Can't imagine they'd copy that. There's already a top class track at Memorial Park, by the OTC in Springs.
That's my point. Rapids don't need to copy the layout of the HDC, just steal the concept points that they like.
I'm not buying this- it sounds too much like the "we've always done it this way, so why change now" dogma. In planning for the Olympics, Salt Lake City put many large facilities in suburban areas, and even used existing ones (the E-Center in West Valley suburb for the hockey games). The facilities are well used and have become the focal points of numerous businesses and other recreational facilities, which are all very well used. They facilities were placed near major highways, bus routes and other mass transit facilities. Perhaps there's some benefit associated with being part of the downtown image, but how many new fans will that attract? Hey, we currently play at Invesco field, home of the Broncos- shouldn't that image be bringing in the masses?
I agree with those who point out this one simple fact: Denver is the central hub for all of our transportation, including our highway network, rapid transit (they can nickname the busses "Rapids Transit" for direct routes to the SSS...ok...thats terrible), parking, restaurants, etc. I agree with Greenie (see, I can do that every so often) that the kiddie fields should have nothing to do with keeping us out of downtown if we can get a hold of the land. If we must have a set of kiddie fields (and there seems to be so many fields already), they can develop that part in the suburbs. Hang up a picture of the SSS if the kids need to look at the stadium while playing. But lets keep the actual stadium downtown where it belongs. See? We're so demanding. 4 months ago, getting a SSS seemed so far in the future. Now we all have out own little sets of criteria. You gotta love it. Next thing you know we'll be demanding a championship!
If you consider going to a soccer game to be part of an overall experience, then downtown is the place to be. You can go out for dinner before the game or go to a club afterwards. In many cases, you're already downtown for work so you don't even have to travel very much. Look how Coors Field has revitalized an entire area, and even though the team sucks most of the time, people are still willing to go. Put the team training center in middle of a bunch of youth fields out in the burbs. But put the stadium downtown. That said, I guess most of us would grumble a bit if the new stadium wasn't downtown, but I bet we'd still enjoy it.
They've already stated that the new plan would not include the non-soccer ammenities. That said, I also agree that we really don't need the extra fields combined with the stadium. If KSE wants to be involved with youth soccer deveopment, there are many other ways to do it. If they REALLY want to be involved build a field complex for Denver but do it somewhere else. I really don't care where they put the SSS with the exception of Littleton or Aurora and even then I'm happy. If there isn't a feasible option Downtown, Westminster is the next best place IMO. The training facility is here, the Avs train/practice here, and the area is developing nicely more or less. Who really cares though it all seems so sudden.
"We're going into this with the intention of providing those fields. We think it's an important part of the package to show you're committed to kids." --David Ehrlich, vice president of Kroenke Sports, pledging that youth fields will be incorporated into plans for a new stadium for the Rapids. (Rocky Mountain News)
In response to multiple posts, some things about the stadium announcement to keep in mind: - We're talking about KSE, not Kroenke himself. To date, not a single notion, quote nor action can be attributed to Stan Kroenke directly as an individual. - KSE has stated that they are extremely impressed by the HDC. They have not said they plan to build the same sort of complex in Colorado. - KSE has stated that the one thing that they are committed to providing is the kind of connection to the community that HDC has. This does not mean nor have they stated they are committed to fields next to the stadium, only that they were very impressed by how well that accomplished this task. - KSE has said only that the complex will "likely" include adjoining fields. - KSE has stated their commitment to a "massive investment in youth development" but has provided no specifics. - KSE is not interested in adapting any of the non-soccer aspects of the HDC into a stadium for Colorado. - Invesco field and its central location is most definitely an ongoing, positive influence on attendance at Rapids games. - KSE has stated that they have "only just begun" to consider locations. Finally, not so much a fact but an observation: no details have been announced regarding potential locations, architecture, or specific opening dates. Every single one of these things could change radically.
