I disagree with this. I think that, if anything, it might be the opposite. Recent in-town stadiums that I can think of: Pittsburgh Steelers and Pirates, Cincinnati Bengals and Reds, New York Mets (and Yankees), Chicago Bears. Those are a few I can think of off the top of my head. I am sure that there are more. The Atlanta Falcons are looking for a new stadium and it will be downtown also.
New York is a much different animal than St. Louis. New York has a major residential and fan base population inside the downtown area and a good public transportation for people to get to the stadium from other parts of the city. St. Louis has neither of those. As to the other stadiums, if you look you will find the stadiums were largely built by the city's AFTER the clubs shopped around for a new location which meant the city coughed up momney to keep the stadium sales tax dollars in town. Who wouldn't accept a free stadium? St. Louis did the same thing with the new Bush Stadium. It would have gone over the water if the state and city hadn't helped finance it. However, whenever a city or state doesn't step up to the plate or the city's downtown isn't conducive to new building the stadium moves to the burbs for room to grow. Have you noticed the cities which have kept downtown stadiums are either like New York, a huge metroplois with lots of fans in the city, or decaying ctities (Pittsburgh-Detroit) desperate to spruce up their downtown and willing to pay for it. Dynamic cities tend to be less willing to pony up the money and their rapid growth almost forces the team to look for available land on the fringes. To add further incentive the MLS is another animal entirely, their largest fan demographic lives in the suburbs not downtown. The smaller stadiums being built still require about the same footprint of expensive ground as required for a baseball stadium which seats 3-4 times the fans who are paying a lot more per ticket. Moreover, the families which go to a soccer game are way less likely to hang around post game and visit downtown watering holes. I know people who go to St. Louis Cardinal's games even though they do not have tickets just so they can hang around the sports bars outside the stadium during the game and post game. When do you see a soccer family do that? It is economic foolishness to pay premium land prices for a downtown site that isn't close to your largest fan demographic. It's business, period...
So I did some research for you, and I win the bet. Looking at planned & recent (say the last decade) stadiums, the vast majority of them are urban not suburban as you argue. And when you look at those stadiums closer, you'll see that only San Francisco (NFL), Washington DC (NFL) & Oakland (MLB) (4.7% of new arenas/stadiums) moved from urban locations to suburban ones. So while you may feel this way, there is no validity to your statement. NFL (69.6% Urban): Urban (16): Baltimore, Carolina, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St Louis, Seattle, Tampa Bay, Tennessee Suburban (7): Arizona, Dallas, New England, New York (x2), San Francisco, Washington MLB (86.4% Urban): Urban (19): Arizona, Atlanta, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Milwaukee, Minnesota, New York Yankees, New York Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tampa Bay, Washington Suburban (3): Florida, Oakland, Texas NBA (100% Urban): Urban (19): Atlanta, Boston, Brooklyn (New Jersey), Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles (x2), Memphis, Miami, New Orleans, New York, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Antonio, Toronto, Washington DC Suburban (0):
Great work. Yep, think you win the bet. Not sure that I would call the Meadowlands (New York) part of the suburbs but that is my only nit.
Yeah, well there may be some nit picking about which are urban and suburban, but the general theme is correct. And moving the Meadowlands to urban NYC, just makes it a higher percentage of new urban stadiums.
Apparently you misunderstood the bet. Look at it again. We were NOT arguing urban or suburban. We were talking about downtown locations in comparison to fringe locations (some suburban some urban) serviced by the business loops (look how many times I said downtown in my discussion above). You turned it into the urban - suburban thing. A goodly number of those you have listed as urban are NOT downtown but are on the fringes out by the loop interstates as we were talking about. People need to be focused on the point and not semantics. It really makes the discussion flow better. Once you get that point down you will see your figures above are deeply flawed since a lot of the ones you have listed as urban are nowhere near downtown. Once you get to the MLS almost none of the purpose built stadiums are downtown....
