Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree, especially about Lucas Oil, but I think the biggest issue with development there is the railroad tracks. The elevated tracks kind of act as a visual, and thus mental, barrier to anything to the south if you're just a day visitor. If the tracks were underground, I feel things would development south a bit easier. Bankers Life has nothing east of it but the same elevated railroad tracks, and a giant parking garage. But it is true, directly across the street to the west is pretty empty, but starting to fill in. If the city actually had had a decent plan with Georgia St, it could be different, but they seriously screwed that up. CityWay helps expand downtown a bit that way, but it's again surrounded by those elevated tracks.
Unless Union Station gets used as a transit hub with an easy access point to the south (neither of which is going to happen), I think downtown will constantly struggle to get development south of the tracks. It's just too much of a visual block without a major, daily drawing power. If only the Legends District would have actually happened! But as far as whether I think downtown stadiums are good or bad, I do think they're good, even in Indianapolis. Fort Wayne really helped its downtown by relocated their minor league baseball stadium to downtown. Back when I lived there, downtown Fort Wayne was completely dead after 5pm. It still has a long way to go, though.
LOS was planned with what was already there. Obviously they couldn't do away with WRSP for the sake of LOS and the entire area west/sw of LOS heading down towards Kentucky has always been warehouse and of course the plant. So the south lot is used for tailgaiting and the stadium sits at an angle so the main entrance actually faces South Street with a downtown view. I've never seen the tracks as an issue for Bankers Life. It's elevated the entire length of downtown until I-65. It's Lilly surface lots to the south, Wellpoint and Farm Bureau lots to the east and the VA street garage. CityWay opened that up which is why there's more development South of South street heading north.
As you may or may not know, the City of Atlanta will be tearing down one football stadium in its urban core to construct another stadium in its urban core. On the one hand, the new Falcons stadium will be bring revenue to the city, but on the other hand, the stadium will hog up a lot of land in a city that's seeking to add density.
Do you think the sacrifice in real estate is worth the return that downtown or intown ballparks bring? Do you think that certain types of stadiums, for example basketball arenas, are a better fit for more urban areas than football stadiums?
An NHL/NBA arena is a lot better suited for a downtown location than an NFL stadium. The average NFL stadium is probably 3-3.5 than an NBA/NHL arena in terms of capacity. As such, more parking will be required. Then you have the tailgating culture of football games and that will require a lot more surface lots. Dense cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago don't have a lot of them. Cities like Charlotte, Atlanta and Dallas do.
I personally think stadiums should be built on the fringe of cities rather than right in the core. Look at the United Center in Chicago as a perfect example. Same thing with Philadelphia.
The Patriots wanted to build their new stadium in South Boston, adjacent to downtown and the idea was shot down pretty fast. That's a good thing, imo.
An NHL/NBA arena is a lot better suited for a downtown location than an NFL stadium. The average NFL stadium is probably 3-3.5 than an NBA/NHL arena in terms of capacity. As such, more parking will be required. Then you have the tailgating culture of football games and that will require a lot more surface lots. Dense cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago don't have a lot of them. Cities like Charlotte, Atlanta and Dallas do.
Good point. Are you saying, then, that an NFL stadium and it's "tailgating culture" cannot be integrated into the fabric of a DT?
I know that San Jose's Pavilion (I'm not not calling it SAP yet) uses a lot of surface parking, but that it is divided in to smaller lots over a large area, including garages downtown and the park-and-ride lots at LRT stations.
Obviously, a 17k seat arena is different from a 100k seat stadium. But, I think that to accept that an NFL stadium must cater to the car is to lazily accept the status quo. Look at O.co. Grossly inadequate parking from an autocentric perspective, but BART provides the an alternative, for no net loss IMO.
I personally think stadiums should be built on the fringe of cities rather than right in the core. Look at the United Center in Chicago as a perfect example. Same thing with Philadelphia.
The United Center isn't on the Fringe of Chicago. It just isn't downtown. It is about 10-13 more miles to the first western burb of Chicago from there.
This thread is hilarious. I am a supporter of Denver's two stadiums, Coors Field and Sports Authority Field at Mile High Stadium, though Mile High isn't really downtown. However, it cracks me up to see people singing the praises of these downtown stadiums, then in another breath vilify the old "urban renewal" projects such as Pittsburgh's Civic Arena. These projects "destroyed the very fabric of the city", yada, yada. That's why I always say, "in 50 years, they'll look back at some of this stuff and laugh". Come to think of it, the original Mile High stadium was an urban renewal project.
Actually the original Mile High Stadium was built on a landfill, long before "urban renewal".
Although turning a landfill into a public use stadium could be considered urban renewal.
Actually the original Mile High Stadium was built on a landfill, long before "urban renewal".
Although turning a landfill into a public use stadium could be considered urban renewal.
I don't know if Denver got urban renewal money for Mile High or not. However, it does not predate "urban renewal". It was originally built in 1948, just after WW II, when many cities were doing public works projects.
Baseball stadia are easier to integrate into a city than football stadia. Minneapolis did a great job with Target Field, which has light rail and commuter train connections and makes use of existing parking structures. The design takes advantage of the skyline as a beautiful backdrop.
The problems with football stadia are (1) infrequent use and (2) a tailgating culture that demands enormous surface parking lots.
I would argue that baseball stadia in indoor arenas (basketball, hockey, etc.) are best within the city whereas football stadia are better off in the suburbs.
I agree - AEG wanted to put a big football stadium right next to LA Live / Staples Center in DTLA. It got shot down in part because people felt that a football stadium needs tailgate space, which this would not have had. There were also concerns that a football stadium would not have enough year-round programing and leave the area a dead-space in the area (though this particular football stadium was attached to a convention center, so I think this fear was a bit unwarranted). Another big fear was that of traffic on the already grid-locked 110 and 10 freeways around DTLA.
So now the NFL is trying to negotiate / convince LA to build a stadium in Elysian Park (where Dodger's Stadium is) which is downtown-adjacent.
However the Staples Center, a basketball arena is considered a huge success and one of the main forces in DTLA's revitalization.
However the Staples Center, a basketball arena is considered a huge success and one of the main forces in DTLA's revitalization.
Arenas are much more versatile/multi-purpose: they can hold concerts, conventions and other large events that benefit from being in downtown. Most urban advocates don’t have a problem with arenas in a heart of the city—except for Brooklyn, which was a NIMBY and anti-Bloomberg issue.
Arenas are much more versatile/multi-purpose: they can hold concerts, conventions and other large events that benefit from being in downtown. Most urban advocates don’t have a problem with arenas in a heart of the city—except for Brooklyn, which was a NIMBY and anti-Bloomberg issue.
Or the Pittsburgh Civic Arena (now torn down). It supposedly caused the ruination of Pittsburgh's Hill District. Or some other arena they don't like.
But, I think that to accept that an NFL stadium must cater to the car is to lazily accept the status quo. Look at O.co. Grossly inadequate parking from an autocentric perspective, but BART provides the an alternative, for no net loss IMO.
Bloomberg tried to build the West Side Stadium—which would have been fully integrated into the Manhattan grid and have had no tailgating space. You can get away with that sort of thing in New York and San Francisco, but Atlanta? Not so much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
