Braves Join Falcons in Abandoning Perfectly Good Facility

[DaytonBlue]

I get the "better location" issue, but this is just surreal how the lifespan of stadiums gets shorter and shorter.

Hope this is an isolated circumstance and we don't hear about Camden Yards' replacement next week.

P.S. The A's and Rays must love this! Maybe they could dismantle Turner Field and reassemble it downtown Tampa or the Oakland Coliseum's parking lot?

[Drew22]

This would be great news if I planned on still living near Cobb County by 2017. Didn't expect to see this come across the news-wire today, but I get their reasoning. I love the Ted, but if they think it's going to work, may as well let them do it.

[WSU151]

My brother who is an urban planner brought up a good point I haven't heard anywhere yet -- it's interesting how the Falcons chose to stay downtown and the Braves are moving the to the burbs; it really shows what the purpose of the new stadiums are for. The Falcons are purely building for the Super Bowl to be hosted in Atlanta again (in his opinion). The Braves are building to get the money/attendance from the families in the suburbs who don't want to go to downtown after dark with the kids.

Exactly.

If as a business, you feel you could raise your revenues by moving to a new location, you would, wouldn't you?

The Falcons are "abandoning" a stadium now regarded as inadequate for hosting the world's largest single-day sporting event. They want to host it. Thus, the facility they're in isn't "perfectly good."

EDIT: I've never been to either facility (though Turner Field's going to have to happen in the next three years, I suppose) but if Turner Field was built on the cheap, I wouldn't at all be surprised because, well, it's the Olympics.

Yes, "now regarded." What happened since 2000 when the Super Bowl was in the Georgia Dome? And I would argue that the Georgia Dome is indeed "perfectly good" when considered in the context of cost vs. benefit. Paying $1.2 billion including $200 million of city money that could be spent on desperately needed improvements to (fill in any number of Atlanta inadequacies) for an arena to host an event that might come in every 6-7 years at best is foolhardy.

What happened since 2000?

Reliant Stadium, Ford Field, University of Phoenix Stadium, AT&T Stadium, Lucas Oil Stadium, and MetLife Stadium have all been built while Levi's Stadium and a new Vikings Stadium are under construction or being built now. Plus, the Superdome was renovated post-Katrina.

There's eight stadiums that will have hosted a Super Bowl since 2000 by 2016 and a ninth that is now entering the bidding process. The competition for hosting a Super Bowl has increased greatly since Atlanta last hosted the Super Bowl—to pretend that the Georgia Dome can really and truly compete with these other stadiums is foolish.

As far as cost vs. benefit of hosting a Super Bowl, I wouldn't be too sure. Hosting SB XLVI brought an estimated $176 million of direct economic impact to Indianapolis—right there's all but $24 million of your $200 million figure that the city would be spending and that's hosting the game once. Not to mention the fact that the new stadium will likely allow Atlanta to benefit from having an MLS team and the added revenue that could bring and if the US wins the World Cup in 2026, a spot hosting games in the world's largest tournament, I don't think this is as horrible of a deal for Atlanta as you're making it seem.

Additionally, hosting Super Bowl XLVI was a chance to showcase Indianapolis as a place to hold your "big event." Cities like Atlanta could use the Super Bowl in the same way.

EDIT: Also, Atlanta's definitely going to host a Super Bowl with the new stadium so I wouldn't say "maybe" every sixth or seventh year.

EDIT x2: Indianapolis and its surrounding counties payed $620 million of the $720 million total cost for Lucas Oil Stadium. So, yeah, $200 million for Atlanta isn't all that raw of a deal.

Two points: Atlanta renovated the Georgia Dome in 2006 at a price of $300M, so there's some issue with spending that kind of money in the short-term. Anyway, It's not the 2000 Georgia Dome. It has been upgraded.

Second, an MLS team in Atlanta shouldn't be forced to play in a 80,000 seat stadium. That's not really a benefit of having a new stadium.

[bosrs1]

I get the "better location" issue, but this is just surreal how the lifespan of stadiums gets shorter and shorter.

Hope this is an isolated circumstance and we don't hear about Camden Yards' replacement next week.

