Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Colorado Rapids' started by North Star, Sep 24, 2003.
I would like the new stadium to be in downtown.
I'm sure that would be nice but what about the cost of real estate downtown?
It may make that close to impossible for a large facility with parking.
They got Kroenke. Money is no object.
He didn't get that rich with that attitude.
SSShhh. He's in a "spending mood".
Okay. Downtown it is..
The article in the post today mentioned that he already owns a decent portion of land in Auraria that could be developed. Thus, he doesn't have to buy it or pay inflated downtown prices. Still, they mention a desire to include youth soccer facilities and I just don't see where they could fit that in with a new stadium, parking, etc....
I'm hopeful that they will still put it downtown though.
Let's hope it's an easy process...
Hopefully, we won't end up in "60 to 90 day hell" like our New Jersey friends. I would think that the 2006 "tentative" deadline would rule out trying to do a Frisco or Harrison deal with various local government organizations. Our new Denver mayor has publicly stated that he's in favor of projects like the Convention Center and stadiums because they help economic development. That should help. Most of the early reports said "next to the Pepsi Center" but at the press conference they said they wanted to do something like the Home Depot Center. Obviouly, another HDC isn't going to happen in downtown Denver. Let's all keep our fingers crossed.
Auraria is downtown, it is where the Pepsi center is. He would have to tear down the Lending Lights Pavillion to put it there and that would not be enough land for the youth fields. If he wants a stadium like HDC, it is not going to be anywhere downtown.
For the sake of discussion, what are some of the pros and cons of not building downtown. For instance, what about a location somewhere along the WestMinster-Boulder corridor? Or in the Tech Center area?
Just a question for you Rapids fans -- which would you prefer: 1) a downtown stadium without the the HDC-like youth fields, etc; 2) a non-downtown stadium with the HDC stuff? It looks like you won't get to have your cake and eat it, too (not enough land downtown to HDC; Kroenke is looking at HDC as a model), so which would you -- the fans -- prefer?
I would prefer a stadium downtown (I live in a southeast suburb-about 20 miles from downtown). I just think that the atmosphere is better downtown and it's centrally located enough to pull the fans from all directions. I think that being in the burbs on a sprawling complex would be detrimental to fan draw, at least in the beginning.
I would still like to see a sprawling complex of youth/adult fields and rapids training facility somewhere else (testing kroenke's true support for development of youth soccer).
I don't have to spend the money though, at least not as much as the owners.
Being selfinsh and living in Westminster, I'd love to see a SSS over here.
BUT, downtown would be the most ideal place.
I love coming into downtown for the games: the whole atmosphere and the easy access for going out afterwards. But I can't comprehend where downtown he can put in an HDC-like complex complete with tournament fields, parking, and all. There's just no room. I'd rather see a top quality complex go in, rather than just a stadium alone, even if it means going out into the 'burbs to do it.
Putting a complex somewhere where it has room to grow over time should be an important consideration. Colorado has a HUGE youth soccer program with some really damn good clubs and teams who consistently comepete at nationals every year. (and win there) They definately deserve the benefit of this too. Colorado has already produced quite a few outstanding MLS players, three of them on the Rapids, so let's help keep that trend going. It's already been mentioned, and I agree, the facilities should be used not just for the Rapids but also for HS state championship games, CSYSA State Cup, elite torunaments, the years Colorado hosts the western regional youth finals (too bad it won't be in for the '04 regionals), and other events. Sandwiching this in downtown just to keep that downtown atmosphere isn't as beneficial to the over all community in the long run.
I vote for Westminster. Maybe it will be walking distance from my house and I won't have to pay for parking anymore!
The pros to a downtown location I have heard so far are:
1). easy access
2). central location
Easy access is not ruled out an SSS built in the suburbs, so it sounds like the only real pro to a downtown stadium is central location. Which begs the question- where does our current fan base commute from to get to Invesco? If a sizable majority currently comes from one part of the greater metro area, then it might make more sense to put a stadium there. I know quite a few people that would just as soon avoid the downtown area altogether. Plus, we may actually significantly increase our current fan base by placing the stadium in a very soccer-active and aware community.
I can't see any other pros to having this thing downtown- when I go to the game, I generally don't hang around for anything else there (except to eat, and the restaurant choices immediately around Invesco aren't all that great).
Other thoughts on this?
Screw the youth fields by the stadium.
Unlike the sprawl that is Los Angeles, we actually have a centrally defined area that serves as a hub, where the two major highways in the state intersect, where there is a wide variety of public transportation available, where a distressed economy hasn't put a significant hurt on pro teams and their stadia.
I think it would be a big mistake to choose an area outside of the city for the primary reason of having space to develop adjoining soccer fields.
Colorado already has a large amount of excellent field facilities for youth players; if they need more and/or could use improvements, then all KSE needs to do to establish a relationship with youth development is sink money into them.