This is largely Alan Pearce's spin on having fields with the stadium. Ehrlick is not "pledging" for fields as part of the stadium complex; all he's saying is that they have the intention of providing fields for the purpose of a community connection. Whether these fields are part of a stadium complex or not is yet to be determined. Likewise, reading Allison Ann Otto's piece in the Post the spin is that Auraria Campus is an "an attractive possibility" (Otto's words). The actual quote from Ehrlick is "it's a potentially beautiful site" and that "a downtown stadium in that location would be tremendous." Who who is right, who is wrong? Obviously neither. Each highlights and a concept that is attractive to KSE yet occlude the other concept from coming to fruition. All we can do is take in reports from all sources and understand that every decision regarding the stadium is entirely up in the air -- aside from the commitment to have it open by 2006.
actually ... you know ... from past MLS histories ... we shouldn't even speculate too much or read into what is said too much... cuz if we've seen anything ... we've seen that plans are made and changed VERY fast in MLS (which is good in some regards (like rule changes) ... but concerning the stadium is bad (like Metros stadium)) Did I just use ('s inside ('s? oh my I post too much.
I'd be happy with a nice stadium, partially covering roof, near public transportation and within 5 miles of downtown, in any direction.
FVCK WESTMINSTER! Anything north of 38th Ave. would be a joke! A travesty. Is there a disproportionate amount of Boulder and North Denver residents on these boards or what??? Hey, I want them in my backyard too! but I can't have them in Fort Collins. Downtown, centrally located or further toward the southern suburbs (As long as it isn't southwest).
Why is south of Denver okay but not north? I'm not finding the difference. I'm not arguing with you, just curious what the difference is?
Downtown it is! Minnesota has a similar field situation as Los Angeles in the Blaine Soccer complex north of the Twin Cities. The main stadium is more of a glorified bleacher affair, however the site includes numerous soccer fields, a velodrome, indoor facilities, olympic tracks and training space. The Minnesota Thunder of the A-league enjoy a winning franchise, loyal fans and a horrific travel to get to their community embraced complex! They have been looking for years for a place to build a Soccer Specific Stadium in either St. Paul or Minneapolis and even play at a local college a couple of times a year just to remind people they are still around! During the 1960's and 1970's many teams fled to the suburbs just like their population because of the perceived nicety of the surroundings and ease of travel. During the 1980's and 1990's many of these teams came back to the inner city because of the atmosphere and economic possibilities of neighboring businesses. If soccer wants the European look and feel of intimate stadiums, they need the intimate feeling of the stadiums' surroundings as well. One does not get that feeling with Applebee's and Outback Steakhouse sitting across the street! Please, Downtown!
Re: Downtown it is! Yeah. Nothing like a city planner somewhere telling the rapids that they have to match stucco colors and architectural concept with the babies-r-us and the circuit city next door. The stadium has to be close to downtown. Please oh please.
Down with the burbs...... The stadium can go just west of the Pepsi Center near I-25 (as far as I understand, Kronke owns that land). The kiddie practice fields can be in Highlands Ranch, Westminster, or Limon for all I'm concerned.
I, too, think that the future should hold downtown stadia... however, it is critical for the I/Os to hold their cards close to the vest... that is the only way they will get the best deal for their clubs... the threat to put a stadium in a remote location (even if it is only a perception) is the road to influencing the process to get the best overall deal possible... we won't really know until the last minute (unless someone really screws up and lets the cat out of the bag)... I think we have seen the end of most 60-90 day announcements that are focussed on a single option (see, Harrison)... I think we will see a lot more of the 30-60 day announcements deciding between options, as in Chicago... I know this is going to make us all crazy, but that is the only way for the I/Os to get the best deal... you don't get good deals (even at existing stadia) unless there is a possibility of alternative arrangements... that is why the Fire now have a good deal at NSF and are seeing some flexibilty from "hizonor"... the deal that the Rapids got at invesco was won at the dear cost of threatening to move or fold... that only works once (if at all)... the fact that there will be a model in the 'burbs (Dallas) - which, incidentally, may make sense in the case of a decentrallized city like Dallas - will only make city governments more flexible in the future... we could see things really snowball in the near future (I am a dreamer, aren't I???), but the process is going to make all soccer fans completely nuts... rand