You're missing the point. The author spells out the criteria under which a stadium provides economic benefits. He points out AT&T as a good example because its downtown and didn't use a lot of taxpayer dollars. He points to the 49ers Santa Clara stadium as bad since its in a parking lot next to a theme park and uses a lot of taxpayer dollars. The article is purely from an economics point of view. He doesn't discuss why you might want a parking lot around a football stadium (tailgating) but not a baseball stadium because he isn't comparing game day experience of each sport, just the economic benefits of the stadiums.
Both of which are highly situational as it's pretty damned impossible to build any stadium on downtown property that has any commercial value.
Both the proposed Quakes stadium adjacent to the San Jose airport and the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara on amusement park land are excellent locations, easily accessible and surrounded by new or proposed development. There won't be much urban grit, but in Silicon Valley that sort of thing is frowned upon. Both proposed stadia are also a very short drive from downtown San Jose -- the Quakes' Epicenter only five minutes. As I've posted before, the new Epicenter will be as close to San Jose's city hall as BMO is to Toronto's. BMO, strictly speaking, is not downtown; indeed, it's on the Canadian national exhibition ground, which is somewhat akin to the amusement park ground that the 49ers will be using. Moreover, it will be as easy to get to the Epicenter on a game-day shuttle from a downtown pub as it is to the Hertz rental lot from LAX.
Obviously you got so angry to say it in this thread, which is pretty damn funny. The difference between FC Dallas and Toronto are a couple of things: - Dallas has a shit ton more roads, thus making it much harder to navigate to the stadium. - More travel time to the stadium in Frisco(it's 37 mins for folks from Dallas and 1hr and 20 mins for folks from Forth Worth). - BMO is much, much closer to downtown than PHP is. - For those of you saying it's "impossible" to build a stadium downtown, you are wrong. If NYRB can do it, anybody can do it (that is, if they have the money). - Another big difference is that BMO is off of one big expressway while theres a shit ton of big ass roads in spegetti formation over in Dallas. - And yes, Toronto has bigger lakes lol It's location is better than most stadiums in MLS, that's for damn sure.
If you're referring to BMO, I agree. Only Seattle's is better. My point is that San Jose's stadium, once built, will be the equal of BMO from an urban-orientation standpoint.
Red Bull Arena isn't downtown. It's not downtown Harrison or Newark. I hear the location is pretty good, but I know its not downtown. Perhaps someone from the area can provide more info.
It's not downtown but I would say that it is because, well, it is New Jersey and it's close to NY. Land over there is a gazillion times more expensive than places like Dallas.
And if anybody doubted that you have no idea what you're talking about, this proves it. What downtown is Red Bull Arena in, because is sure as hell ain't in Manhattan.
I think the only thing that makes an SSS that is not downtown seem unimportant is when all the other major sports in the city have downtown stadiums and arenas, like you see in Denver. You see the Pepsi Center, you see the big Invesco building, you can't help but notice it, and then little Dick's Sporting Goods Park is out in boonieville, comparatively, although DSGP is not far from downtown Denver. It is also not right by the freeway. It's not displayed in any way for the majority of the population to see regularly. DSGP just seems more like some side suburban ball park. In Salt Lake, Rio Tinto is not in the downtown. Utah Jazz is. The other sports teams are not. More importantly, though, Rio Tinto is right next to the major freeway through the valley, which is a straight shot to downtown. Everyone drives by Rio Tinto and notices it proudly displayed. Not to mention it's also on State Street, which is a major street, a straight shot to downtown. It doesn't look like Rio Tinto is shoved off to the side, but is an important structure, proudly displayed, in our community. It helps that it's an absolutely beautiful structure. Rio Tinto might've benefited even more being downtown. I don't know. It's all about impressions. These are the only two stadiums I can comment on because they're the only two I've experienced personally. Just my two cents.
Logically, that would make it much easier to travel to PHP since the Dallas/FW MSA developed as a car-based metropolitan area with the rise of the automobile and literally miles of cheap land to develop as the surrounding communities moved away from farming. If you had fewer roads, it would be much more difficult to navigate to. Right now, there are 6 lanes of interstate grade paving that take you from downtown Dallas to the front door of PHP. The City of Toronto, and most other Eastern US/Canadian & Upper Midwest Cities developed in the period from 1776 to the mid-1950's as opposed to other major cities in the US South & West that developed exclusively in rapid economic booms from 1900-2000. If they started building light rail to PHP from downtown Dallas, where comparatively very few people live as opposed to the rest of the metroplex, they might be done around 2025. PHP is closer to downtown Frisco than BMO is to downtown Toronto. See I can do it too. Red Bull Stadium isn't downtown anywhere. If Soccer Specific Stadiums cost the 400 million they would cost to get built where you think they should, they would never get built. It's clear that you're not aware of the DNT that is literally 200 yards from PHP, with 2 lane exiting. Which is really lucky since the City of Toronto had a piece of land that they could give away, since they couldn't get a developer to buy it from them.
Those sports are popular and have been for decades. Really, since you only talked about DGSP, it's about rivalry, not facts.
I'm talking about impressions about the location of the two stadiums. Period. I love Denver, the city, and just think DSGP would've benefited if it had been proudly displayed like their football stadium. Luckily, RSL doesn't have to compete with an ingrained pro football team with a massive, noticeable stadium, where the majority of the population goes to worship. The day after the Colorado game we were in downtown Denver, at Mona's Restaurant, and practically everyone there was gathering for the game that day. They even had a Raider Hater Burger on the menu.
And when the Sounders play Saturday and the Seahawks play Sunday, pretty much everyone downtown on Sunday is gathered for the Seahawk game. (Heck, when the Sounders play Saturday and the Huskies play Saturday I bet you get a decent gathering of both Sounder and Huskies fans in downtown Seattle pre-game)
But they're also great soccer fans. They've proven that. And where the Sounders play can't be missed. FYI, I'm not the only one who thinks DSGP is in a bad location. Kyle Beckerman mentioned that it's too far off the freeway. He was talking about what makes a great stadium. He also mentioned that where the team comes out is important. They like it European style, at center field.
This is BigSoccer, we prefer that you talk out of your ass rather than actually know what you're talking about.
Not sure that RBA is comparable to anything else in MLS. It's certainly not at the center of a major metropolitan area, but it is in the middle of an area which is more densely populated than most downtowns of North American cities, and has mass transit access that is better than all but a handful of teams. If the idea is to divide all MLS stadiums into "downtown" or "suburban," then RBA is far more "downtown" than "suburban." But those are really false choices. RBA, and possibly Chester, fall into a different category-- urban stadiums outside the city center. As with "downtown" stadiums, the idea is to revitilize a blighted area, except Manhattan, or Philly's Center City, don't need revitalization. Take London as an example. I don't see anyone proposing that a stadium be built on the Strand. Instead, new stadiums are constructed in non-central parts of densely urbanized areas, because there are a lot of people nearby, there is mass transit access, and land is more affordable. There's a false dichotomy driven by a Sun Belt city mindset, where there is a downtown, then a lot of neighborhoods of largely single-family housing of decreasing density as you get away from the center. That's just not the case in older large cities, until you get far enough away from the center to find areas that were undeveloped until the automobile was widespread.
The NW cities are relatively densely populated, as well. Particularly Portland and Vancouver. Or are at least not sprawling.