Furthermore, just who gets to play at the fields by the stadium? Leagues and clubs in the area of the stadium, or will it come down to political clout and money within CSYSA?
I'm all for the concept of fostering the dream of playing in the pros by having a stadium they can dream about, but I don't think that requires that they play and/or train within sight of it.
The other pro sports in this country don't see this is as a requirement, and the truth is that very few soccer teams around the world have done this. Certainly one can argue that youth development of soccer in this country needs all the help it can get, but an equally strong argument can be made that the league itself needs to be come more prominent and successful.
Maybe it's just me, but a stadium on the edge of downtown would seem like a bigger deal to the average onlooker (someone that pays little attention to the Rapids today) than would a stadium in Westminster or Littleton.
Moreover, what's the point of having kids dream of making it to the pro ranks when the existing 10 teams don't have the budgets to carry more than 25 players on the roster?
Landon Donovan, DMB, Bobby Convey, Freddy Adu... these are the symbols that will get more kids -- and parents -- focused on the potential benefits of training for the highest level than will a stadium/field complex.
This isn't to say that I think a stadium in the suburbs would be a failure, only that if downtown is a viable option with the exception of field space, I see no reason to put the stadium anywhere else.
The majority of the fan base obviously is and always will be the Metor area. But when I lived in Pueblo, I drove the 120 miles each way up and back for every home game. A lot of other folks down there did it with me and still do it. There's also a very large fan base that comes up from Springs for every game. It was always a pain in th a$$ to fight the city traffic then still have to drive the other 100 miles. A south end stadium would've been great. Then again, a lot of folks in Fort Collins make the drive in from the north too. Anywhere in Denver would be centrally located for everyone and personally, as many opinions as I have on the issue, I don't really care where it goes in. I'm just thrilled we're getting one.
(I sitll vote for putting in the field across the street from me though)
I don't know that the Rapids need to be downtown to be considered big time, but every large sports complex in the history of Colorado has been downtown, just one built on top of the other. Old Mile High, McNichols (geez, I guess Denver doesn't really have a long line of sporting venues) were in that same area. Coors Field, the new Mile High and the Pepsi Center kind of set the precedent for keeping the major sports venues downtown. I think for the Rapids to really get in with the casual Colorado sports fan, a downtown stadium will get their attention a heck of a lot better than a stadium in Westminster or Highlands Ranch.
Then again, I'm sure there are folks within Kroenke's organization who are already crunching the numbers to figure out where the most suitable location is. I'll trust their judgment, whatever they decide, but downtown would afford the stadium (whatever it's called) more visibility and recognition.
Now that the stadium is becoming a reality, should we revive the SSS stadium name game??
It's got to be downtown. Smarter sporting people than us have already deteremined it's most beneficial to have stadiums downtown (Broncos, Rockies, Avs/Nuggets).
Screw all the extra fields. They already have a top notch training facility in Westminster.
That would just be my best case scenario preference, as a fan, player and coach, if given the choice between the two options. Kroenke's the one who said he wanted it to be a community complex and if that's the case he shouldn't do it half a$$, downtown, wedged in between everything else. Butonestly, I don't see how they can do a full complex on thier speculated budget. If they do a stadium only, then downtown is the logical, highest profile location.
They only want to base the concept of the a new stadium and grounds on the HDC, right?
What the hell good would a palendrome (sp?) serve downtown denver or a suburb (oh boy, now I'm bringing the cyclists out of the woodwork). Maybe the concept could be kept somewhat, but still have a downtown location.
Has there been any $ figures thrown around on how much special K is willing to spend?
Maybe he should just buy out some people, knock stuff down and get his land area up that way. Or am I just looking the proverbial gift horse in the mouth?
Central Denver is the hub of most regional and local public transportation. Anything within a quick light rail or bus ride of Union Station and Market Street Station would probably be ideal. The Rapids aren't going to be able to pull a Pat ("I'll move the Broncos if the public doesn't pay for my entire stadium that I get all the profits from") Bowlen, though, so real estate costs might play a part. Although there is a lot of space to build in Northern Denver/Westminster, I would guess that South Denver would be selected as the site. It seems that most of the recent infrastructure additions (light-rail/TRex) have been to benefit access between LoDo and the southern suburbs. Unless Denver starts expanding light rail northwards or expanding US36/Boulder Turnpike (which is a bloody mess), I don't think we'll see a stadium to the north.
You never know, though. We'll have to wait and see. Quango
Right now they're talking about a budget between 30 and 60. The HDC cost about 120.
A palindrome is a word that is spelled the same backwards as forwards (e.g., race car). So I'm not clear on what you are saying.
The tilted ring that cylcist break bones trying to ride in..........actually maybe valendrome.