P.S. The A's and Rays must love this! Maybe they could dismantle Turner Field and reassemble it downtown Tampa or the Oakland Coliseum's parking lot?

That's probably why I'm more disgusted with this than most. As an A's fan I'd kill to have the A's playing in a park like Turner Field. To see a team abandoning such a desireable facility so cavilierly makes me sick.

But yeah this will remain an isolated thing I think. Given that Turner did have some unique drawbacks given its genesis and construction, it's relatively poor location, and the oddity of having a suburban county fall over itself to give away almost half a billion dollars to a team like Cobb is doing I don't think you're going to see a run on stadiums like we got after Camden Yards. Any new ATL stadium won't be paradigm changing like Camden was design wise. In fact if anything moving to the burbs like ATL is planning is a throwback to an earlier model of baseball that most teams were and still are eager to leave behind.

[rams80]

I think the two big problems (Atlanta folks correct me if I'm wrong) are that the ballpark is in a "bad" neighborhood and that there is no MARTA stop right at the stadium. To get to the Ted, you have to ride into the Georgia State stop or the Underground Atlanta stop and then ride a bus to the stadium. It's not exactly the most user-friendly system right now if you don't live near Turner Field.

Plus, I made the mistake last year of going to the last Braves home game of the regular season (and parking at the stadium myself), which happened to be the same afternoon as a Falcons game and they both ended at the same time. Traffic was horrendous.

My brother who is an urban planner brought up a good point I haven't heard anywhere yet -- it's interesting how the Falcons chose to stay downtown and the Braves are moving the to the burbs; it really shows what the purpose of the new stadiums are for. The Falcons are purely building for the Super Bowl to be hosted in Atlanta again (in his opinion). The Braves are building to get the money/attendance from the families in the suburbs who don't want to go to downtown after dark with the kids.

1. You're correct on both. Much of the area around Turner Field is pretty run-down. Of course the bill of goods the politicians sell people is that a new stadium will "re-energize" the neigborhood blah blah. Ironically, they used the same argument to sell the Georgia Dome and part of the story of the new stadium has been people around the Georgia World Congress Center area (where the Georgia Dome is) complaining that they're still waiting for the original Georgia Dome "re-energizing" to happen.

So the Cobb County location will be in a nicer area but doesn't solve the MARTA issue. It doesn't go out that way.

2. Traffic is generally horrendous in downtown Atlanta so I can only imagine what that was like.

3. Your brother is smart.

My brother who is an urban planner brought up a good point I haven't heard anywhere yet -- it's interesting how the Falcons chose to stay downtown and the Braves are moving the to the burbs; it really shows what the purpose of the new stadiums are for. The Falcons are purely building for the Super Bowl to be hosted in Atlanta again (in his opinion). The Braves are building to get the money/attendance from the families in the suburbs who don't want to go to downtown after dark with the kids.

Exactly.

If as a business, you feel you could raise your revenues by moving to a new location, you would, wouldn't you?

The Falcons are "abandoning" a stadium now regarded as inadequate for hosting the world's largest single-day sporting event. They want to host it. Thus, the facility they're in isn't "perfectly good."

EDIT: I've never been to either facility (though Turner Field's going to have to happen in the next three years, I suppose) but if Turner Field was built on the cheap, I wouldn't at all be surprised because, well, it's the Olympics.

Yes, "now regarded." What happened since 2000 when the Super Bowl was in the Georgia Dome? And I would argue that the Georgia Dome is indeed "perfectly good" when considered in the context of cost vs. benefit. Paying $1.2 billion including $200 million of city money that could be spent on desperately needed improvements to (fill in any number of Atlanta inadequacies) for an arena to host an event that might come in every 6-7 years at best is foolhardy.

Besides, the real reason Atlanta lost the Super Bowl was the bloody ice storm and Ray Lewis shivving a guy in a nightclub.

[CubsFanBudMan]

A couple of people have referenced it, but can Turner Field be a temporary location for the A's or Rays? Or at least be used as a convincing threat?

Amazing that Atlanta will have 2 new stadiums and those two franchises can't get one. I always mention Turner Field as one of my favorites of the new parks. Always felt it was underrated.

