Stadiums Rumors...

Initially I can see the cost effectiveness in building a stadium in an area that has an infrastructure already in place, but is the cost of upgrading the infrastructure in a run down/urban strife area as feasible as developing in a rural area of the valley and building infrastructure to suit the site?

Drawbacks I see are;
The 45th south area is a bottle neck area. It is newly upgraded and still sorely inadequate in the race to meet demand. Although they can promote easy access to I-15, this may depend entirely on your definition of "easy access"

West side of the gateway? Have they addressed the growing homeless/vagrant/panhandling population in the area around the Gateway. most notably but not exclusively the homeless shelter half a block south of the Gateway. I was unaware of the homeless shelter and the seedier element in the area. My Gf and I were soundly harrassed walking through there going from the Gateway to that restaurant in the old Rio Grande Building. I left there with a bad impression. I feel the homeless/vagrant/panhandling population would be a huge turn off to visiting fans and families. It must be addressed before the stadium is built.

If I had to choose from your list: I like the Second Suggestion cos it is across the street from where I work and I get free parking.

As far as tax revenue I think any of the suggested areas would benefit from the stadium and I feel each area will mount a fight to home the stadium in their precinct.

 

IMO the area in the South-West Salt Lake Valley (West Jordan Area) would be ideal.
It is a vibrant area that is growing in leaps and bounds. It also offers new, modern infrastructure, TRAX is planning an expansion line out through West Jordan.
Therefore "easy access" to light rail, Bangerter Highway and I-215.

It is somewhat rural with wide expansive areas begging for development

 

I think all of the options sound great. I would be excited about any of them, so selfishishness would be my only motive for stating one over another.

My official vote is: go with whichever deal will be most substantially in favor of RSL (i.e., whoever is willing to help bankroll and make this project a success in other ways.)

 

congrats guys! checketts is the man! you havent even played a single game and you guys are close having a complete stadium plan in place. congrats again

 

The Courthouse option is the most attractive, if it can be done. It would be the first "urban"/downtown stadium in the league. Plus, if the goal is to spur development, the Murray and Gateway locations are already developed/developing/beyond-hope. The area around the Courthouse, on the other hand, particularly to the Southwest and West, could really use the boost. It would also be in close proximity to the Pierpont area of downtown - bars, clubs and resturants.

Plus, come on. It would be literally across the street from a Trax stop. A stop called "The Courthouse." And suddenly, you have a built in nickname for your stadium - superior even to the Jamacian National Team's "Office."

A "royal" team and it's place of judgement.

How could this not be the favored location.

 

I think I will add this to my list of selfish reasons
I want the stadium there!

Forget my West Jordan suggestion this is way too cool to not get behind it!

 

thats amazing. My team the metrostars have been around 9 years and we still dont have a stadium. You guys havent even played a game yet and you already have a stadium. Congratulations. I'll go off and drown in my misery.

 

Well I thought I answered your question in my first reply. I suggested that each city/precinct will mount a fight to home the stadium.

What are your references suggesting that Delta Center did not stimulate growth.

Just from my memory, I can recall the area around the Delta Center and Gateway were basically 'no go' areas... unless you were looking for a prostitute, drugs or a quick way to meet an abrupt end to your way of life.

Now I would say that what exists there now, excluding the one block area between the Gateway and the Rio Grande building, has vastly improved, not only in the urban renewal arena but in the clientele(no pun intended) that frequent the area. I would say that it has succeeded in re-claiming an area of the city that had declined into a decaying cesspool.

I am unfamiliar with the Franklin Covey discussion. However, I do know the ball park is alot nicer now than it was when the Gulls and Trappers played in it.

I know that Wally-World just opened up down the street from FC Field... and if you ask me that is the sign that the area will decline not the fact that the field was there and could only draw a Maverik, 7-eleven and a Wal-Mart.

Using another town in the Valley as an example the Sandy City council have voted in favor of that type of store, and have gambled there future on them.
So by there standards as long as they get a wal-mart to go with it, it is a successful undertaking

E-Center area was a growing area before the E-Center was built, which I believe was your staance anyway. so that is an invalid association...

I hope this does not come across as an incoherent ramble.

 

Well, first of all, the Murray City council seems to assume that the stadium will encourage commercial growth. Hence their bid. While the situation is a bit different, the SLC council should assume no less. The stadium is going to be built (or so it certainly seems), and, maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't it generate more economic growth than an empty lot? I know that SLC doesn't own the land, so they need justification to buy it from big Earl. But if Murray assumes it can encourage economic development, why doesn't SLC?

