Of the new stadiums being built (SSS) Toronto was the only one that was actually downtown. And the same is true in the future. The site is 8 miles away from Downtown and will have quick access from most places. While your accessment of downtown is true in most places it is not in the case of St. Louis. While the city is on an upswing, for a long time people didn't want to be in downtown. A downtown mall failed and they have a new project for the location. The new Ballpark village has the possibility to get people to want to come down, but other than that the only real entertainment downtown is Lacleed's Landing, (you could include Soulard). St. Louis is a different then most cities in terms of downtown. Seeing as your from Utah i don't see why you care about where the stadium is in our Metro Area and i think NW suburbs would be the worst of most locations. The only other area I could see as a likely location besides the metro east is Fenton, MO. There has been a lot of discussion on this topic over in the St. Louis expansion forum if you want to look at it closer but you might have to dig.
I don't care where your stadium is. I was discussing why expanding based on media markets doesn't make sense and that suburban stadiums make less sense in general than do urban ones. And my point was that if you build in a suburb, just by looking at a map you have to realize that it will be closer for some and further for others than if you built in the urban center of a city. In Collinsville, I think that St Louis has a great opportunity to get an MLS team and that team will even have a decent view of the arch and hopefully will be on the light rail connecting the city with other places.
Collinsville is a much better option for the NW suburbs. A quick drive along 270 and you'd be at the stadium. This region is very decentralized. Putting the stadium in Collinsville is great because the city is essentially a half an hour from most of the population hubs on both sides of the river. As for minority ethnic groups, most of the ones we have here have adopted out drive everywhere lifestyle. Bosnians especially so.
Theres no point arguing with them Veruca. Let them build their stadium in the suburbs and when they realize that low attendance and soccer moms do not make a good atmosphere, we can all laugh.
Other than the fact that it's smack dab in the middle of a metro area... Downtowns are by no means designed to easilly bring people into them.
It is funny that two guys from the other side of the country know more about my metro region than me.
On a Wednesday night at 7pm or on a Saturday they are. They are not designed to handle the huge crush of people that come during rush hour. However, in most places it's quite easy to get in and out of downtown at non-peak hours.
Again, I think that St Louis is a great market and that Collinsville will be fine. My only point (and you can read this in the other posts that I wrote) is for those arguing that suburban sites are better than urban ones because it puts you closer to your target market. And what I was arguing is just this and only this. That by moving to a suburb you're going to get closer (than downtown St Louis) for some, but that for others you're going to get further. You can't argue that anyone further west than say I-170 is actually closer to the venue than they would be if it were downtown. And that is why downtown venues are preferred (not required by anyone, including myself). Just trying to point out the flaw in soccerdaddy's argument. Not sure why all the StL fans got all worked up, because I wasn't talking about them.
Right now we're jumpier than a tweaker on a three week binge. I think we'll get capacity crowds though, like in Bridgeview.
I don't know if either of you have lived in St. Louis, but one thing you seem to be missing is that we do not have an immigrant based downtown. Our downtown is mostly black. Our immigrant populations live either south of downtown (Bosnian) or east of the river. (Hispanic) Our Asian population is mostly along 270 in the west although there is a grouping SouthEast of downtown along Grand Blvd. People do not come in to Downtown St. Louis to do hardly anything. People work downtown and are gone by 5:30. People go to Cardinals games and Blues games and that's about it. No one shops downtown as all the shops are gone. No one goes downtown to eat unless you're grabbing a quick bite before a game. The Fox Theatre - where you would see a play/show is not downtown. Sure, downtown would be closer for NW County, but I would argue that it also more difficult. But your arguement can just as easily be reversed and still hold true. "That by moving to downtown you're going to get closer (than the suburbs) for some, but that for others you're going to get farther." It works both ways. no matter where you put it you will be closer to some than others, but ideally you find a spot that makes it easier for everyone. I think Collinsville does that. I live in South County. My house to Busch is 20 miles and takes just under 30 min. My House to the SSS location is 10 miles more but only takes about 2-3 min more. (I'll make that up with with the ease of parking). The Collinsville drive however is a much easier drive. I would definitely prefer Collinsville although technically it is farther from my house. Because you maybe correct for any downtown other than St. Louis. Our downtown is unique in that no one goes there unless they have to.
Ok, again I was not talking about St Louis or any other market in particular. Not even a little bit. Just pointing out the logical flaw in the argument of soccerdaddy. It's just simple geometry. You can try to bring me into this, but I have no knowledge of St Louis beyond the fact that Collinsville is not closer to the suburbs on the west side than downtown is. And you'll notice that I didn't bring up St Louis until one of you StL fans did. And again, the Collinsville plan seems great and I can't understand why MLS isn't getting started on that plan and leaving Philly for team 17 if they get their SSS finished.
Geometry has nothing to do with travel times in metro areas. Travel times has everything to do with traffic flow. I live 30 miles north of St. Louis. If I wish to go to the Bush soccer fields on the western side of St. Louis at most times of the week, it is WAY quicker for me to go south, catch I255 and go around the eastern and southern edges of St. Louis than it is for me to try to take 270 directly to the west, which is the closest geometrically. I mean way quicker too like it takes half the time. I270 is a traffic nightmare and bumper to bumper trafic is the norm a lot of the time. 255 never has bumper to bumper and I can cruise 75 mph so I get there way quicker. I know parents in my son's old club (which is in Collinsville) who lived on the west side of St. Louis and they too took 255 around St. Louis rather than going through so they could avoid the downtown traffic. This trait is common in other cities I have had business in. Dallas, San Antonia, Memphis, Cincinatti and Indianapolis are other cities where going through the center can be a major mistake. It isn't as a crow flies but how your car drives that counts. And if suburban stadiums make no sense, why are so many new stadiums of ALL sports built in the suburbs. The facts are that many downtowns in the USA are urban wastelands that no one wants to visit. Quite often the population either is too poor or has zero inclination to visit a sports stadium much less an MLS franchise. This means that suburban stadiums from demographic, cost and geographical factors often make the most sense. Moreover, I have been told by 2 or 3 MLS agents that their number one demographic are soccer families. These people live primarily in the suburbs so it makes sense to make it easy for them to get to the stadium. Philly has the lead in the franchise race because as a market they are twice the size of St. Louis. And yes, Philadelphia has some nearby competition but so does St. Louis. My guess is that if Philly gets their act together they get the franchise. Otherwise, St. Louis will probably get the nod. Sad, because I would love to get an MLS team 45 minutes from my front porch.
