MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[dont care]

21 hours ago, Walk-Off said:

 

These renderings underwhelm me mainly because of the absence of what Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc. (the ultimate owner of that 35-acre plot of land) and Bally's might build next to the ballpark.  To me, that detail — or lack thereof — prevents the renderings from having a discernible sense of scale and thus keeps alive the big question of whether the ballpark can and does genuinely fit in a mere nine-acre corner of the plot, with a new Bally's-operated resort presumably filling the other 26 acres.

 

On another note, while some contributors to this thread have discussed the proposed ballpark's resemblance to the Sydney Opera House, it should be noted also that the head of one of the architecture firms for the project claims that (a) the shape of traditional baseball pennants inspired the roof and (b) the ballpark's overall design resembles a "spherical" armadillo.

They can say the design is based on that. That doesn’t mean it didn’t end up looking like the Sydney opera house though

[OnWis97]

On 3/7/2024 at 2:50 AM, FrutigerAero said:

Nah you're good, I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing here. I don't think money-wise, they would be a money printer, don't misunderstand me.  Moneywise MLB should probably just put a third team in New York (New Jersey Jerseys?).  I guess I was thinking, "No corporate sponsors?  Surely they could muster as many as Milwaulkee".

 

But re: Delta, Delta's name is literally on the Utah NBA arena.  A big sponsor.  SLC is not their headquarters, but it is their western hub.

 

 

So weirdly hostile.  From living in 6 different states in all parts of the US and observing the culture and attitudes and preferences in each, what I've seen is that Utah people love sports, more than any other place I've been to, and I do not say that lightly.  If you disagree, fine, but your experiences are not mine. 

 

I believe putting a team in Utah would mean adding MLB fans who would give a crap and if the team was competing, they would easily draw 80-90% all season long.  They wouldn't make as much money as a big city team with a big TV deal and apathetic transplants.  Definitely, but I'm not an owner counting dimes so I don't care.

 

But some of the complaints are just weird.  Hard to get to games?  Utah has a great public transportation system that can take you right downtown all the way from the south of the valley.  And the traffic is never bad.  Check out where they're ranked here.  Maybe it will make you laugh with joy at what a good transportation system it is:

 

Rankings: Transportation - Best States (usnews.com)

 

Now here is what is hard... getting to Oracle to see my Giants 

Based on my minimal experience in SLC, the city punches way above its weight in terms of transit.  If they located a ballpark properly, SLC residents would have an easier time getting to games than residents of almost any city in the US.

But it's a small city. Are they going to rely on people coming in from places like Provo, Ogden, etc. that are far enough away that it's going to be a problem for a weeknight game, rendering their ability to sell tickets to the majority of games insufficient?

I don't know the answer to that but that's something that occured to me.  Maybe the Jazz offer a partial answer.

[Sykotyk]

2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Based on my minimal experience in SLC, the city punches way above its weight in terms of transit.  If they located a ballpark properly, SLC residents would have an easier time getting to games than residents of almost any city in the US.

But it's a small city. Are they going to rely on people coming in from places like Provo, Ogden, etc. that are far enough away that it's going to be a problem for a weeknight game, rendering their ability to sell tickets to the majority of games insufficient?

I don't know the answer to that but that's something that occured to me.  Maybe the Jazz offer a partial answer.

SLC has the benefit of being a mostly laid out grid, with freeways that are all adequately sized running in north/south or east/west directions mostly. Even the 215 loop runs more in a square than a circle. Putting a venue anywhere on the west side of SLC along the 215 near 80 or 201 would work fine. Even off 201 near Bangerter, or anywhere along I-15. There isn't 'one side' of SLC that is economically better or worse for location. It's not like DFW where the northern suburbs far outweigh the south, for instance. The only real limit is the mountains to the east. Anywhere else will work.

 

The only real negative for SLC is that many of the locations around the freeways are heavily industrial or warehouses. Or heavy residential. There's not a lot of in-between.

 

[Digby]

On 2024-03-07 at 3:50 AM, FrutigerAero said:

Rankings: Transportation - Best States (usnews.com)

 

 

Vermont is number one on this list, which is a searingly obvious tell that the methodology is too flawed to take seriously.

 

Real numbers say SLC's public transit usage is pretty anemic. Not really out of the ordinary for American cities but I'm not seeing this as a special selling point necessarily.