And is it really genuine to say that The Gateway would have been built even if the Delta Center had not? The Delta Center had at least something to to with development in that area, if only because it directed the course of light rail downtown. It certainly made the "inevitable" construction of Gateway more attractive and increased the value of the project.

The Courthouse option is attractive because the surrounding area could use the attention and it isn't a part of downtown that has become fully blighted yet. It isn't the kind of place that suburbanites are afraid to wander - like, say, west of Gateway. You also avoid the concerns of neighboring residential communities west of Gateway (and within Gateway, for that matter) that would, at the very least, be afflicted by construction and an increase in traffic. The Courthouse area is fully commercial. It is also an area just west of City Hall, the site of festivals and events throught the year. The stadium could become part of these plans.

And, like I said, come on, it's "The Courthouse."

 

Sorry I forgot to mention...
the answer to the City not owning the land to develop... Just ask Larry H. Miller how he got the Delta Center Land from its owner.

I will tell you... I recall that the Salt Lake City Counsil condemned the land because the owner would not sell or was holding the land for a better price.

They (SLCC) condemned it and Larry H. Miller got the land for pennies on the dollar of the asking price.

So don't worry about the land... if the City wants it the city will get it!

 

Tonight the ABC News show “Nightline” will air an episode that might be of interest to all of you. It has to do with:

Building new sports stadiums. Is it fair to put the burden on taxpayers?

There's a raging dispute about how to fund huge new sports stadiums in cities around the country. The question: should public money be used because they are an economic boom, or is this simply a taxpayer rip-off?

Arlington, Texas voted on Election Day to put more than $300 million into a new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys. Tomorrow, the Washington, D.C. City Council votes on public funding for a new stadium for the city's new major league team, The Washington Nationals. San Francisco is being asked to build a new stadium for the 49ers. Correspondent Jake Tapper reports.

Our guests: Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys; Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco; and Kevin Delaney, associate professor of sociology at Temple University and author of Public Dollars, Private Stadiums

 

A couple of weeks ago most of the buildings on the "Courthouse" site were torn down.

As for development around the area it's not as "blighted" as nearby blocks. Obviously the State Courthouse and City Hall to the east are suitable. To the north is Port-o-Call and a row of operating businesses. To the west are the dance club, a printing shop, and car wash (iirc). It's to the south where the Little America and Grand America (Holdings inc.) sits.

So, does the council want tax rich restaurants to buy out some existing business and set up shop?

Rocky/SLC wants to draw people. Sitting on 5th South, one of the main downtown exits, would make it as visible as any place in Utah.

 

Rockey the Mayor hsa SLC on the brain, not the devlopment of the Wasatch Front! People (Family type)have quit living in Salt Lake years ago. When the SLC Commisioners of the 40's to the 80's let the farm communities and industial suburbs annex the whole county around them it sunk Downtown. SLC's future is repacement of the die off home owners with value enhancing new owners (not happening) and high rise housing which attracts the new nester and the empty nesters. The Political Will to doze whole blocks of habitable housing to enable regentrification is not there either. The Marble office on East South Temple is doing more than the Sandstone one on 4th South to develope Downtown. Rockey and his old buddies at ACLU killed (hopefully to be resurected soon) the Legacy Highway for "Envionmental" reasons, but look at the map! The Legacy and the West Side highway routings as currently envisioned will help commerce move from North and South weather its Arisona to Idaho or Davis County to Utah County. But the "Hub Businesses" and the people who live and work there served by the freeways are not and will increasingly not be residents of Salt lake City. Legacy is a SLC killer and Hizzoner knows it.
What is wrong with his Downtown Stadium?
1) Local desire/desperation vrs Regional Benifit.
2) Cost of land: Because of proximity to like high rise office space nearby land is expensive and may be more valuable tax wise (and best use) in other uses. Is a $5 million to $10 Million land premium going to pay off for the teams useage and finacial return?
3) 10 acre city blocks may be big by Eastern and European standards but still small for a Stadium. The mimimum footprint for a stadium is 4 acres. The security/surveilance zone arround the structure will eat up 2 to 4 acres. Staff, Player, bus, Media and VIP parking will take the rest, leaving little space for the required greenspace landscaping.
4) Where will you find 5000 parking places (the 4:1 ratio for "suburban") or 2000 (the 10 to 1 ratio for "Urban"areas with parking available)? [NOTE: This kind of standard was required of all sites when the Blitzz looked for stadium land. Now if Rockey has ideas of changing the rules he has an opponent.]
5) Practice areas must be at a separate place! This costs money and time. If a $2 million payroll of players and staff are spending 2 hours a day in travel and setup/takedown time that could be spent in useful activities, it is a poor value return for the team.
6) Hiz Pub-Crawlness "vision" for Downtown is for more "lively" bars and such. Maybe he considers a stadium a really big "Party House". Absolutely the wrong idea for Utah family values and totally missing the demographics of the people who attend pro soccer in Utah.
I have been to the games and looked at who was there and seen the non-profit beer sales at Freezz games.
7) If there is adequete land (20 to 100 acres) available cheep Downtown, why hasn't Boyer or Wall-Mart grabbed it? Maybe it is low valued for a reason, and that turns away developers.
8) TRAX would benifit more from a suburban site with lots of parking around the stadium availabe for the worker/student/shopper who lives off the line and will take the train if there is parking close to home and at the Station. The same for all Sports Fans who want to get to a game without the nearby parking problems. FUTURE AD: "Park at ReAL Stadium for Ute Football or Jazz games and ride TRAX".
9) Big fireworks shows won't go at a crowded Downtown site.
10) The best interests of the team should be utmost! Comprimising principle and sound stadium siteing for a dubius value "downtownism" is not tin the best interest of ReAL Salt Lake!

