The exciting first rumors about Kroenke in Denver and Wolstein in Cleveland were that they wanted to build downtown soccer specific stadiums. Now it sound like they're looking more towards building suburban stadiums as the centerpieces of suburban soccer complexes, a la Frisco. The first MLS specific venues were shunted to the burbs - Columbus wanted a downtown stadium, Galaxy talked about something near the Staples Center, and we've come to accept the high concept of "Metro" stars. I had hopes for Chicago, but it looks like they'll land wherever they can get a good land deal. This is despite the trend in all other sports - building downtown stadiums with character, showpieces that bring people together and back into the city, utilizing revamped infrastructure. IMO, this trend saved Major League Baseball. Are the Hunts and Anshutzes behind the times or ahead of them? It may look like they're building an audience (youth soccer families) into their venues, but will that even pan out? Minnesota Thunder plays in the middle of a major suburban soccer complex, yet they've pined for a downtown stadium for years. Seems like the HDC has been a good tool for selling new owner investors on building SSS's; hopefully they can envision other working models. I applaud the foresight behind projects like the HDC and Frisco, but I think building high profile, accessible stadiums right into the downtown structure would be the best advertisement for MLS: they tie the team to the town and the city to the sport
Noah, This is a great thread and you bring up many good points. To me, downtown is the way to go in Denver, but then you have to understand the situation. All four major sports teams play their games within walking distance. This has completely revitalized the lower downtown area, probably contributing the the growth of housing and not just bars and restaurants. You can't really do that in "downtown" LA. nor in a lot of other cities. But if the circumstances are right, it's the way to go.
It is all about the finances... What this all comes down to is the finances. Downtown = more expensive land. Whoever builds a soccer stadium has to buy 50+ acres of land, as they want more fields, parking and development the number goes up. The cost of land in an urban/downtown area is much higher than suburban land. There are ocasions where cities are making special deals because they want a downtown baseball park or basketball/hockey arena, but those are the major sports. Soccer does not have this cache with cities...yet. As long as the economies of MLS stay at their current levels, there is not going to be a team owner willing to pay the high price of downtown land. There are situations where something will make it work, but looking at overall project feasibility and the bottom line, unfortunatly downtown stadiums are not going to make the cut.
It depends on the territory. If you look for a suburb in the NY area, you put yourself off the map: Long Island, Westchester, Connecticut, New Brunswick? Fortunately for Metro, the gray site on the Passaic -- the abandoned Westinghouse plant -- was ripe for improvement on a large scale. It really is an ideal location for both public and private transportation. Chicago, Denver, Cleveland, Dallas have their unique problems with land use and availability. Rochester is able to build 'downtown' thanks to land that cried out for improvement/restoration. Go with the flow. I think the only, well-designed sss that would have a problem drawing fans would be one plunked down in the middle of the Mojave Desert.
Yes I have partaken of your juvenile drinking scene, after a rapids game, and greatly enjoyed it. And some of that new housing nearby looks pretty cool. Riverfront looking, without much of a river. Really hoping the stadium end of Kroenke's plan is close to those bars.
Re: It is all about the finances... I may be jumping the gun, but I think the economies of MLS are changing significantly as we speak. Hunt almost got his downtown stadium in Columbus. Since then, the league has put six more seasons under its belt, added major investors, and proven the SSS business model with brick, mortar and ledgers. Unlike '98 perhaps and despite the national economy, circa 2003 all the signs for MLS are positive and the buzz is good. Is NYC impressed? No. But look at cities like Rochester, Cleveland, OKC and Tulsa where the prospect of (trending-toward-fifth-major-sport) MLS and the backing of a Lamar Hunt or a Phil Anshutz might go a long way. These cities could make a real signature statement with a downtown SSS. Even in Chicago - a behemoth media market and legendary political morass - I figure AEG is getting the right meetings at least, esp. given the excellent promotion, organization and track record of the Fire.
I don't think it's accurate to call Crew Stadium's location as the "burbs". I was lucky enough to see a Crew home game in person this summer, and while the stadium certainly isn't right in downtown Columbus, it is still in the city itself and only a few miles from downtown. As to LA, would anyone really want to build a stadium downtown there? My understanding is that LA's downtown is busy only from 9 to 5 on weekdays, and pretty much becomes a ghost town on weeknights and weekends. So unlike Denver's active LoDo district, it seems to me that LA's downtown wouldn't make for a great site for a stadium.
Re: Re: Downtown stadiums vs. suburban soccer complexes That's slowly becoming less the case. Bit by bit, more "high end" housing is arriving downtown and more entertainment facilities and, other than lunch, eateries are appearing. There are major changes for a couple of sections downtown on the way as we type. The city and planners are trying hard to bring more people downtown after work hours and looking to compete in the future with areas in West LA and Pasadena.