[crashcarson15]

Two points: Atlanta renovated the Georgia Dome in 2006 at a price of $300M, so there's some issue with spending that kind of money in the short-term. Anyway, It's not the 2000 Georgia Dome. It has been upgraded.

Second, an MLS team in Atlanta shouldn't be forced to play in a 80,000 seat stadium. That's not really a benefit of having a new stadium.

To an extent. It doesn't change the fact that the Georgia Dome isn't an attractive spot to host a Super Bowl right now.

No but it's been said many times the team would play there in a setup similar to the ones in Vancouver and Seattle which, well, seem to work well for them...

[bosrs1]

Two points: Atlanta renovated the Georgia Dome in 2006 at a price of $300M, so there's some issue with spending that kind of money in the short-term. Anyway, It's not the 2000 Georgia Dome. It has been upgraded.

Second, an MLS team in Atlanta shouldn't be forced to play in a 80,000 seat stadium. That's not really a benefit of having a new stadium.

To an extent. It doesn't change the fact that the Georgia Dome isn't an attractive spot to host a Super Bowl right now.

No but it's been said many times the team would play there in a setup similar to the ones in Vancouver and Seattle which, well, seem to work well for them...

My response to that would be, so what? The Super Bowl has always been overrated as an economic benefit to the host cities. They always end up giving away the farm to host the game and as a result are often lucky if they break even. And more often they end up losing money on the deal.

The Super Bowl has never been all it is chalked up to be for the host city. The sooner cities realize this, the sooner they'll stop blowing their wad on new stadiums or stadium renovations on the false promise of being "added to the rotation" only to have the rug pulled out from under them after hosting the game once. Don't believe me, ask San Diego how being added to the rotation for their renovation and expansion of Qualcomm Stadium in the late 90's worked out. Most cities will get unless they're New Orleans, is 2 Super Bowls and that's only if they have a dome or are in the southern states (the cold weather Super Bowl experiment begins and ends with this year). That is unless cities stop bending over every time the NFL asks and realize that there are only a finite number of cities that the NFL can host the game in. And Atlanta is already one of them.

[BBTV]

A couple of people have referenced it, but can Turner Field be a temporary location for the A's or Rays? Or at least be used as a convincing threat?

Amazing that Atlanta will have 2 new stadiums and those two franchises can't get one. I always mention Turner Field as one of my favorites of the new parks. Always felt it was underrated.

Atlanta has trouble supporting one team - not sure putting a second there would be a good idea.

I don't understand any comparisons of Turner field to Camden Yards, nor any "it's so nice" comments. I was there for a tour in '06, and it seemed to me like something hastily erected for the Olympics, then retrofitted for a MLB team. There was nothing "ugly" about it, and there were certainly some nice exterior features (like where the retired number statue things are), but it was nothing "special", and certainly not on par with newer stadiums.

It reminded me of what I would imagine New Comisky to be like - post Camden, but still not "retro - nice".

[bosrs1]

A couple of people have referenced it, but can Turner Field be a temporary location for the A's or Rays? Or at least be used as a convincing threat?

Amazing that Atlanta will have 2 new stadiums and those two franchises can't get one. I always mention Turner Field as one of my favorites of the new parks. Always felt it was underrated.

Atlanta has trouble supporting one team - not sure putting a second there would be a good idea.

I don't understand any comparisons of Turner field to Camden Yards, nor any "it's so nice" comments. I was there for a tour in '06, and it seemed to me like something hastily erected for the Olympics, then retrofitted for a MLB team. There was nothing "ugly" about it, and there were certainly some nice exterior features (like where the retired number statue things are), but it was nothing "special", and certainly not on par with newer stadiums.

It reminded me of what I would imagine New Comisky to be like - post Camden, but still not "retro - nice".

While I agree that of all the post-Camden parks Turner lacked a certain distinction and was probably the most unremarkable, it was at least on par with New Comiskey or Angel Stadium after both were renovated to be more like Camden (albiet nicer since its 30 years newer than Anaheim). But nothing about Turner screamed, "replace me now!", either. And the comparisons to Camden Yards come from being built in the Camden vein, albiet 5 years newer. What I don't get are these people saying it's the "oldest" in the NL East, like that means anything in a division where all the parks are "new". Fact is Turner Field is only 17 years old and is newer than 13 other ballparks currently in use by MLB teams. Of which only 2 are slated for long term replacement in Oakland and Tampa (both of which were built as multipurpose venues and have at minimum a decade on Turner down at the Trop).

