This is not good for Sacramento's future as a soccer city or for the future of this USL Pro team: Elk Grove eyes $100 million stadium as economic catalyst I've heard about this before, and written it off as a nonsensical pipe dream, but the fact that this won't go away has me worried. Worried, because Elk Grove is a horrible location to put any kind of regional attraction, including a professional sports stadium. Elk Grove is just about the last place I would want a Sacramento team to be, let alone the very southern edge of Elk Grove: This is one of the worst locations I would want to put a stadium. The choice is, frankly, stupid. It would basically add a 20 minute (if not more) commute time to nearly everyone in the region who wants to attend soccer matches. Instead of a 20 minute drive for people from Davis or Woodland, it's now 40 minutes. Instead of a 30 minute drive for people from Roseville or Folsom, it's now 50 minutes. ..Now double those numbers when you consider a round trip. Then consider there is absolutely no public transit to this location (no buses, no light rail, no heavy rail), it isn't bike-able, isn't walkable. You're now forcing everyone who lives in Sacramento to travel a longer distance, by car, to attend games. You're alienating youth and college kids who have proven to be integral parts in successful fan bases in MLS. You're making it more difficult for people to go and see your product. It is at the absolute edge of the sprawling Sacramento metropolis, when the best place to put such a venue is always, always the closest to the urban core as possible; the most easily accessible as possible to the most amount of people as possible. This location is precisely the antithesis. It would severely hamper support for the team and attendance. BIG mistake. The point is: if Elk Grove builds a stadium, then hopes of having a successful USL Pro team, much less an MLS team in Sacramento someday, can go out the window. Every fan of soccer in Sacramento should oppose Elk Grove's plan. Write to their city council, write to your city council, get the word out. Elk Grove just wants to get a short-term development boom and bring money in for short term gain. It will hurt the Sacramento region as a whole in the long run. If you want soccer in Sacramento, get the word out.
Elk Grove would be a disaster. And I have to think MLS knows this. That's why I'm still not hugely worried about this despite the persistence of the chatter. I might have worried about something like this more in 2005 when MLS needed the cash. But today? They've got a dozen cities that want an MLS team. You really think they'll go to Elk Grove before those other places? You really think this stadium will be built without MLS green-lighting a team first? I don't. This is vaguely like the Cosmos situation in NY. Just more podunk.
I've never been down to EG or Galt or anywhere in that neck of the county. In my Sac State days, I'd most like to hang out either downtown or in Davis, or just around campus. I was looking up the population figures for EG, and it's put at about 155,000. Is RT really that bad down there? If so, how sad. As far as EG building a stadium without an MLS team? Well....see Charleston Battery. ETA: Oh, never mind about RT. Those e-Tran busses I saw last month on a trip up to campus were EG's. Interesting.
More deluded podunk politicians. Someone needs to show them how (not) well the Fire stadium has worked out for the city of Bridgeview.
Fresno, Carson, Bridgeview all have MLS teams. Elk Grove is a suburb of Sacramento. QuietType raises some good questions that the organization and the village must take into account before this decision, Mr. quiet, I recommend you look up the Village of Bridgeview economic problems and Toyota Park and pass that along some of the consul members, that may scare them away from voting to build a stadium.
Elk Grove would be a very bad location for an MLS stadium. I echo @QuietType's comments. A stadium in the suburbs would not be appealing for MLS expansion. Don Garber was quoted saying that they are looking for urban core locations with easy access to public transport. If we want to do it right for the Sacramento region, the MLS stadium must be in a central location (downtown Sac). The local restaurants/bars, public transport, central location make it an ideal site for an MLS team to stimulate the surrounding region
That is easier said than done, the price tag would probably at least double downtown Sacramento, shit DC united will probably be happy with a suburbia stadium. No doubt down town is preferable, but it is not always possible.
That's a 5000 seater. That's not what they're talking about in Elk Grove. If Elk Grove was proposing a 5000 seater for a lower division team, then I'd have no problem with that. Fresno does not have an MLS team. They have a PDL team that plays at a minor league baseball stadium. I know from experience that Carson is actually more central and accessible to the population of Greater LA than Elk Grove is to the population of Greater Sacramento. Truth is Elk Grove makes zero sense unless, perhaps, you live in Elk Grove. And it makes even less sense when there are so many redevelopable areas around Sacramento proper -- the railyards especially.
The issue is not if a town is a suburb of a bigger one, the issue is how factible is for fans to go to the games, in other words how "in the way" of a fan the stadium is located. For what I understood Dallas stadium is out of the way for most of it fans, this is a very big reason of their low attandance. Lets take the Galaxshit as an example,(not that they have great attandance either) their stadium is located in Carson, CA a suburb of Los Angeles, a little to south for my taste but is almost in the middle of LA County and Orange ...now let imagine if their stadium was in San Bernardino, you know that their attendance will def. suck, because is completly out of the way for most of it fans. The same thing will be with a stadium build in EG, is wayyyy out of the way form the fans.
