of the league. See, I think the point here is that the league loves to put forward the image that there is a preferred "answer", but that they continually move those goalposts, and people like Dave buy whatever it is they're selling at the current moment, so long as it benefits them.
The league should simply state the stadium plan must be sustainable for a MLS team in that metro area, period. If that means Chester, that's fine. If that means downtown Orlando, that's fine. If that means the Ohio St. Fairgrounds, that's fine too.
Editorial in the Austin American-Statesman today about the lack of parking at the proposed site: http://viewpoints.blog.mystatesman.com/2017/12/11/downtown-soccer-stadium-will-need-parking-options/
LOL You misspelled “literally across 56th Avenue from the City and County of Denver, in the most industrial part of the metro area.”
So then putting a stadium in a rundown part of town, a mile away from a large oil refinery, qualifies?