Well maybe you should have looked at the point of this whole thread. No one ever mentioned St Louis until you did, and now you are trying to defend your site to a bunch of people that think that your site is fine. And if you want to go back and try to tell me where the downtowns of 32+ cities begin/end, then be my guest. But my point is that downtown/urban areas are much better than suburban ones. They're better suited to hosting events (see Convention Centers, Theatres, Museums, & most sports stadiums). They're centrally located so that they're closer on average to everyone & generally faster to get to. They are serviced by mass transit. And they are generally closer to a diverse fan base that's generally more interested & passionate about soccer. And you're quite silly if you think that ALL MLS owners wouldn't have preferred a downtown/urban location to the ones that they built in the suburbs. And when these stadiums start to be replaced in 20 or so years, don't be surprised when they're all downtown to be able to compete with Toronto, Houston & NYC#2 who have packed, raucous stadiums, while their competitors in the suburbs are playing in half filled libraries.
Now you are just making things up since you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what MLS owner are thinking. Morever, if you look at attendence the suburban MLS stadiums are doing very well and are NOT half empty as you imply. Moreover, you assumption about downtown and fringe always being best for locating anything is FLAT out wrong. I go to many, many conferences near major cities and as often as not the conference is not downtown. Not all cities are the same and many major cities in the the USA are ghost towns downtown. If there is any kind of residential areas downtown it is often filled with a demographic that will never go to an MLS game. You really need to get out more before you come on a forum and talk about things you know absolutely nothing about. Visit at least more than your home city before you start making blanket judgements about the rest of the city's in the USA. As a season ticket holder to the Chicago Fire (Toyota Park is in a suburb) I must have missed those half filled libraries you are talking about. BTW, I lived in Europe for 12 years and you wanna know where they built their stadiums? It wasn't downtown buddy....
You honestly believe that the owners of the Fire, in their wildest dreams thought that they'd rather have a stadium in Bridgeview than in urban Chicago? No, they're smart business people and took the best deal they could get. But if someone tomorrow said they would give them the exact same deal they got in Bridgeview, but it would be in the city as opposed to Bridgeview, they would take it in a heartbeat. Same in St Louis. Same everywhere. Again, they may be ghost towns & the ethnicity of those living downtown may not be a soccer demographic, but they're centrally located. Meaning that fans overall are closer. And these downtowns bring in thousands of workers on a daily basis, so they can handle the crowd that an MLS game would bring. Now does that mean that every team needs to be downtown? No. It means that downtown/centrally located urban area is their #1 choice. If a suburb offers them a better deal, they have to go, but downtown is their preferred option.
Two quick questions: 1. NYC#2? Who says NYC#2 won't be in the suburbs, just on the NY side of the border? 2. Why the choice of the word library?
That works poorly as a metaphor in his statement. A library is quiet by rule, rather than an absence of people. Thus the noise level is not dependant on the actual population of the building. A better metaphor would have centered on a situation or event where x number of people (a rather large amount) are expected or required and y (a much lower number) actually are present. A few examples include: a short-handed tabernacle choir, a two person orchestra, an auction without a barker, etc. A second problem lies with the unexplained decline in suburban game attendance that forms the basis for the above metaphor. What will cause Bridgeview and Foxboro to suddenly collapse in game attendance?
Re: Expansion based on city population I agree, there's NO WAY they should ever put a team in Atlanta, it is not a soccer supporting city. Anyway, it won't happen because owners are too smart to put their money in the south for soccer. It's college football territory, and Junior Nascar country.
Re: Expansion based on city population What exactly are you basing that on? USL attendance? That hardly mattered in Toronto, they went from averaging 1500 people per game to 20000. Besides we already have an ownership group in talks with the MLS. How about how many soccer players we have produced? Blake Camp, Red Bull New York Ricardo Clark, Houston Dynamo Kyle Martino, Los Angeles Galaxy Clint Mathis, Red Bull New York Matt Reis, New England Revolution Lawson Vaughn, Chivas USA Blake Wagner, FC Dallas Brian West, Fredrikstad (Norway) Josh Wolff, TSV 1860 Munich (Germany) We're no St. Louis, but we still have brought some of the top tallent in the MLS.
Re: Expansion based on city population You are obviously clueless about Atlanta and the south. Look at the numbers and you will see that we are on-par with Chicago or Boston in supporting our sports clubs. If you are saying that soccer can't compete because people already like a different sport (such as: ncaa football) or recreational pastime (such as: NASCAR), then you have really limited the area to where MLS can expand to an extemely small area inside the US.
Re: Expansion based on city population I wouldn't say that. Besides the players you have mentioned, many of the top college soccer teams are in the south.