[The_Admiral]

There are six actual transit cities in America: New York, Chicago, DC, Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia.  A seventh, Los Angeles, has deceptively high ridership numbers but would never cross anyone's mind as a transit-oriented city. Everything else is just "we actually have a surprisingly good light rail system." That goes for Atlanta, St. Louis, Dallas, Minneapolis, Denver, Miami, Seattle, apparently now Milwaukee for some reason, and yes, Salt Lake City. 

[Sec19Row53]

13 minutes ago, The_Admiral said:

There are six actual transit cities in America: New York, Chicago, DC, Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia.  A seventh, Los Angeles, has deceptively high ridership numbers but would never cross anyone's mind as a transit-oriented city. Everything else is just "we actually have a surprisingly good light rail system." That goes for Atlanta, St. Louis, Dallas, Minneapolis, Denver, Miami, Seattle, apparently now Milwaukee for some reason, and yes, Salt Lake City. 

The Hop??

Hahahahahahahahaha

[B-Rich]

35 minutes ago, The_Admiral said:

There are six actual transit cities in America: New York, Chicago, DC, Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia.  A seventh, Los Angeles, has deceptively high ridership numbers but would never cross anyone's mind as a transit-oriented city. Everything else is just "we actually have a surprisingly good light rail system." That goes for Atlanta, St. Louis, Dallas, Minneapolis, Denver, Miami, Seattle, apparently now Milwaukee for some reason, and yes, Salt Lake City. 

 

If we're talking heavy rail vs. light rail,  Atlanta has VERY little in terms of light rail-- just the 2.7 mile downtown Atlanta Streetcar loop:

 

The entire MARTA transit system is based on an extremely limited  heavy rail "hub and spoke" model, with lots of supplemental bus lines:

 

You also forgot to mention Washington DC, with its rather robust heavy rail-based METRO system.   As of 2023, it claimed to be the second-busiest rapid transit system in the United States in average daily ridership (after the New York City Subway) :

 

And they really don't have light rail, either; like Atlanta they only have the "DC Streetcar" a 2.2 mile line  

[The_Admiral]

I mentioned DC. The thing about the Metro's ridership numbers is that it acts as a de facto hybrid rapid transit/commuter-rail operation, with lines venturing out into suburbs where the Subway and L never would. MARC and VRE are relative afterthoughts compared with the enormous park-and-ride stations on the periphery. The Electric Line in Chicago has the opposite problem where it's a high-frequency line that primarily serves the city but is classified under commuter rail. If you count the L and Metra together, I think they'd have higher ridership than the DC Metro plus its semi-related commuter lines.

[SFGiants58]

56 minutes ago, The_Admiral said:

Everything else is just "we actually have a surprisingly good light rail system." That goes for Atlanta, St. Louis, Dallas, Minneapolis, Denver, Miami, Seattle, apparently now Milwaukee for some reason, and yes, Salt Lake City. 

That is very correct. It’s excellent at connecting the further reaches of suburbs to lower downtown (be it the big EMU’s or the smaller EMU’s - which I use mostly), but the actual transit system within the central part of the city is lackluster. The whole system is electrified and uses no EMD F40PH engines, which is pretty neat.

 

I should have some nostalgic attachment to the F40PH’s (as I grew up with Caltrain), but I really don’t.

[B-Rich]

1 hour ago, The_Admiral said:

I mentioned DC. 

You sure did, not sure how I missed it. Probably looking for 'Washington' instead of 'DC'.  My (old man) bad.

[McCall]

This thread has derailed.

[SFGiants58]

2 minutes ago, McCall said:

This thread has derailed.

 

As good a time as any for a Station Joke.

 

[FrutigerAero]

5 hours ago, Digby said:

 

Vermont is number one on this list, which is a searingly obvious tell that the methodology is too flawed to take seriously.

 

Real numbers say SLC's public transit usage is pretty anemic. Not really out of the ordinary for American cities but I'm not seeing this as a special selling point necessarily.

My comment was unclear but I was saying the public transportation is pretty serviceable, and the traffic in the metro is pretty good, all of which is evidenced by their #5 ranking in the "transportation" (both public and private) category.

 

 

Here is an interesting image from the New York Times.  Interactive version here.  It is 10 years old but I'd guess things are mostly the same, probably with the Astros and Dodgers having grown their territorial strength due to having lots of success the past decade.