 

wait for me !

 

Lots of us Family Types live (or in my case, used to live) in Rose Park. I loved it there & I wish I had never left.

OK & Metros, don't stress!

We have some advantages that you don't. Unless we tear down the Stein Eriksen Lodge & build our stadium there, land here costs a lot less than it does where you live.

Maybe this thread has some tips that might lead to your own place?

In 1991, I spent 3 months in Carteret. People make fun of New Jersey, but I thought that parts of it were very pretty. But, let's be honest, parts of it did need a little redevelopment.

I think that there's some kind of "Brownfields" program to redevelop abandoned industrial sites? Maybe RSL will set a precedent that helps the Metros work something out?

If it works out, you owe me a beer and a linguiça. (That's the yummy Portuguese sausage I had there back in '91, right?)

 

I ran this one by the Fire here in Chicago. The team felt that the possible financial drain of a brownfield was too great a risk to take on. Plus, in my research, I never did find one that was in the right location where I could make a good pitch for it.

I hope you do push for an environmentally friendly stadium there. When you do, make sure you figure out the economic advantages versus disadvantages before making the pitch. Environmentally friendly building makes more sense long term, but the trick is to make it better short term as well. Two ideas:

1) I suspect that water collection should be an issue, because I have a feeling that y'all may not have as much water as you need. Fields are thirsty. Collect rainwater in cisterns, then water the field with it. Not expensive. Route to take: find someone who sells this stuff. Find out how much it would cost to implement the system. Then find out how much the water district charges for the same amount of water. Find out if the reclamation district will cut you a deal because you are collecting stormwater instead of letting it runoff. This benefits the reclamation district because they won't have to treat the water. Over 10+ acres, this is a lot of water they won't have to treat.

2) Geothermal. It helps regulate heating and cooling in the buildings (offices, locker rooms, etc). It also can be coiled under the field. If you need to heat the field because of snow, or if your grass becomes dormant because of winter and you need to wake it up, bringing the ground temperature up to 55 degrees (the approximate temperature of the ground below the frost line) by using geothermal is a lot cheaper than electric coils.


I hope that the stadium gets built downtown. Why? Because I believe that downtowns should be thriving centers of life. Great cities have way more to do in them on any given day than anyone could possibly do. Better yet, it's all concentrated in one spot. Will a soccer stadium be a huge revitilizing agent? No, but it's a symbol, and it will help. It's a symbol of success, of first rank, of wealth. People are attracted to that, and just its presence will help in the revitilization. I think that people like a whole day off, and that going to a game can be part of a family's full day. But a day doesn't begin at 6:00 p.m. A lot of people like getting somewhere, seeing a few things, doing a few things, going to a favorite restaurant, and then going to the game in the evening. The larger the family, the more limited, energy-wise and monetary-wise, they'll be in being able to make a full day of a game. But having a stadium downtown gives the opportunity for both the whole-day-trippers and the just-for-the-game folks to attend. I argue against stadiums in the suburbs because it excludes some of those who would like to make a whole day of it. And remember, while the majority of people will likely come from SLC and suburbs, a lot of people will be making the trip from far enough away that making a whole day of it in the city may make sense. As a town with people regularly coming from abroad to visit, having the stadium downtown just makes it a lot easier for them to come to the stadium. Finally, for those of us who may be coming in for away games, and for teams with their entourages coming in for games, we all want to stay as close as possible to the stadium, so that's a lot of hotel nights that get added for wherever the stadium is.

