Downtown MLB stadiums. What cities can you honestly say have more lively downtowns after a new stadium is built? (Phoenix, development)

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

This post is a good illustration of the delusional logic used by pro-stadium advocates.

Downtown DC has had tons of development, but to attribute the growth to a baseball park is ludicrous. DC had even more growth in the 1980's, yet there was no baseball park. So how do you explain that?

And almost all the growth in downtown DC is due to expansion of federal agencies and the lawyers/lobbyists that serve them. You really think the Department of Defense builds a new office building because of a baseball park? I mean, seriously? Congress is funding federal agencies based on proximity to professional sports venues?

The reason there's lots of development near the baseball park is because there's lots of land for development near the baseball park. Downtown is booming so obviously the vacant land is being targeted for new construction (same reason the baseball park went on the vacant land to begin with).

If anything, the park is a net negative in terms of downtown vibrancy, and DC would have been much better off with much-needed apartments.

Huh?

Development is development, cranes are cranes. If that baseball stadium was never built the condos next to it would have never gone up, the restaurants around the corner probably wouldn't have been built, and certainly the upcoming soccer stadium would not have been planned blocks away from the development.

DOT headquarters building was just built not too long ago, and is only blocks away from Nats Park with cranes and condos going up everywhere in between.

All you need to do is look up 7th St Verizon Center as an example of what stadiums can do for an area. Chinatown is now like the epicenter of DT DC. Those bars, clubs, bowling alleys and restaurants are not immediately situated on 7th st because of the expansion of federal agencies and lobbyists.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by the resident09

Huh?

Development is development, cranes are cranes. If that baseball stadium was never built the condos next to it would have never gone up, the restaurants around the corner probably wouldn't have been built, and certainly the upcoming soccer stadium would not have been planned blocks away from the development.

That's absolutely hilarious. According to you people wouldn't live in condos, eat at restaurants or watch other sports, if a sports stadium weren't built.

I think your post is Exhibit A for delusional stadia mania.

How do you explain cities like Paris, NYC, London, Rome, you know, the most vibrant city centers on earth? No stadia anywhere.

Then look at Detroit, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincy, Atlanta, etc. All these downtowns comparatively suck, and all are filled with multiple stadia. If only Paris could match the glories of Minute Maid Ballpark or Petco Park! They should tear down the Eiffel Tower and replace with "Le Ballpark, brought to you by Scoop Away Kitty Litter" Maybe replace the Notre Dame with an ESPN Zone or Applebees. Then Paris would be a real city!

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by qworldorder

Barclays is VERY close to the city center, though. Part of the reason they chose that spot. Let's not get all technical about the true center of a city. Brooklyn isn't some far flung suburb here (nor are The Bronx and Queens, for that matter). The difference in urbanity, transportation and location between Midtown Manhattan and Flatbush isn't vast. This isn't Levis Stadium and San Francisco here, or even Tropicana Field and Tampa.

Barclays Center has nothing to do with Brooklyn's revitalization. There is no one living in Brooklyn who would seriously claim that property values would be lower, or that they wouldn't be living there, if Barclays Center hadn't be built.

I'm not saying that sports arenas are the equivalents of toxic waste dumps. But they aren't good for urbanity. They don't support economic development. There are endless academic studies assessing the impact of sports arenas, and they all come to the same conclusion- sports spending is just a form of entertainment spending. It doesn't have any impact, since the dollar you don't spend at the Knicks game will just be spent in some other manner, as its an entertainment expense. If there were no basketball game to attend, then people would go to the opera, or out for sushi, or join a club, or whatever. It's a net wash.

Originally Posted by qworldorder

Finally, how the hell has MSG been a blight for 50 years?

MSG is the biggest blight in Manhattan. It sucks. New Yorkers hate the neighborhood. And that's why it's being replaced.

MSGs proposed relocation in the next 10 years has to due only with upgrading Penn Station, which is heavily overused.

MSG's relocation (not proposed) has zero to do with upgrading Penn Station. It's because the arena is a blight, and previous mayors have sought to have it removed for decades now, long before talk of expanding Penn Station. It was almost demolished during the Koch administration, during the mid-80's.

The main reason it's being removed is because it's a huge negative on the neighborhood and blocks 6 million square feet of development from being constructed. Yes, there will probably be greater integration with an expanded Penn Station, but the MSG site will not have a surface station ever again, at least not like the old Penn.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by qworldorder

DUnless there's a qualifier here, his point has been refuted. Global cities can have successful stadia "not on the outskirts ".

You didn't read my posts. I never claimed that it was impossible to have a "successful stadium" not on the outskirts.

All I wrote was that stadia are bad for urbanity. They have never contributed to the revitalization of a city.

Your logic is basically "there's a gas station in Paris, Paris is successful and urban, therefore gas stations are good for urbanity". That's non-logic. Just because a stadium doesn't destroy a city doesn't mean it's good for the city.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by anonelitist

Perfect thread example where NOLA, who I don't believe is a resident of Chicago, wants to debate a resident of Chicago on stuff that's not that difficult to look up in the first place. The presumptions and arrogance are such a turnoff.

You're right. It's hilarous actually. Someone who claims to be from Chicago, and then claims that Wrigleyville, of all places, is the most desirable place in town, and has the most vibrant retail in town.

Wrigleyville is the absolutely worst part of Lakeview, which is not close to the most desirable or vibrant part of Chicago. The fact that claimed Chicagoans would debate this is downright hilarious, and shows that C-D homers will never, ever give up the fight, no matter how perposterous. It must be the suburban-style McDonalds next to Wrigley that gives the area its urban flair. Or maybe it's the run-down bro bars and suburban dad drinking joints.

