Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[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.

[chcarlson23]

55 minutes ago, Digby said:

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.

I just visited Chicago a couple of months ago, and stayed near the UIC campus with family from Chicago. They showed us around to a bunch of places in the neighborhood or a neighborhood or two over. We ended up driving right down Madison, and right past the United Center. I’ve heard that the UC was surrounded by parking lots, so somehow, I thought that it was farther out in the Suburbs than it actually is (despite that feeling weird to me too haha)
 

I was definitely shocked to see the same thing, just how close it is to a plethora of mixed-use neighborhoods and downtown, and yet is somehow surrounded by parking lots, like it’s in the middle of nowhere somehow. Cool to see they’ll be putting more in there, to fill in a neighborhood around the stadium 

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, The_Admiral said:

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.

 

That's basically the Phila sports complex, with the Wells Fargo now being "state of the art" after a half billion dollar renovation.  Comcast and the Phillies are developing the entire area, which will also lead to suburban dorks complaining about parking their unnecessarily-large vehicles, but.... I don't know what they can possibly do to make that area a destination.  Unless they have legal brothels down there, nobody is going to go there for a non game day, regardless of what major restaurateur sets up shop there.  The Navy Yard is one of the most successful redevelopments that I've ever seen, but it has its own things, and people that work there just want to go home (and the subway stops juuuuuuuust short of the Yard, even though it's been the number one thing on the agenda for the past 40 years, but idiots don't understand that funding projects like that is kind of important.)

 

They're also now offering the Sixers a 50/50 partnership in the arena, which blows my mind.  I think the Center City arena will happen, which will give Phila two completely privately financed* arenas / developments.

 

*they both use PILOTs, which could be argued is a public subsidy, and there's infrastructure upgrades, but like what you said in Chicago's case, should happen anyway.

 

 

[BBTV]

I don't know where this goes, but since it's kinda stadium related, Wells Fargo has ended its agreement with Comcast to have their name on the arena.

 

So that place will have been the Corestates Center, First Union Center, Wachovia Center, Wells Fargo Center, and now something else.

 

My hope and dream is that the Sixers arena gets built and Wells Fargo gets its name on it just as a middle finger to the Flyers, who will almost certainly give a middle finger to the Sixers by calling it the Comcast Center or Xfinity Center or the Ed Snider > Josh Harris Arena.

 

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, Digby said:

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.

The early '90s were a tricky moment: too late for urban renewal, too early for New Urbanism. Reinsdorf managed to whiff on Comiskey and the United Center, ensuring ample parking for both right before cities decided they didn't really need that anymore. The Palace of Auburn Hills was the blueprint for major arenas and now it's gone without a trace like the Richfield Coliseum.

 

But even any semblance of development around the Stadium was long gone by at least the '70s, too, back in the days of "pay a kid $10 to make sure nothing happens." Thus, a weird case where you can't really say they're "going back to how it used to be" because for most people, it never used to be.

 

  

13 minutes ago, chcarlson23 said:

I was definitely shocked to see the same thing, just how close it is to a plethora of mixed-use neighborhoods and downtown, and yet is somehow surrounded by parking lots, like it’s in the middle of nowhere somehow. Cool to see they’ll be putting more in there, to fill in a neighborhood around the stadium 

 

It's truly weird. I've gotten off at Ashland for shows at Bottom Lounge. It's half a mile, give or take, from the United Center. It does not feel remotely that close to the United Center. It really is just all by itself out there. 

[Digby]

Yeah Philly is the other great example of this in what is otherwise one of the few truly-urban American cities. Though at least they've got the easily accessible subway stop serving the entire complex.

 

Football stadiums I can understand being outside the core/surrounded by parking, they're too large and too little-used to fit neatly into a neighborhood the way a 20k arena or even a 35k baseball stadium can.

[Sec19Row53]

3 hours ago, Digby said:

Football stadiums I can understand being outside the core/surrounded by parking, they're too large and too little-used to fit neatly into a neighborhood the way a 20k arena or even a 35k baseball stadium can.

Lambeau says hi

[GDAWG]

9 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Lambeau says hi

 

It would be a cool visual to see Lambeau Field (or at least the front of it) in one's backyard.  

[Sec19Row53]

9 hours ago, GDAWG said:

 

It would be a cool visual to see Lambeau Field (or at least the front of it) in one's backyard.  

This was from 2006 or so. We would park at this house and tailgate in the back yard. It's been bought by the owner of the ESPN Milwaukee radio system, so we aren't there any more.  The stadium looks different now, but it's still right there. Most of the yards have that little 3 foot high chain link fence at their back, and then you're in the parking lot. The house next door with cars parked in it has a gate in its fence to make it easier to just get to the game.

[The_Admiral]

7 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

It's been bought by the owner of the ESPN Milwaukee radio system, so we aren't there any more. 

Craig's good people.

 

Lambeau and Green Bay itself are of course most delightful outliers in all this, but I agree that football stadiums aren't good fits for "neighborhoods," per se. The 78, where the Bears should be building, isn't really a neighborhood despite all the highrises popping up around there. That kind of big blighted empty space in an urban setting would be perfect for them, which is why they won't do it.

[Sec19Row53]

3 minutes ago, The_Admiral said:

Craig's good people.

 

Lambeau and Green Bay itself are of course most delightful outliers in all this, but I agree that football stadiums aren't good fits for "neighborhoods," per se. The 78, where the Bears should be building, isn't really a neighborhood despite all the highrises popping up around there. That kind of big blighted empty space in an urban setting would be perfect for them, which is why they won't do it.

Lambeau and Wrigley have so much in common in terms of their neighborhood location. 

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

23 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

This was from 2006 or so. We would park at this house and tailgate in the back yard. It's been bought by the owner of the ESPN Milwaukee radio system, so we aren't there any more.  The stadium looks different now, but it's still right there. Most of the yards have that little 3 foot high chain link fence at their back, and then you're in the parking lot. The house next door with cars parked in it has a gate in its fence to make it easier to just get to the game.

 

That's cool. Do the homeowners charge to park in their yards? That would be a nice little side hustle. Just charge less than the stadium and the surrounding lots. 

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

 

That's cool. Do the homeowners charge to park in their yards? That would be a nice little side hustle. Just charge less than the stadium and the surrounding lots. 

Yes they do. There's essentially no available stadium parking on game day. It's all annual passes at this point. Because of their location, some of these homes are able to charge the highest prices around.