 

A Soccer Specific Stadium is beneficial to all involved and is in the best interest of the Region as well as the local area.

Land that is dis-used industrial and in need of re-development is generally cheaper than "green-field" areas. The infrastructure is already in place.
The city has many ways to gain the land cheaper than an individual can aquire the same land. (Just think back to how Larry H. Miller aquired the land for the Delta Center with the help of the city) The City will re-zone, condemn, or trade (Remember the Main Street Affair) To aquire the land that it wants.

I am unsure of the requirements per area within the stadium zone but I am reasonable sure that a 10 acre lot can easily become a 20 acre lot by removing the thru street so it is not difficult to envision a stadium downtown.

The Parking is already available in and around the dwntown area, either walk or TRAX to the stadium from a parking lot. Delta Center, both downtown Malls, The Gateway and about 30 downtown private and public lots would be plenty for a stadium that will seat approximately 1/2 - 3/4 of the Delta Center. Plus any parking built with the stadium. (If I am not mistaken this will be a 10-15 thousand seat stadium.)

The Jazz have a much larger player and organizational payroll and they don't practice at the Delta Center. They practice at the Zion's Bank Facility about 6 miles away. I am reasonably certain that they would not be doing this if it were a waste of money.

I feel that gearing your sales pitch to a specific demographic while ignoring the others is financial suicide.
What about visiting fans? Soccer is a sport that has fans that traditionally travel to 'away' games. They come from very diverse backgrounds so alienating or ignoring there needs will only hurt the team and the area, as well as businesses in and around the stadium. Not to mention the Hotel industry.

I agree that the demographics are strongly geared toward a 'family' sport, however there are countless area attractions that cater to this function.
I also realize that this is not the only demographic for the area. Having an area for other demographic groups is good common sense and financially sound business planning.

The family atmosphere can be maintained while co-existing with the rest of the demographic groups. Other cities have been pulling it off for decades... I am sure we can do it here!

I think this is redundent with the third point but I do think that if the city had been properly motivated by Wal-Mart or a different group that wanted to build in downtown that the plans would have been drawn up.
I believe that the city would NOT subsidize a Wal-Mart but would help subsidize a stadium so this point is mute.

Erm... this could go both ways... The TRAX does service the downtown area so having the stadium downtown would be beneficial to TRAX users as well.

Fireworks are used downtown every 4th & 24th of July at Franklin-Covey Field and Liberty Park so this point does not make sense. Unless you don't consider these areas downtown.

I am more than reasonably sure that sound stadium siting will be employed wherever the stadium is homed. Of course It will benefit Real Salt Lake and the area in which it is homed or it will be built somewhere else.

 

Something else to keep in mind is that this won't be exclusively a soccer stadium. I think no doubt a stadium like this would have HS sports, concerts, extreme sports shows and a whole bunch of other things. Right now nobody puts on big outdoor concerts unless they think it's someone big enough for Rice-Eccles. A moderately sized downtown outdoor stadium could be a huge draw. I know there was talk of making it an ice rink in the winter, something which is very common in parts of Europe that get snow. Downtown could use more recreational facilities. Although I'm sure they've made no comment, the church would likely be very supportive of a downtown stadium because it would bring family-oriented entertainment near temple square.

To make full use of the facility, it is best off downtown. As a soccer stadium alone, it may actually be better off in Murray but that is debateable. But this thing won't be too economically viable as a soccer stadium alone, at least initially. None of the SSS's are. A soccer stadium has a huge advantage over a baseball stadium because it accomodates many uses. That has probably been a big part of the failure for Franklin Covey. If they only play 20 games a year, it's hard to justify the land downtown for them. But if they have something going on almost every weekend, it has real value. They need to push for downtown because it gives the facility as a whole a better chance to be very profitable. Murray would be great for just the soccer stadium, and if they get cheap land it makes it possible to put a stadium there even if it's just for soccer. But Murray's overall potential just isn't as high as downtown's.

 

I'm all for a downtown stadium. I love the idea of jumping on the train at Fort Union and singing Loyalist fight songs all the way to the courthouse station. We could adopt our own unofficial headquarters at some dive near the stadium; a place where we could gather before and after the matches to eat and sing praises to our heros. Who's with me?

 

Wait, am I missing something? They don't have a stadium yet. All they have are stadium rumors. All teams have had those, including Kansas City and New England.

 

I don't think either has rumors of cities competing to build stadiums or an owner willing to pay for one.