While I agree it would be nice from a soccer viewpoint to have a stadium near most downtowns, what about from the city's viewpoint? Unlike a basketball/hockey arena that may be used for close to 150 events a year and which brings some life to the downtown area, a soccer stadium might be used for just 20 to 30 events a year. Does a (relatively) little-used stadium surrounded by a sea of parking lots add much to the downtown experience for most people? Probably not. If there's brownfield land near downtown that would otherwise go unused, then, yes, a football/soccer stadium near downtown makes sense. But otherwise I think it's better to locate the stadium in the inner suburbs where its most easily accessible for most people.
Well in most large cities, transportation hubs are closer to downtowns. If you're looking for access for the most people, in LA, for example, it would be built right next to Union Station downtown. Several freeways nearby and all the rail transportation (subway, light rail, Metro Link "heavy rail") arrives there. I would think in most cities, if you are talking about access for the most people, it's a similar situation. Most in LA, however and sadly, overlook public transport when they think of these things then curse in the gridlock and vote no on funds for public transportation (I degress).
I agree it depends on the situation (don't know if I've ever used that word so properly.) But I'd assume there's also a lot of room for creative thinking and persuasion. Selling. Anybody know where will the new SD Chargers stadium be located? Sounds like Chivas USA are fated for another black-eye location.
If we're going to build the suburban complexes, one of two (if not both) options MUST be considered: Semi-permissive tailgating, which is hard to envision if the soccer complex is geared toward youth... ..or... Can you say "Three Lions Pub?" Without charging an arm and a member, an in-stadium pub for the common folk is so very much in order. American soccer is still a long way from having the clout to get downtown stadia. Even when the finances line up, the local gridball team still wants to shut down the effort so they can extort rent payments from the soccer team.
A stadium site where the land is reasonably priced with enough room for parking, if it isn't there already. A site with enough land to build a 20-30g stadium that can be expanded, and build practice facilities on-site. A site where there is a decent amount of restaurants/bars nearby and there is good accessibility by all means of transportation. Wherever this is they should build.
Again, Denver is rather a unique situation. If they put the soccer stadium in the same area as all the other sports facilities, then they don't need to budget for parking since it's already there, much of it owned by Kroenke. (Tailgating is a big tradition for the Bronco's parking lots, so that should be no problem.) It's a difference of at least 30 acres. And I think you're a bit low on the event count since Kroenke also owns a Lacrosse team and does concert promotion. Nobody's mentioned this yet, but if the stadium was near the Pepsi Center, it would be an ideal location for Metropolitan State College, should they decide to move up to Division I with their programs.
So long as the new rapids stadium is downtown and has access to light rail...I'm cool. Preferably..it'd be close to LoDo where all the bars are.
And now the depressing truth The stadia will get built where they can be: where the land is cheap and the neighbors lack the political clout to get the whole idea blocked. This will normally be neither really in a suburb nor really downtown.
Okay...good and bad on that one: Bad: Metro still has a while to go before they can advance to Div. I. They don't have enough sports programs required and they don't have a football team. And even if they do start up a football program, there's no way they're gonna get the 20,000 attendance average necessary to maintain Div. I status. Furthermore, if you're thinking of putting the stadium on Auraria field, CU-Denver is already trying to use that land to build more classrooms. It's not confirmed yet that they will, but they're trying to acquire that land to get started. Also, it's too far away from the C-line light rail. Good: Well....maybe we students can get a discount for rapids games if they build the stadium on our campus Seriously though, I just don't think it's the best idea to build it there.
Division I soccer is what I meant. (Isn't there enough pointy-ball lines on MLS pitches already?) A school can be Division I in some sports and lower divisions in other sports. For instance, Colorado College is Dvision I in hockey and women's soccer. DU is Division I in basketball and hockey. Metro is a Division II power in basketball using a lot of foreign players. The move into top-flight soccer would be a natural.
If they build a new stadium for the Chargers it will be on the same land as the current stadium, which is connected to downtown and other parts of the city by light rail. The plan behind the new Chargers stadium is to develop the land around the stadium (currently the LARGE Qualcomm stadium parking lot) and make it higher density retail/residential with restaurants and a hotel and stuff. While the stadium would be large for Chivas, the area will have a lot of restraunts and bars + the light rail access, which would make for a neat location. Check out the link, it has a detailed plan for the new stadium. http://www.chargers.com/stadium/
Ah...I didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification. I still think that it would be a bad idea to build a stadium there though...that's just my opinion.
And here's the opportunity to work with CU... Kroenke can build the classrooms on the cheap, put a shaggy gold roof on the top with a bristly, mole-like sculpture at the main entrance and call it the El Pibe campus. Show your ticket stub at the Rathskellar for a free draft boot.