Because big cities are notoriously hard to deal with and get public funds from and because downtown land is usually way more expensive. As far as stadiums of ALL sports being built in the suburbs, none of Houstons (which were all built in the last 7 years) are. I dont think any of Dallas's are except PHP. It's mostly a crowded city trend I think and St. Louis doesnt fit that description (see Philly, NY, LA, Chicago, DC). I realize that maybe downtown St. Louis isnt nice, frankly the area we are gonna put the Dynamo stadium in isnt a nice part of downtown either, but the point is that its improving and you have to look to the future. If downtown St. Louis is not improving and doesnt want to, thats a mistake on the city and regions part because there is nothing like a thriving central business district to help a cities image and growth. Sure, soccer families may be the target market now, but is that gonna always be the case? And is that what you really want? I think most people want the passion they see in Europe and South America, not the youth soccer crowd. If you build in the suburbs you will end up stuck in the suburbs. For an example of this, check out FCD. They built in the suburbs and while the place is certainly nice, there were a flurry of posts after they lost this season about how their atmosphere was crap compared to ours. The most obvious reason? Soccer moms and the suburbs. The lack of hispanics coming out to Frisco.
That's why we're working with the youth programs of the area. We will have a full-blown academy system setup. Also our youth program games have pretty good atmosphere. I was at a HS game this year where a ref tried to kick out the entire crowd for being too loud. That was crazy.
I personally would love a downtown St. Louis soccer stadium. I don't agree with the "downtowns are urban wastelands" argument, especially not with thousands of new residents and billions of dollars invested in downtown St. Louis in the last few years. This isn't 1975. I agree with the logic that downtown venues are generally better than suburban ones in terms of gameday atmosphere and overall accessibility. It's the difference between Kauffmann Stadium and Busch Stadium. (Well, that and the vastly different products on the respective fields.) But...as we all know, pro soccer in the US doesn't have the mass audience yet that can justify expensive downtown facilities in most cities. The money and the political will to support MLS is nowhere near the NFL, MLB, NBA, and yes, even NHL. Even in downtown St. Louis, land and construction are much more expensive than if you're building in a horseradish field. That's just the way things are right now, and those of us who support what is still a "niche sport" to most Americans don't have much choice but to accept and try to love our suburban soccer stadia. I have absolutely no worries about the atmosphere in Collinsville anyway. Wherever the stadium is, St. Louis soccer fans can and will get the place shaking.
Are you talking "downtown" or "city limits"? Reliant Stadium is in the City of Houston, but it is not downtown. All the Philly stadiums aren't exactly downtown either. For Dallas, the basketball/hockey arena is downtown. PHP is north of downtown (roughly 25 miles). The baseball stadium is in Arlington (roughly 20 miles), west of downtown. The Cowboys play in Irving which is northwest of downtown and they are building a new stadium even further west of downtown in Arlington. And FYI, the arena that is downtown was almost going to be built in Arlington. I prefer a stadium that is easy to get to. And one that is not downtown. Downtown = more expensive, busy traffic, crowded, etc. But what do I know...I am just an average American that lives in the middle of the country that tries to avoid the big cities like crazy. At least I don't have to go downtown Chicago if I want to travel down to Illinois to see a soccer game.
That one's easy. It makes sense to give Philly a window to get the stadium deal done because our investors and location are better for the league. If that doesn't happen, MLS can still go with St. Louis without any damage done. Here's to both deals getting done.
Given how radically different the FC Dallas marketing was in 2007 than it was in 2002, it's not shocking that Latino fans didn't come to games in the same numbers in 2007 than they did in 2002. After all, if it were simply a function of location, Dallas Burn attendance wouldn't have looked so radically different in 2004 than in 2002. But more changed between 2002 and 2004 than just a relocation to Southlake and back to the Cotton Bowl.
Reliant is in the loop, not downtown, but its 5 minutes away. Dallas is a unique situation. Arlington is 20 miles from downtown dallas, buts its also 15 miles from downtown ft. worth. Thats roughly in the center of the metroplex, which makes sense, compared to frisco. My gripe isnt with St. Louis, I wish you all the best and hope the stadium is rockin, just with the idea that MLS and its fans have to accept suburban stadia as a first choice, rather than then as a fall back plan. And also with the people who seem to think its a better idea than even attempting a more central (i realize downtown doesnt always fit that description) location.
The D/FW Metroplex has six million people. Four million of those people live in Dallas and Collin counties or points east. And for those people Arlington is as inconvenient as PHP, if not more. In other words, it's nice that Arlington is convenient to Ft. Worth, but that's only slightly more important than PHP's proximity to the 250,000 people that live in Plano.
Alright already, you can stop defending Frisco. In a few years when someone invents teleporters it wont matter anyway,
I would bet most new stadiums in all sports are relocating out of the city centers due to the additional features devlopers want to add to the plans and for convenience. Fact of life and is not unique to the MLS....