Re: Expansion based on city population Sorry, I'm a bit confused, which part don't you agree with? "We're no St. Louis" or "We have brought some of the top tallent in the MLS" I would argue that Ricardo Clark and Matt Reis are deffinately in the pool of top tallent in the MLS, and a few years ago Clint Mathis and Josh Wolff were indespensable on their respective teams.
Not that those two will collapse, but that the urban markets are going to continue to grow to the point where they're selling out games on a regular basis and expanding their stadiums. That will change what describes a financial success in MLS.
The suburban stadiums won't be half filled then. They might have half the capacity though. Suburbans could have more though, since it would likely be easier to expand. Speculating could take you anywhere.
Analysis of Philly's attempt for an MLS team: Pa. ponders $45 million bet on soccer By Jeff Gammage In 1973, the Philadelphia Atoms won the championship of the North American Soccer League in their first season - then folded three years later. Next came the Philadelphia Fury, backed by a rock-star-rich investment group that included Peter Frampton. Legendary Chelsea striker Peter Osgood arrived to net goals and draw fans. But the Wizard of Os scored only once in 22 games, soon headed back to England, and within three years the Fury was gone, too. Now the Pennsylvania legislature is considering whether to pony up $45 million to help attract another pro soccer club. What has changed in 30 years to make anyone believe a team can survive here? "Today, as we sit here, we see a really mature, soccer-consuming audience," said Nick Sakiewicz, president of sports promoter AEG New York, who is working to bring a team here. "Back in the '70s and '80s, there was really no soccer-consuming market." The former pro goalkeeper and two-time Major League Soccer executive of the year, widely credited with securing a new stadium for the New York Red Bulls, sees solid evidence why, this time, soccer can't miss: Local exhibitions between top international teams, such as the game between Manchester United and FC Barcelona at Lincoln Financial Field in 2003, draw sellout crowds. The fast-growing immigrant community from Mexico and other Latin American nations provides a solid base of knowledgeable, enthusiastic fans. The Mexican population in Pennsylvania and New Jersey grew 74 percent from 2000 to 2006. At big area corporations, executives who didn't know soccer from foosball have been replaced by a generation who grew up playing the game - and have been phoning to ask how they can help sponsor a new team. The Eastern Pennsylvania Youth Soccer Association, which represents 200,000 players, coaches and referees, is eager to cheer a pro team. And the Sons of Ben - a 1,000-member fan club for a team that doesn't exist - has gathered 6,200 signatures on petitions and nearly 2,000 pledges to buy season tickets. "It isn't brain surgery. The numbers are there," said James Nevels, among the investors leading the charge to build a $115 million soccer stadium in the downtrodden city of Chester. "We've got the market." In an interview last week, Nevels said he was "incredibly optimistic" that state funding would be approved and an MLS expansion club awarded. He predicted "an announcement very soon." Doubtless that will surprise people in St. Louis, named by MLS commissioner Don Garber as the front-runner for the remaining expansion slot. A decision is expected by Jan. 31. "We have wanted to be in the Philadelphia market for a number of years," MLS president Mark Abbott said in an interview. "Without a stadium, that's not going to happen." The drive to secure what would be MLS's 16th club is led by an investment group that includes iStar Financial CEO Jay Sugarman, Wilmington developers Christopher and Robert Buccini, and Nevels, chairman of the Swarthmore Group financial advisers. Delaware County officials agreed to contribute $30 million toward construction, and Gov. Rendell said the project could transform Chester. Nevels said he believes legislators will grant funding because they see that $45 million can reap $500 million in benefits, realized through new tax revenues, retail stores, housing, and jobs. The stadium and surrounding development would sit on 12 acres of waterfront land. "I don't know if it will work or not," said Jim Kane, a partner in the Massachusetts-based Brookeside Group, a consulting firm that studies customer loyalty. "Maybe the timing is better now." It's true that youth soccer is an ever-expanding universe - but that growth has been under way since the 1970s. The signing of English mega-star David Beckham brought MLS worldwide attention - but the NASL imported foreign stars too, no less than Franz Beckenbauer, Johan Cruyff, and the greatest of all, Pelé. That star power proved insufficient. Today, soccer supporters cite one big reason a local club would succeed: a proven business model. Unlike the old NASL, where owners competed for players and revenue, and one team, the New York