MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[TBGKon]

5 minutes ago, The_Admiral said:

If the problem with Rays attendance has always been more about geographical considerations than fan interest--after all, the Bolts and Bucs have no problem drawing a crowd--then how are the Rays' perennial woes going to be solved by building a new stadium in the parking lot of the existing one? or do they not think they can solve that problem, which is why they're going to spend billions of dollars on a baseball stadium whose capacity is closer to the Lightning's arena than to other ballparks?

Because they're also getting development rights on the area around the new stadium to be something like The Battery in Atlanta.

 

Tampa proper (and by that matter Hillsborough County as a whole) didn't seem to have strong interest and possibly for good reason.  The unofficial rumblings seem to point that the Buccaneers may be looking towards major renovations to Raymond James Stadium (a la the Dolphins and Jaguars) or a new stadium next door outright within the next 5-10 years.  Hillsborough may be better off putting funds towards that rather than splitting any available funds between the Rays and Bucs.

 

Also, a 30k capacity new Rays stadium is just about as far in size from the Lightning arena (19,092 capacity) as the last MLB ballpark to open in Arlington (40,300 capacity)

[BBTV]

It still doesn't compute.  It's such a terrible location for people that live on either side... why would anyone want to live in whatever is developed near the stadium?  Wouldn't it be just as awful for them to go to their jobs in Tampa and then back to St Pete?

 

I know people want this to be great, but it really doesn't sound like any improvement in any way other than the actual physical structure.  They're still not going to sell out playoff games, still not going to fill 30k, and will still be one of the "takers" of the revenue sharing.

[Sec19Row53]

2008 to 2010 would like a word.
 

[BBTV]

7 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

2008 to 2010 would like a word.
 

 

where they were 12th, 11th, and 9th out of 14 AL teams despite being a WS team?

 

Where it was cheaper for fans to buy a plane ticket, hotel, and a game ticket to see a WS game there because of complete lack of demand?

[Sec19Row53]

Just now, BBTV said:

 

where they were 12th, 11th, and 9th out of 14 AL teams despite being a WS team?

 

Where it was cheaper for fans to buy a plane ticket, hotel, and a game ticket to see a WS game there because of complete lack of demand?

I get all that. But they still drew 1.8 Million in each of those three years.  2.5 in their first year. People don't WANT to go, except that they DID. It makes no sense to me.

[The_Admiral]

8 hours ago, TBGKon said:

Because they're also getting development rights on the area around the new stadium to be something like The Battery in Atlanta.

 

You can put An Exciting Mixed-Use Retail Development™ up my dad's ass; nobody's going there. 

[McCall]

7 hours ago, The_Admiral said:

 

You can put An Exciting Mixed-Use Retail Development™ up my dad's ass; nobody's going there. 

Then he hasn't met the right woman yet.

[raz]

On 7/22/2024 at 12:28 PM, TBGKon said:

Because they're also getting development rights on the area around the new stadium to be something like The Battery in Atlanta.

The Coyotes tried that in Glendale. Apparently, didn't work. 

 

Yes it's next to the football stadium. All of 8/9 dates a year. Dead otherwise. 

[TBGKon]

2 minutes ago, raz said:

The Coyotes tried that in Glendale. Apparently, didn't work. 

 

Yes it's next to the football stadium. All of 8/9 dates a year. 

The difference is that the Coyotes did not own the Westgate City Center complex, nor did their ownership develop that area.  I believe the Coyotes were strictly a tenant.

 

From what I understand, the new Rays stadium is part of a development partnership between the Rays and Hines, a leading global real estate investment manager.  The new Historic Gas Plant District in St. Pete will be owned and operated by the Rays, much like the Braves ownership owns The Battery in Atlanta.

[raz]

9 minutes ago, TBGKon said:

The difference is that the Coyotes did not own the Westgate City Center complex, nor did their ownership develop that area.  I believe the Coyotes were strictly a tenant.

 

From what I understand, the new Rays stadium is part of a development partnership between the Rays and Hines, a leading global real estate investment manager.  The new Historic Gas Plant District in St. Pete will be owned and operated by the Rays, much like the Braves ownership owns The Battery in Atlanta.

The Coyotes owner at the time (Steve Ellman) built the center. Most believe that was his sole interest in getting hold of the hockey team, so he could build around it. 

[The_Admiral]

26 minutes ago, raz said:

The Coyotes owner at the time (Steve Ellman) built the center. Most believe that was his sole interest in getting hold of the hockey team, so he could build around it. 

There's nothing wrong with using a hockey team as an anchor for a larger development. I would contend that it's the only way that owning an NHL team makes sense--at the very least, you need to control your arena's master lease. The Blackhawks just announced a huge plan to build on the parking lots that surround the United Center. (Westsidegate!) The thing is, you have to enjoy owning the hockey team and be sort of good at it or it doesn't work.

[BBTV]

3 hours ago, TBGKon said:

The difference is that the Coyotes did not own the Westgate City Center complex, nor did their ownership develop that area.  I believe the Coyotes were strictly a tenant.

 

From what I understand, the new Rays stadium is part of a development partnership between the Rays and Hines, a leading global real estate investment manager.  The new Historic Gas Plant District in St. Pete will be owned and operated by the Rays, much like the Braves ownership owns The Battery in Atlanta.

But again, if the stadium is located in a terrible location for people that work in either Tampa or Clearwater, why would they want to live near it? Unless I’m misunderstanding the issue, which is possible. 
 