[tp49]

What is the possibility/probability that the public funding portion of the project would have to come to a ballot measure?

[dbadefense1990]

Here's my question: what's the over/under on the announcement of Phillips Arena as a "structurally inadequate" arena within five years?

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

This has got to be frustrating for some when there's teams like Oakland playing in total crap-holes and cant get a new place for the life of them.

[dbadefense1990]

P.S. The A's and Rays must love this! Maybe they could dismantle Turner Field and reassemble it downtown Tampa or the Oakland Coliseum's parking lot?

Aren't the A's all "set in stone" for San Jose, but the only obstacles to moving there are territorial rights with the Giants and Selig MLB?

[bosrs1]

P.S. The A's and Rays must love this! Maybe they could dismantle Turner Field and reassemble it downtown Tampa or the Oakland Coliseum's parking lot?

Aren't the A's all "set in stone" for San Jose, but the only obstacles to moving there are territorial rights with the Giants and Selig MLB?

The second part of your statement contradicts the first. Since the territorial rights issue puts a kibosh on the whole San Jose move until it's resolved. And even then the SJ ballpark still has to come up for a public vote even with 0% of the funding for the park coming from public sources.

Biggest difference between the Braves and A's situations. One is in Georgia where the public doesn't seem to care what you build or where or even if you're doing it with their money and the A's are in California where you'll get a blowjob from your public officials before you'll get tax money for a stadium. And even if you don't want tax money the public still wants their say on whether or not you can build. It's a miracle the Giants and Padres ever got new ballparks, and I'd put money on the Angels renovating in place like the Dodgers (and themselves previously in 1997) or building in their own parking lot before they ever get a new park anywhere else.

[BlueSky]

What is the possibility/probability that the public funding portion of the project would have to come to a ballot measure?

Probably zero. They were very careful not to let that happen on the Falcons stadium because polls show voters are overwhelmingly against it.

@crash, who knows, maybe you're right. The reason I disagree is that Atlanta has a desperate budget shortfall and billions of dollars in needs. IMO they have no right in my opinon spending $2 on a new Falcons stadium much less $200 million especially when voters are against it. The bigwigs' answer to that was simply not to give people a say.

Now this Braves thing. TF may not be the Taj Mahal of MLB parks but it's pretty nice. How are you justifying their move, especially when there's no mass transit at all out there?

[TFoA]

Here's my question: what's the over/under on the announcement of Phillips Arena as a "structurally inadequate" arena within five years?

Slim-to-none. They just put new LED video boards in to replace the old scoreboards so they figure that's "job done" for the next 10 years.

Also, I'm trying to figure out whether or not it's sad or hilarious that Philips will be the oldest stadium for the big-league teams in Atlanta, and it opened in 1999.

[bosrs1]

Here's my question: what's the over/under on the announcement of Phillips Arena as a "structurally inadequate" arena within five years?

Slim-to-none. They just put new LED video boards in to replace the old scoreboards so they figure that's "job done" for the next 10 years.

Also, I'm trying to figure out whether or not it's sad or hilarious that Philips will be the oldest stadium for the big-league teams in Atlanta, and it opened in 1999.

Well that and it has the advantage of being an arena. There's not much major that's changed in arena design since the late 90's other than continually bigger and better video boards. And on top of that the seats and other features don't take the elemental beating that outdoor stadiums do... usually (New Orleans being a big exception).

[Cujo]

If you ever take a trip down to Cobb County, GA, you better read the signs; respect the law and order; you'll serve hard times.

THIS.

[illwauk]

So... will Georgia State's baseball team move into Turner Field when the Braves leave? I see that Georgia Tech has a rather nice on-campus facility, but GSU's ballpark is all the way out in Decatur. I'm sure they'd prefer to play somewhere that's at least somewhat close to campus.