Cosmos, dominated financially and on the field, MLS operates as a single entity. Teams are owned by the league, and owners buy in as owner-operators, sharing profits and losses. Equally crucial, backers say, is the MLS model that's being successfully replicated in city after city. When the Atoms and Fury played, soccer teams were usually the second or even third tenant in their stadiums, cavernous venues built for other sports. Teams got money from ticket sales but little else, and even a solid crowd of 20,000 seemed small when scattered among 60,000 seats. Today MLS strives to place teams in new soccer stadiums, seating 20,000 to 25,000, usually located just outside city centers, where land is cheaper and more abundant. That's why the Los Angeles Galaxy plays in Carson, Calif., the Chicago Fire in Bridgeview, Ill., and Real Salt Lake in a stadium to open next year in Sandy, Utah. Through the stadiums, teams keep control of millions of dollars from parking, food, souvenirs and luxury suites. "We believe [soccer] has got the best growth opportunity for any sport in the U.S.," said Ken Munoz, a partner in SCP Worldwide, which owns Real Salt Lake. "We are much more visible and viable as a national sport." He points out that MLS recently signed seven-year television contracts with ABC Sports/ESPN, the Fox Soccer Channel, Univision and HDNet, reaping both income and exposure. "When the Fury existed, I don't recall there ever being a game on TV," said Bryan James of Wilmington, president of the Sons of Ben. "We had six stations. You couldn't find soccer on TV." But MLS's slow-growth plan has met some setbacks. The league started with 10 teams in 1996, grew to 12 in 1998, then contracted to 10 in 2002. It added two clubs in 2005 and this year Toronto became the 13th team - and the first to sell out every home game. San Jose begins play next year, and Seattle was just awarded an expansion club. The key in Philadelphia, said Steve Winter, president of Brotman-Winter-Fried Communications, which helps promote D.C. United, will be to stick to the MLS model. "It still is America's fifth sport. Or sixth if you throw in NASCAR. Seventh if you throw in lacrosse," said the former Broomall resident and Atoms fan. "But it can be a niche sport, because America's psyche has changed. A pro team can be supported with a small but loyal fan base." http://www.philly.com So, contrary to popular belief and the avowed wishes of urbanites, the MLS MODEL is build in the surrounding area and NOT the city centers.
Wait, I was supposed to read all that and come up with: Whatever. Again, every owner in MLS would rather be downtown. Now they may have gotten a better deal at their current location, but if given that same deal they would have rather been in the urban center of their respective cities. And as MLS grows, teams that had the foresight (willing to pay the extra cash up front) to build downtown will be in a better situation. Places like Chester, Sandy & Bridgeview will be somewhere in between. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And this is a good article on the pros & cons of MLS. Does a good job of laying out what's changed in the US culture since the fall of NASL and the rise of MLS. Although I would take issue with the discount that's given to the number of kids playing soccer in the US. He mentions why this is important in his own article, kids that played soccer b/c of NASL are now at the point where they can make decisions for their companies and have money to spend on pro sports. They are using that money to push pro soccer in the US.
Hmmm, so much for the downtown stadiums ruling the roost when it comes to attendance. here are 2007 figures: Here are the team by team averages: 1- LA Galaxy 24,252 2- DC United 20,967 3- Toronto FC 20,130 4- NE Revs 16,787 5- NY Red Bulls 16,537 6- Chicago 16,490 7- Real Salt Lake 15,960 8- Houston 15,883 9- Columbus 15,230 10-FC Dallas 15,150 11-Colorado 14,749 12-Chivas USA 14,305 13-Kansas City 11,586 The leading stadium is a suburban location as are several of the other top stadiums. That "raucous" Houston stadium is 8th place, behind several half filled suburban libraries. The red Bulls barely beat the Fire but heck, they are in a suburb too and so will be their new stadium so I guess it doesn't apply.
You must have missed this part: "Today MLS strives to place teams in new soccer stadiums, seating 20,000 to 25,000, usually located just outside city centers, where land is cheaper and more abundant. That's why the Los Angeles Galaxy plays in Carson, Calif., the Chicago Fire in Bridgeview, Ill., and Real Salt Lake in a stadium to open next year in Sandy, Utah." I realize you are young and set in your ways but sometimes you have to let reality set in. Fact, except for a few markets the average urban dweller in American cities is not the person who goes to an MLS game. Some urban areas in the USA are virtual crime ridden wastelands where no one wants to go. Those that aren't are often too expensive to make business sense to put an MLS stadium in the city center.