Somewhat MLS related: Downtown stadiums provide most benefits

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by CACuzcatlan, Oct 27, 2010.

  1. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So... I take it no one in this thread actually opened up the article and read it. I'm not sure there's a single post in this thread that is actually about what the article is discussing.
     
  2. radmonkey

    radmonkey Member

    Oct 27, 2007
    It's one of the issues, theres many other ones.

    I think location is an issue w/Bridgeview in Chicago. I think it's the difference between a 15k-16k average and a possible extra 2-3k if it was in a more accessible location with public transportation. That's a huge deal in Chicago, a lot more people rely on it that in a place like houston or dallas or even seattle.
     
  3. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Um, the only reason that Seattle doesn't sprawl more than it does is because Lake Washington and Elliot Bay get in the way. Given the full development on the East side of the lake and the pretty constant suburbs from Marysville to Ft. Lewis I'd say it sprawls.

    I haven't spend a ton of time in Portland but my parents just moved to Beaverton and that seems a decent way out from the urban core, yet still suburbs.
     
  4. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    At the same time, there's another misconception that drives a lot of these discussion that the suburbs are nothing but residential development and strip malls, home to people who get into their cars every morning and commute downtown. Those people exist, of course, but those suburban cities are home to the jobs as well, largely because those cities want to have a diverse tax base. In my industry (telecommunications) in D/FW, there are far, far more people who are working for Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, Nortel, Cisco, MCI, and Verizon in Plano and Richardson and Irving than in Dallas. And while I have no data to back up this assertion, it was my impression while living in Dallas that tech firms were far, far more likely to be located in the northern suburbs than anywhere else.

    And because of that, the people whom they're hiring are far more likely to live in the northern suburbs than anywhere close to downtown, even if you're willing to pay the stupid prices involved. After all, who the hell wants to commute from downtown out to Plano everyday?
     
  5. Haig

    Haig Member+

    May 14, 2000
    METROSTARS
    Club:
    --other--
    I live in Nashville and commute to Williamson County every day for my job. It's a shorter commute than downtown Dallas to Plano (I have to travel to Plano a few times a year for work), but it still can take a good hour each way. Believe me, I know what you're talking about. I'd just rather live closer to downtown because I like the stuff that tends to be closer to downtowns more than the stuff that doesn't.

    Don't get defensive about Frisco. I don't really care who builds what where. Of course there are perfectly good reasons to build a stadium in a suburb on the edge of a metropolitan area. I will say for my part that it's a lot more enjoyable to me before and after games to take a train so I can drink beer, and being able to walk back to a restaurant with your friends and fellow fans after the game is pretty nice (and makes it more likely that you'll continue the party among soccer fans and not among families out for a meal). But I'm not valorizing myself for that preference.
     
  6. ritsoccer86

    ritsoccer86 Member

    Jul 18, 2005
    I'd say it's easier to travel by rail than by car due to the hassles on the road.

    2025?


    Frisco isn't a city but a town compared to Dallas. Frisco is peanuts compared to Dallas. I was comparing the stadium locale of Dallas and Toronto.



    RBNY cost 200 mil.


    I wouldn't call it luck at all.
     
  7. BringSoccerToIndy

    May 24, 2008
    1001 West New York Street, Indianapolis, IN
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Toronto is closer to a large body of water...Wait, Seattle and Vancouver are by the Pacific Ocean....

    You need a large body of water to be supported. Correlation works like that.
     
  8. ritsoccer86

    ritsoccer86 Member

    Jul 18, 2005
    True but that dichotomy is not driven.

    As an Atlantan native, I can attest that the major cities in the South are much sprawled out. Northern cities are much more centrally located with rail transportation being a necessity to get around (ex. NYC, Chicago, Philly).

    As someone said a page ago, impressions matter. PHP doesn't make an impression at all. Anybody would rather be impressed by a building thats downtown or atleast near it (PHP is no where near downtown Dallas nor Forth Worth).

    Rio Tinto has done a good job with this.

    Impressions do matter.
     
  9. ritsoccer86

    ritsoccer86 Member

    Jul 18, 2005
    While you are joking, coincidently, major cities are the coast lines of the East and West coast.

    Coincidence? I think not.

    However, BMO is near a major lake, not near an ocean.
     
  10. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Population of D/FW metropolitan area: 6.5 million
    Combined population of Dallas and Fort Worth: 2 million

    So, uh, why does it matter how close it is to downtown Dallas or Fort Worth?

    (And why do you have such an issue spelling Fort Worth? Do you have similar issues spelling Fort Collins and Fort Wayne?)
     
  11. jass

    jass Member

    Oct 12, 2006
    Club:
    Parana Curitiba
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    Location: Montevideo, URU

    Yeah, clearly an expert on the subject.
     
  12. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Welcome to Big Soccer.
     
  13. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    1. You need to learn how to not speak in absolutes.

    b. Please visit the Washington Metro system some time. Good Lord is that a freaking crap shoot.

    You do realize that not everyone gets the same impression from a situation, right?
     