The Defence of the rays poor attendance has always been the location of the stadium. With real estate, it’s “location location location”, so how’s this going to work out?

[raz]

4 hours ago, The_Admiral said:

There's nothing wrong with using a hockey team as an anchor for a larger development.

I don't disagree, I was responding to someone who said the Coyotes didn't own the development, and I was pointing out that their owner did indeed own it at first. 

 

Also, Ellman helped block a perfectly good arena site in Tempe so he could own the project in Glendale. His only interest was in the development, not the team. 

 

The Glendale site is awful, they have no major tenant for the arena, and the stadium draws the 30th "best" attendance in the NFL. 

[schlim]

14 hours ago, BBTV said:

The Defence of the rays poor attendance has always been the location of the stadium. With real estate, it’s “location location location”, so how’s this going to work out?

You left out the axiom for rich billionaire owners, "If you build it, they will come, and if not you've already invested a free billion dollars of public funds to build a development that you can use for low interest loans for your other more profitable businesses and projects."

[SavardToColton]

15 hours ago, BBTV said:

But again, if the stadium is located in a terrible location for people that work in either Tampa or Clearwater, why would they want to live near it? Unless I’m misunderstanding the issue, which is possible. 
 

The Defence of the rays poor attendance has always been the location of the stadium. With real estate, it’s “location location location”, so how’s this going to work out?

My two cents as a fan and from around here: Rays ownership made a calculation that getting a sweetheart deal from the new mayor of St. Petersburg and owning the land and developer's rights was more valuable to them than "solving the attendance issue." Simple as that. I 100% agree that a location in Tampa would bump up attendance quite a bit, but the City of Tampa just wasn't going to give them that deal, especially since Ray Jay renovations are probably looming. And my view: If Rays ownership truly felt attendance was THE issue they would have pushed harder and compromised more to put the stadium in Tampa. The fact they didn't and are essentially staying in the same location tells me it wasn't THE issue in their eyes, despite the fact that we all see the sea of blue seats at the Trop nightly. Not saying I agree with the calculus at all with my fan's perspective, but the complex will make for a huge profit whenever ownership decides to sell the team, and that to me what it's always been about the whole time under the public statements

[crashcarson15]

On 6/10/2024 at 12:37 PM, kolob said:

 

This is my attitude about Vegas as well. The only sport I do worry about succeeding there is baseball. But, it's probably more of an A's issue than baseball issue. 

This is an old post, but I personally don't worry as much about market viability in baseball — there's such a wide spread in markets and demand that gives it more in common with European soccer than other US pro sports, IMO.

 

If you look at NBA and NHL attendance, arena size limitations keep all but the truly failing teams clustered pretty tightly in attendance. For the NFL, the limited number of home dates and mainstream appeal means there's very few teams that struggle at the gate.

 

MLB has pretty much always had laggards when it comes to market support, with ebbs and flows in individual cities, and you're never going to find 28 or 30 or 32 or whatever number of cities out there that can draw 30,000 to the park 81 times a year. It's not the norm in US pro sports, but I think it's a lot easier to look at MLB in the context of soccer — with a mix of big-market mainstays, clubs in larger cities that can draw really well when the team is competitive, and your true small-market teams, which could probably be swapped out with any of like, 15 different cities and have the exact same issues, minus any historical momentum. If the A's even draw 15,000 or whatever in Las Vegas, and ditto for the Rays at a new ballpark, it's … fine.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Could someone fill me in here....I know that a primary reason for horrible Rays attendance is literally the location, so why would they build a new ballpark in the exact same place?

[SFGiants58]

Revenue from real estate developments and rents, TV/streaming contracts, and revenue sharing >>>>>> gate revenue.

[The_Admiral]

It's not explicitly related to the White Sox' imaginary stadium woes, but the Bulls and Blackhawks announced that they're going to do something they should have done a long time ago and convert the surface parking around the United Center into a proper entertainment district with parks, a mid-size concert venue, and good old Mixed-Use Development. 

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/07/23/reinsdorf-and-wirtz-families-unveil-7-billion-proposal-to-remake-near-west-side-around-united-center/

 

It was a matter of time before they finally took this on, what with the way Fulton Market and the rest of the Near West Side has been growing and gentrifying. As long as it's privately developed, as the arena itself was, I can't complain. They said they'll need government money for the Pink Line station at Madison, but that's something the CTA already should have done when they started Pink Line service 18 years ago.  Goobers from McHenry County are spamming every comment section with BUT WHERE I AM GONNA PARK???, but I'm sure they'll figure it out. It was embarrassing that the largest arena in the country in its third-largest city was just sitting 2 miles from downtown in a sea of asphalt with nothing to do. Glad they're fixing it.

 

The fact that they're fixing it, though, feels like some min-maxing on the part of the Reinsdorfs: they're investing in a year-round development around a proven commodity in the Bulls, which seems like it all but necessarily comes at the expense of building an entire stadium village from the ground up for the Sox, a risk that required public money that Pritzker doesn't really want to give them. I hope it's not a prelude to giving up on the Sox entirely, but I do think this is a much smarter allocation of resources than the Sox development ever was.

[Digby]

I'm kind of cynical on these stadium-village developments because I've yet to see any of them have any character or interesting stuff going on, but yeah, it's better than nothing and when I visited the United Center I found it kind of shocking that it was such a sea-of-parking type of stadium in CHICAGO of all places.

 

Coastal Florida has these sorts of developments every 1000 feet, so like with everything else, I'm flummoxed by the Rays.