Multipurpose Stadiums: Viable Option?

[raysox]

I have a question. Is there any way a baseball/football team could share a NEW stadium these days? Or would it be a caverness cookie cutter thing like most of the others? Hypothetically, could Oakland build a "New Coliseum" for the Raiders and A's? Or is the age of sharing a venue over?

[dfwabel]

No. Why should a team who can control 80+ dates share premium seat/suite revenue with a team who shares the same building for 10+ dates a year.

Even in football stadiums, the NFL runs over the NCAA teams who use the same facilities (Temple, USF, SDSU).

[spartacat_12]

I don't think it's viable. In this day and age, where it's easy for anyone to sit at home and watch any game on TV (or stream it online), franchises need to emphasize the unique experience of attending a game at the stadium (especially in baseball). The differing dimensions and shape of football fields/baseball diamonds mean that in order to make a stadium suitable for both sports, you can't make it great in either of them. That's how you end up with situations like the one Miami used to have, where people sitting in left-center field at Marlins' games had seats facing the right fielder.

Since the Orioles moved into Camden Yards every MLB team that has needed a new stadium has moved into a baseball-specific park. While it may not be very cost-efficient, having a ballpark that is yours exclusively gives teams complete control over the fan experience and can usually put some extra fans in the seats.

[Cosmic]

I feel like it could be possible, with today's imagination and engineering. I mean, we live in a world where indoor stadiums have grass fields that roll outside to get sunshine. But, the politics of some team not being the primary tenant, the (so far) availability of gubment money to build stadiums and the bad memories of some of the old multipurpose stadiums will keep the idea down for a while.

[Viper]

Hellz, even most MLS teams these days have a general preference for soccer-specific stadiums, even though a soccer pitch can coexist with a gridiron in the same stadium with much less fuss than can a baseball diamond and football field.

[illwauk]

Hellz, even most MLS teams these days have a general preference for soccer-specific stadiums, even though a soccer pitch can coexist with a gridiron in the same stadium with much less fuss than can a baseball diamond and football field.

That has more to do with the capacity of NFL stadiums making them too large and monolithic to make for a good soccer environment.

[-kj]

...as well as MLS trying to control more of the revenue streams.

[walby2]

As long as governments keep indulging sports team owners with free money for sport-specific stadiums, you won't see a return of multipurpose venues.

[slapshot]

It's possible, yes. Many of the baseball-specific stadiums built and opened in the last 20 years are hosting football games at least once a year (Chase Field, AT&T Park, Yankee Stadium, Tropicana Field).

Is it likely? No. Not when ownership of concessions is on the line. Generally, the primary tenant of the stadium owns the concessions for all events. Why would a baseball team share or lose concessions to the football team when it can just open its own stadium?

Baseball and football stadiums are built with optimal seating for their specific sports. With luxury boxes being a major component, they're not always going to be coveted if they're used for a sport that gives them bad sight lines. Just look at many of the NHL Winter Classic games held in MLB stadiums. With the rinks oriented 1st/3rd base, a luxury box around home plate is not going to have good views for the game. Or, the field has to have excessive foul territory (or poor outfield/bleacher seating) to accommodate football.

[Sanic]

The A's or the Raiders will move out of the raw sewage dump Coliseum sooner or later.

But, the real problem is how many seats are randomly facing diagonally or forward, during football and baseball games respectively.