Team located farthest from represented city?

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

For arenas and ballparks I will agree. I still don't see any benefit to having big football stadiums downtown. The lack of use and the volume of people that show up to my mind still demand football stadiums belong out in the boonies. Otherwise they're taking up prime real estate downtown and providing little return.

 

Agreed. Soldier Field sits on the Chicago lakefront doing a whole lot of nothing. It's not particularly convenient to get to and there's seldom a reason to. Though I hear the Rickettses might buy the Chicago Fire and move them back to Soldier Field.

What's interesting about the Palace of Auburn Hills is that it represents what we hate (abandoned the city for suburbia) and what we love (the owner paid for the whole thing himself, not with public money) about sports venue construction. I'm glad the Pistons will be moving downtown, but it's still a little crazy that the Davidsons worked so hard to keep the joint in such good condition only for new owners to move the team in with the Red Wings and tear it all down. At least the contractors got paid for the work, I guess.

[bosrs1]

52 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

Agreed. Soldier Field sits on the Chicago lakefront doing a whole lot of nothing. It's not particularly convenient to get to and there's seldom a reason to. Though I hear the Rickettses might buy the Chicago Fire and move them back to Soldier Field.

What's interesting about the Palace of Auburn Hills is that it represents what we hate (abandoned the city for suburbia) and what we love (the owner paid for the whole thing himself, not with public money) about sports venue construction. I'm glad the Pistons will be moving downtown, but it's still a little crazy that the Davidsons worked so hard to keep the joint in such good condition only for new owners to move the team in with the Red Wings and tear it all down. At least the contractors got paid for the work, I guess.

 

You actually highlight why the eventual demise of public funding might lead to more suburban stadia. Land is cheaper in suburbia than it is in downtown cores. And stadiums/arenas take up a lot of real estate.

[Viper]

A few current and former teams representing Chicago in various sports play(ed) at Sears Centre in Hoffman Estates, a good 30 miles northwest of downtown.

[The_Admiral]

Ah, the Sears Centre: the mistake 45 minutes from the lake, the joint that always disappoints, the Joey Harrington of South Barrington

[B-Rich]

On 12/19/2016 at 2:08 PM, bosrs1 said:

 

For arenas and ballparks I will agree. I still don't see any benefit to having big football stadiums downtown. The lack of use and the volume of people that show up to my mind still demand football stadiums belong out in the boonies. Otherwise they're taking up prime real estate downtown and providing little return.

 

On 12/19/2016 at 2:13 PM, DG_Now said:

Not to be a total homer, but CenturyLink has been a tremendous success. The Seahawks often make playoffs, the Sounders play from March to November, there are concerts (Beyonce, GnR), and this year we had Copa America.

 

It's the best case, but I realize it's not true for every city.

 

On 12/19/2016 at 2:37 PM, OnWis97 said:

I went to yesterday's Vikings game and it's nice to go downtown for the game.  Of course, I live five light rail transit stops away so it beats the hell out of driving out to the 'burbs for me.  It's probably reduces the entire fiasco by 90 minutes.

 

But generally I tend to agree with the idea that an eight-game-per-year investment may as well be on cheap land.  I am pretty sure the NFL has a rule that you are supposed to drive a large SUV to the games, so they may as well play on a freeway off ramp. 

 

All else equal, I like the downtown experience, and it does work well for the Vikings and several other teams, I am sure...but the whole "redevelopment" thing (which some people don't buy anyway) for eight games and the occasional U2 and country concert seems like less than optimal use for the land.  In fairness, the opportunity cost for that part of downtown Minneapolis (and Seattle; I've been to a Mariners game) is probably minimal.  But anything "prime" is probably better served by MLB, or at least NHL/NBA.

 

On 12/19/2016 at 3:51 PM, the admiral said:

 

Agreed. Soldier Field sits on the Chicago lakefront doing a whole lot of nothing. It's not particularly convenient to get to and there's seldom a reason to. Though I hear the Rickettses might buy the Chicago Fire and move them back to Soldier Field.