 

Takeaways:

-Yankees are basically the default popular team everywhere, especially along the entire eastern seaboard.  They are probably numerically maybe the most popular team in Florida which explains why the Rays basically function as FenYank park south.

 

-The Braves basically own the south.  There are holes in Charlotte and Nashville but you're basically still in Braves country.  This makes me wonder if Raliegh is actually the better long-term option for relocation/expansion, all things being equal. 

 

-New Orleans is up for grabs too.

 

-Vegas is a Dodger stronghold.  From an attendance standpoint you want the A's to be in the NL west to get those Dodger ticket sales.

 

-Utah is a state of free agents, as they don't root for any of the "local" teams.

 

-Mariners have a pretty strong reach into Portland.  I still think a team could do well there but I think you'd want them to be rivals to the Mariners?  Or maybe not.

 

-unfortunately, no map of Canada, It would be interesting to see Montreal.

 

By the criteria *of this map only* here is how I would rank expansion/relocation options:

-Raleigh

-Charlotte

-Salt Lake City

-NOLA

-Nashville

-Las Vegas (actually going to happen)

-Portland

 

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, FrutigerAero said:

-The Braves basically own the south.  There are holes in Charlotte and Nashville but you're basically still in Braves country.  This makes me wonder if Raliegh is actually the better long-term option for relocation/expansion, all things being equal. 

 

I could be wrong, but the vibe I get, at least from the Venn diagram of New York transplants and haughty Hurricanes fans, is that Raleigh is starting to see itself as the southernmost point of the Northeast whereas Charlotte is much more firmly in the South. I think they're wrong, of course, but I can see their ill-founded argument for breaking out of Braves Country. 

 

I still don't see expansion or relocation anywhere on this map. One team is trying to relocate and it's not even working. There are no good options.

 

Also, I need to find that article I read years ago about how the MARTA lines were all designed to be the biggest failure possible. Well, in the meantime, enjoy this ridiculous video.

[FiddySicks]

7 hours ago, The_Admiral said:

There are six actual transit cities in America: New York, Chicago, DC, Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia.  A seventh, Los Angeles, has deceptively high ridership numbers but would never cross anyone's mind as a transit-oriented city. Everything else is just "we actually have a surprisingly good light rail system." That goes for Atlanta, St. Louis, Dallas, Minneapolis, Denver, Miami, Seattle, apparently now Milwaukee for some reason, and yes, Salt Lake City. 

Considering the heavy car influence from the behemoth to the west, I would probably put Phoenix in the second category, too. 

[Digby]

Every American transit system outside of New York is very hub-and-spoke though, no? 
 

To LA’s credit, they are building out their transit system right now at a scale that I didn’t think was possible in post-1970s America. At least that’s how it looks to me. Though things don’t connect the way they should. I was almost excited for a train to LAX option.

[The_Admiral]

16 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

Considering the heavy car influence from the behemoth to the west, I would probably put Phoenix in the second category, too. 

 

I didn't even think Phoenix could have a light rail without someone shooting it and yelling "GET OFF MY PROPERTY"

[LMU]

12 minutes ago, The_Admiral said:

 

I didn't even think Phoenix could have a light rail without someone shooting it and yelling "GET OFF MY PROPERTY"

I mean, the one time I was on the Phoenix light rail the guy next to me had an ankle monitor so you're not that far off.

[The_Admiral]

35 minutes ago, Digby said:

Every American transit system outside of New York is very hub-and-spoke though, no? 

 

Marta is more of a big X, and I'm not sure what you'd call the Metro. Chicago has pretty much every railroad converging upon one square mile, and every plan to come up with a line that doesn't pretty much dies on the vine.

[LaGrandeOrange]

10 hours ago, FrutigerAero said:

 

-unfortunately, no map of Canada, It would be interesting to see Montreal.

 

The Jays are on national tv here and those who continue to follow the sport tend to have converted to them, although I'd say for the most part it's hanging on by a thread as a spectator sport. Of course, my experience is not the median.

 

edit: I'd add that if you were concerned about a potential "rivalry" that's really more of a Leafs/TFC thing, the Jays were never a traditional rivalry since they were never good simultaneously during interleague play, and we don't have that much hostility towards Toronto sports otherwise- the Raptors are pretty popular around here.