  14. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    One can always hope. But on the topic of the article, is it really surprising that a stadium located in a downtown area creates more economic activity than a stadium located out on the edge of town in a sea of parking lots? The article has nothing to do with whether or not a stadium's location is good for attendance or not, but rather how much economic benefit it provides to the community it is in. As an example, PHP is located in a suburb, but it's located in downtown Frisco. As a result there are a number or restaurants/bars etc. that benefit from the game day activity. RBA's location isn't in "downtown" Harrison, but it is the center of a redevelopment project and, like the article's example AT&T Park, over time it will probably be a catalyst for drawing more development into that area. Conversely, while I've never been to DSG, I've heard there isn't anything in the area, so while its location probably doesn't have an impact on attendance, it isn't exactly driving as much economic activity in Commerce City on game day as PHP probably does in Frisco.
     
  15. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    True, for now. The original plan for DSG was to be int eh center of a large commercial development, and KSE actually holds rights to most of the land surrounding it for that purpose. Part of the deal for the naming rights was that Dick's Sporting Goods would put a store in the middle of the complex. Of course when the plan was put together it didn't foresee the real estate crisis, so they haven't been able to generate any of that interest. I did notice some construction vehicles digging up one end of the area late in the season, so I don't know if that's the start of something.
     
  16. WarrenWallace

    WarrenWallace Member

    Mar 12, 1999
    Beer and Cheese
    [​IMG]
    Public transportation is for jerks and lesbians.
     
  17. FUAEG

    FUAEG Member+

    Oct 18, 2005
    San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No I didn't miss the point.

    The author implies that the 70K seat 49er stadium used 10 times a year would have the same economic impact as a 40K seat AT&T used 81 times a year.

    It wouldn't. Not even close.

    The author is either an idiot or just plain lazy.
     
  18. chad

    chad Member+

    Jun 24, 1999
    Manhattan Beach
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've lived in both those places!

    And the Bridgeview location of Toyota Park sucks. I don't know if that's relevant, but whatever.
     
  19. CACuzcatlan

    CACuzcatlan Member

    Jun 11, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Nowhere in the article does the author say or imply that. Maybe you can point out where in the article it says that. The following quotes from the article pretty clearly state that stadiums usually don't provide economic benefits, and that AT&T Park is the exception due to the location and lack of public financing.

    Or perhaps you read a different article, since you're the only one in this thread who got the impression that the author had anything positive to say about a 49ers stadium in Santa Clara.
     
  20. FUAEG

    FUAEG Member+

    Oct 18, 2005
    San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sorry I wasn't clear - let me rewrite ....

    The author implies that the 70K seat 49er stadium in downtown SF used 10 times a year would have the same economic impact as a 40K seat AT&T in downtown SF used 81 times a year.

    The author writes about the game day economic impact of AT&T and more importantly, in his view, the impact of AT&T as a catalysts for Mission Bay development. He then goes on to write:
    The implication is clearly that a 70K 49er stadium in Downtown SF would have the similar kind of economic impact. It won't.

    All in all the article is a poorly written piece of content free crap.
     
  21. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No... The author isn't making any comments about a downtown 49ers economic impact being equitable to the Giants stadium. Rather he is saying that a downtown SF 49ers stadium that is paid for by the team would have a larger economic impact than a stadium in Santa Clara that is mostly paid for by tax payers...
     
  22. FUAEG

    FUAEG Member+

    Oct 18, 2005
    San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This was his comment on the Santa Clara stadium

    Since the article focuses heavily on the great location of AT&T, the implication is that the 49ers stadium at a similar location could generate a similar economic impact.

    His 49er's comment was about location. Not public subsidy. That why he used the phrase "The importance of location". ;)
    BTW- saying that it's better if the team pays for the stadium rather than the public is kind of overstating the obvious isn't it?

    The article was sophomoric and weak. Read the comments, including his own. He lost control of his message.
     
  23. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No... Your incorrect interpretation is the only thing implying that the economic impact of the 49ers having a downtown stadium would be similar to that of AT&T. The only thing your quote implies is that the economic benefit of the new stadium in Santa Clara will not be as great as it would be If the stadium were in downtown SF like AT&T.

    The whole premise of the article is that downtown locations that are primarily paid for by the team are superior to non-downtown locations where the municipality pays a significant portion in terms of positive economic impact. The article might be poorly written, but you are reading way too much into a couple of sentences that are clearly not saying what you think they are.
     
  24. CACuzcatlan

    CACuzcatlan Member

    Jun 11, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    I think its clear FUAEG has a problem with reading comprehension, so we should stop trying to argue with him.
     
  25. T.M. Anthony

    T.M. Anthony Member+

    Jun 13, 2010
    Hudson Valley
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    We don't take your logic kindly around these parts...:rolleyes:

    Yeah having a stadium anywhere will have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. I recall seeing alot of buisnesses(particularly resturants and hotels) booming in a visit to a Yanks-Rays game in St.Pete. a worker at a resturant mentioned how dead the town was up until the recent succes of the franchise at the trop. Maybe more stadiums should follow RBA's example and be built in a location that can benifit from being redeveloped(and be paid for by the franchise itself instead of taxes)I'm sure it would be easier to find a location to build in places like this and it can be a perpetual stimulus for the towns economy.

    Oh, and just to throw my two cents in about the Downtown/Suburban stadium argument, it dosn't matter if its downtown or not as long as its accessible by public transportation and highway access (which just sort of happens downtown) people will come.
     

Share This Page