 

New Orleans' experience with the Superdome is a little different; the downtown location has been ideal and successful.

 

For one, the Superdome, unlike some other facilities, was built with a pretty decent sized parking garage (5,000 spaces), which is used during the week by workers in surrounding office towers (often via contract).  I remember in doing research for my thesis on the Georgia Dome back in 1989, finding out that the construction of the Superdome parking garages helped spur the subsequent development of surrounding high-rise office towers, due to the ready parking availability.

 

Also, the arena (Smoothie King Center) being situated next door works well for parking; a parking facility or lot was not needed when the arena was built, and it is rare that facility management schedules competing events simultaneously in both venues..   The facilities also share the Dome's cooling system and much of its portable equipment.

 

A key point of usage success is the fact that it is a DOMED or covered stadium.  When football season is over, the turf is removed and the Dome is used tremendously in the spring and summer-- everything from boat shows, car shows, concerts, Essence Fest, trade shows, fun fairs, etc. -- you name it, it happens in the Dome.  Other than the occasional large-venue concert, I think that open stadiums downtown don't have that advantage.

 

Finally, there is something to be said about the central location.  You put a stadium-- domed or not -- far out in one 'burb, you've made it twice as hard for those in the opposite 'burb to get there-- not only in terms of distance, but in terms of traffic congestion.  Centrally located downtown stadia, such as in New Orleans, allow fans to come from every direction evenly, and the game-time traffic flow matches the highway system, which is designed  to address week-daily commuter traffic.

 

 

[OnWis97]

16 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

 

 

 

 

New Orleans' experience with the Superdome is a little different; the downtown location has been ideal and successful.

 

For one, the Superdome, unlike some other facilities, was built with a pretty decent sized parking garage (5,000 spaces), which is used during the week by workers in surrounding office towers (often via contract).  I remember in doing research for my thesis on the Georgia Dome back in 1989, finding out that the construction of the Superdome parking garages helped spur the subsequent development of surrounding high-rise office towers, due to the ready parking availability.

 

Also, the arena (Smoothie King Center) being situated next door works well for parking; a parking facility or lot was not needed when the arena was built, and it is rare that facility management schedules competing events simultaneously in both venues..   The facilities also share the Dome's cooling system and much of its portable equipment.

 

A key point of usage success is the fact that it is a DOMED or covered stadium.  When football season is over, the turf is removed and the Dome is used tremendously in the spring and summer-- everything from boat shows, car shows, concerts, Essence Fest, trade shows, fun fairs, etc. -- you name it, it happens in the Dome.  Other than the occasional large-venue concert, I think that open stadiums downtown don't have that advantage.

 

Finally, there is something to be said about the central location.  You put a stadium-- domed or not -- far out in one 'burb, you've made it twice as hard for those in the opposite 'burb to get there-- no only in terms of distance, but in terms of traffic congestion.  Centrally located downtown stadia, such as in New Orleans allow fans to come from every direction evenly, and the game-time traffic flow matches the highway system, which is designed  to address week-daily commuter traffic.

 

 

That's part of why I think it's so important for MLB/NBA/NHL.  The Vikings stadium almost ended up in the northern suburbs, which is quite a haul from the southern suburbs.  That's probably far more prohibitive for a Wednesday night NBA game than it is for a Sunday NFL game.  OK, they play NFL games on Thursdays and Mondays, but since these games are "events" I think even those games would be OK.  The other events you referenced are probably primarily weekend events and a suburban location would probably deter (some percent) of folks on the other side of town.  All else equal, I prefer downtown, even for NFL for some of what you've said above, particularly with indoor facilities.  But when cost of land becomes an issue, I certainly would let the NFL go to the suburbs before the others.

 

Speaking of parking, even if I drove to games in the Twin Cities, the parking situation is a huge advantage downtown. Maybe not for the boat show when people are coming and going on their own, but for a game, no doubt.  Getting out of, say, Miller Park is miserable.  I always find it funny when people cite parking as an advantage to suburan stadium/arena location.