Are you seriously trying to argue that FC Dallas' stadium being 30 miles north of Dallas hasn't greatly impacted attendance? On the literal northern edge of the incredible sprawling metro region of Dallas-Ft.Worth which spans 60 miles in every direction, far away from most of the population and the urban core, with no real public transit to/from the stadium, not to mention the highway to get there is a toll road? Come on. It's precisely the reason why their attendance is lower than it should be. Regardless of the product on the field, they should easily be pulling in much higher attendance - and they would, if Pizza Hut Park was near downtown Dallas rather than a 30-minute+ drive away for most people. By comparison we wouldn't be talking about Sacramento to Elk Grove. We'd be talking about Sacramento to Lodi, or to Vacaville or Lincoln. The comparison is absurd when you think of the distance. It makes Elk Grove look like an ideal location by comparison. MLS does not want to make the same mistake they made by having FC Dallas so extremely far out in the burbs.
That's exactly why I don't support the Quakes. Sacramento is not a part of San Jose's sports market. It's a two and half hour drive from Sacramento. That's five hours of driving to go to a game.
And I'm totally fine with that. For me personally, I'm tired of Sacramento constantly being claimed by bay area sports teams. Once the Kings leave we'll be the largest market without a major sports team. But I guess why do we need the Kings when we already have the Warriors? I'm not against San Jose. There's a lot of great stuff going down there with an exciting team and a new stadium being built. I'm just really ready to finally be able to root for a Sacramento team.
I could go through every single sentence and point out where you're wrong, because almost every single sentence of your post is wrong, but... places to go, people to meet, things to do, and all that. Instead, I'll just leave you with something on which to meditate: A small minority of people in D/FW live in Dallas. None of the largest public universities in the area are located in Dallas, and in fact, two of the three largest ones are located closer to FCD Stadium than to downtown Dallas. Almost as many major employers are located in Richardson, Plano, and Frisco as are located in Dallas. And if you we're to look at where people actually live in D/FW, you'd find out that "close to downtown Dallas" is about as vital to my team's success as "close to downtown LA" has been to the Galaxy's success or "close to downtown San Francisco" has been to yours.
San Jose is a bigger city than San Francisco. The Quakes have always played reasonably close to "downtown" San Jose.
Yes, I know, and I know that San Jose is the largest city in the Bay Area, but you're missing my point. D/FW no more revolves around downtown Dallas than the Bay Area revolves around San Francisco. (And your use of quotes around downtown while referring to San Jose is duly noted.)
Well, the SF Bay Area kind of does revolve around the city. The fact that the Quakes are in San Jose does mean that team lost out on a lot of SF, North Bay and East Bay people. I'm among them. North Bay born and raised, but the Quakes were never an option for me -- just didn't relate to that place. That made it pretty easy to hook onto DC while I was living back east. I have zero doubt that if the Quakes were located in San Francisco they'd more easily draw fans from a wider geographic area. Some Quakes fans will try to disagree with me, but I know the Bay Area as well and usually even better than they do, and -- well -- I'm right. Truth is, San Jose is second fiddle. It's just not the cultural center of the San Francisco Bay Area. Still, San Jose is a very big city and they've got plenty of folks down there to support the Quakes. That's where I think you run into problems with the analogy.
Fair enough, but my point stands. People who prattle on about how downtown [insert city here] is the only acceptable place for a sports venue, no matter what metro area is being discussed are essentially saying that teams in Oakland, San Jose, Anaheim, Carson, Pasadena, and yes, Frisco need not apply. In some places, such an edict might make sense. Others, not so much.
Sure. But Elk Grove really is a bad location. It's pretty telling that everyone who knows the area (and isn't from Elk Grove) think this would be a disaster. This is one instance when the edict does make sense. On that, it's worth looking at the discussion starting here if you haven't seen it already.
Oh, I'm not arguing about the merits of Elk Grove. It likely is a bad location. But when people start arguing against it with "Frisco Bridgeview Commerce City derp derp derp," then yeah, I might chime in with something that I might be pretty familiar with.
Wow, almost eery single thing I said? Hah, give me a break. I'm not saying people don't live in that area. What I'm saying is that the best place to put a major venue is in the geographic center of the populace. You want it to be the shortest distance to the most amount of people as possible. Frisco is not that. The most ideal location for the Dallas-FortWorth area would be somewhere between the two city centers. Pizza Hut Park is not in the ideal location, period. Or am I wrong on that also? What I've stated is basic urban planning and economies of scale. FC Dallas would get more attendance and a stronger fan base if it was in a better location. You're flat out wrong if you think otherwise. It's precisely why Elk Grove is a stupid idea.