I'm sure the next argument will be that the sea of parking lots/ghetto around United Center makes up the hottest neighborhod on the planet, and the freeway/parking lot moonscape around US Cellular field is much more vibrant than Tokyo.

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

That's absolutely hilarious. According to you people wouldn't live in condos, eat at restaurants or watch sports, if a sports stadium weren't built.

I think your post is Exhibit A for delusional stadia mania.

How do you explain cities like Paris, NYC, London, Rome, you know, the most vibrant city centers on earth? No stadia anywhere.

Then look at Detroit, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincy, Atlanta, etc. All these downtowns comparatively suck, and all are filled with multiple stadia. If only Paris could match the glories of Minute Maid Ballpark or Petco Park! They should tear down the Eiffel Tower and replace with "Le Ballpark brought to you by Scoop Away Kitty Litter". Then Paris would be a real city!

NYC has 3 successful stadiums within urban sections of its city limits, with one of those definitively being in the "exact" city center. I'll leave out Citi Field and the tennis complex because even though they're within city limits and easily accessible, they are a bit in their own complex.

Paris has at least Parc des Princes and Stade Roland Garros within Paris' tiny city limits. London has like 15+ stadiums/parks within city limits. I'm not even gonna do the legwork at this point to check Rome or Berlin or Shanghai or wherever other global city you throw up.

Cities are vibrant for a myriad of factors. Of course stadiums aren't the end all be all quick fix to induce vibrancy. But to actively argue that they're detrimental to vibrancy when there are countless examples in global cities and otherwise to prove you wrong? That's something special. Way to compare 2nd/3rd tier sprawlburb American cities against 1st tier dense cities too, btw. Your argument is so off base (pun intended) it isn't even funny.

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Barclays Center has nothing to do with Brooklyn's revitalization. There is no one living in Brooklyn who would seriously claim that property values would be lower, or that they wouldn't be living there, if Barclays Center hadn't be built.

I'm not saying that sports arenas are the equivalents of toxic waste dumps. But they aren't good for urbanity. They don't support economic development. There are endless academic studies assessing the impact of sports arenas, and they all come to the same conclusion- sports spending is just a form of entertainment spending. It doesn't have any impact, since the dollar you don't spend at the Knicks game will just be spent in some other manner, as its an entertainment expense. If there were no basketball game to attend, then people would go to the opera, or out for sushi, or join a club, or whatever. It's a net wash.

MSG is the biggest blight in Manhattan. It sucks. New Yorkers hate the neighborhood. And that's why it's being replaced.

MSGs proposed relocation in the next 10 years has to due only with upgrading Penn Station, which is heavily overused.

MSG's relocation (not proposed) has zero to do with upgrading Penn Station. It's because the arena is a blight, and previous mayors have sought to have it removed for decades now, long before talk of expanding Penn Station. It was almost demolished during the Koch administration, during the mid-80's.

The main reason it's being removed is because it's a huge negative on the neighborhood and blocks 6 million square feet of development from being constructed. Yes, there will probably be greater integration with an expanded Penn Station, but the MSG site will not have a surface station ever again, at least not like the old Penn.

Midtown Manhattan is blighted? Lol really? We are still talking about the "blighted" Madison Square Garden Neighborhood within spitting distance of Macy's and the Empire State Building? Right next to Koreatown and the shopping district? That neighborhood?

Lol, I've heard eyesore, sure, but blight? No way. Again, the main reason this is being potentially moved (and if you don't think Dolan won't fight this tooth and nail after a billion dollar renovation you're dreaming) is so Penn can expand. That's it. It's more of a needs decision than a business decision. Sure, Penn Station will take in more money, but let's not forget that MSG is literally the most visited arena in the world (or at least top 3). It makes money, and if that stat (most visited) doesn't argue vibrancy, I don't know what does.

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

You didn't read my posts. I never claimed that it was impossible to have a "successful stadium" not on the outskirts.

All I wrote was that stadia are bad for urbanity. They have never contributed to the revitalization of a city.

Your logic is basically "there's a gas station in Paris, Paris is successful and urban, therefore gas stations are good for urbanity". That's non-logic. Just because a stadium doesn't destroy a city doesn't mean it's good for the city.

So gas stations are bad for urbanity? Because if they were, as you clearly think stadia are, Paris wouldn't have them. Common sense, right? Your argument is the one lacking logic here. Anything not destructive to a city is at the very least neutral, and more likely, benficial to it. But that's not what your argument is. "Stadia are baaad for urbanity." Period.

I find it hard to see how stadia that bring in billions of dollars of revenue, lead to new developments (contrary to your opinion), facilitate the influx of millions of disparate people to a single location and instill rabid followings among city denizens are bad for urbanity. Call me crazy.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

You didn't read my posts. I never claimed that it was impossible to have a "successful stadium" not on the outskirts.

All I wrote was that stadia are bad for urbanity. They have never contributed to the revitalization of a city.

Your logic is basically "there's a gas station in Paris, Paris is successful and urban, therefore gas stations are good for urbanity". That's non-logic. Just because a stadium doesn't destroy a city doesn't mean it's good for the city.

A lot of folks here would argue that the Hoosier/RCA Dome was critical to the revitalization of downtown Indianapolis.

[steeps]

Next round..... nola vs. the thread...... once again. SHE'S ALWAYS RIGHT you know... sarcasm right.