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.
Off the top of my head Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Nationals, Cubs (not sure on White Sox)
To a lessor extent Baltimore (but light rail), Atlanta (MARTA is far and limited to very select areas for connectivity), SF (street car only)
Oakland has a BART station and an Amtrak station right at the Coliseum, much easier to get to that AT&T Park in SF. The BART station has a parking lot too that's free and they don't enforce BART only parking so it's a good spot to park and avoid the stadium parking fee. People will tailgate in the BART parking lot.
Philly made a major mistake by not building Citizens Bank Park near Center City...its one of the best ballparks in baseball, but stuck in a blah location in a sea of parking lots and warehouses. Even though its not in Manhattan, I loved the atmosphere around the old Yankee Stadium, walk out the gate and you're right on a neighborhood street with bars and restaurants. In Philly, there is nothing around the park, the only two places to go for a drink after a game is McFadden's, which is attached to the stadium and is packed to the gills with college-frat-boy types and has blaring music...and the bar in the Holiday Inn.
Shea Stadium (and now Citi Field) is in a crap location too.
You look at Cleveland, Houston, St Louis, Seattle, Baltimore, St Pete, Phoenix etc and you just don’t see a lot of eco development around the parks even after years (or even decades) of the parks being downtown.
Guess we have different perspectives. I think Baltimore's ballpark is well-positioned with new development nearby.
You don't have to show me pics. We go to O's games all the time. Sliders in that second photo is a great place.
It's dead most of the time though. That little strip of bars is all that is really near the stadium and they are packed right after a game and dead the rest of the time. I took some out of towners to sliders on a nice Saturday when the O's were out of town and we had the entire place to ourselves the entire time.
My point is that stadiums don't generate the economic activity people think they do. I love downtown stadiums. So I think you are missing the point I was trying to make.
Baltimore's stadium works because it's within walking distance of an established thriving district (inner harbor). But even in Baltimore, the area around the stadiums is probably the deadest area of all of greater downtown when there is no game. That is pretty typical.
I don't know. I wasn't alive when Riverfront Stadium opened. And what in the world does that have to do with anything? Apples and oranges, my friend.
What does it have to do with anything? The question is: can you say if there are more lively downtowns after a new stadium is built? Did Cincinnati have a more lively downtown after riverfront stadium was built?
You don't have to show me pics. We go to O's games all the time. Sliders in that second photo is a great place.
It's dead most of the time though. That little strip of bars is all that is really near the stadium and they are packed right after a game and dead the rest of the time. I took some out of towners to sliders on a nice Saturday when the O's were out of town and we had the entire place to ourselves the entire time.
My point is that stadiums don't generate the economic activity people think they do. I love downtown stadiums. So I think you are missing the point I was trying to make.
Baltimore's stadium works because it's within walking distance of an established thriving district (inner harbor). But even in Baltimore, the area around the stadiums is probably the deadest area of all of greater downtown when there is no game. That is pretty typical.
The challenge with development in the blocks directly adjacent to ballparks and stadiums is that planners need to accommodate the arrival and departure of 40 - 50,000 people, most of whom use cars and want to walk as little as possible. I have seen many of these suburbanites take advantage of the amenities a short distance from Camden Yards before and after games, however, thus measurably enlivening downtown's street scene and economy. I even see the same phenomenon in my city with scores of fans pouring out of the subway stations into Center City after a game. In this sense, I disagree with one of your original premises while at the same time giving my answer to your question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo
Sometimes I wonder if downtowns might be better off without such large dead spaces that are sporadically used and create huge demand for parking during games while sort of scaring everybody else off (people want to avoid the traffic and parking issues when games are going on).
So what do you think? Do downtown ballparks really help a downtown all that much??? Which cities do you think they have had the most impact?
As for pictures, I am posting them not only for you, but for others reading this thread who might be unfamiliar with Camden Yards. Although a cliche, I do believe a picture is worth 1000 words.
^ your example of people pouring out of subway stations into Center City after a game sort of makes my point. You see, those downtown establishments are probably busy most of the time, even though they get a rush after games. They are not dependent on those rushes for 95% of their business so they contribute more to a lively city than a hand full of bars around stadium that are surrounded by dead space (parking lots, stadiums etc). Center City is always busy, but it sees a bump in traffic after a game.
It is very difficult for a bar or restaurant to open near a ballpark because they just don't get a constant sustained flow of customers. They get those 80 dates, but that's less then 1/4 of the year and on those dates, it's only a mad rush for a few hours, they typically get no lunch crowd during a night game etc.
Even during a game, the places can be very empty, sports bars will have a few people in them, but restaurants will be totally dead because people not going to the game don't want to venture into an area they know will present challenges of parking, traffic, or even getting to the establishment. In Baltimore for example, roads close, street parking becomes illegal etc, making the area hostile to visitors during games.
Also, the percent of people that go to a game that actually stick around before or after a game and go to local places to hang out, have dinner etc is extremely low. One could argue that a similar percentage of people leaving a game in Philly, Milwaukee or even KC will trickle (or pour if what you say is true) into central city districts after a game as those that can walk to such areas from stadium. Ever go to a game in St Louis, Denver, Baltimore? Nearly everybody heads to their cars and gets the hell out of there, some walk to light rail stations to get the hell out of there. The small amount of people that actually walk away from the stadium towards the city are probably staying in downtown hotels or live there (tend to be tourists or urbanites) and most of those people would made it back downtown regardless of stadium location. (with the exception of Anaheim which is so far from a downtown). Kauffman stadium is out of the city, but when a team that travels well is in town (Cards, Twins etc), their fans are all over the central city all day long before and after a game and places like the plaza see a huge bump, but they would be busy regardless. The location of the stadium makes no difference.
Those pics you posted are of a city built convention center hotel in the outfield, beyond that is another very large dead zone between the stadium and inner harbor, the Baltimore Convention Center. It's a great view and the density looks neat from the stadium, but that doesn't mean the areas around the ballpark are lively, vibrant areas.
So, other than having a stadium with awesome views of the philly skyline, what would be gained by having the stadium downtown? You would instantly create a demand for at least 10,000 additional parking spaces and create a vast dead zone of activity in the heart of the city 3/4 of the year and create a lot of problems for those that would live within a few blocks of the park because the demand for parking and traffic.
Like I said, I love downtown stadiums. I just think they help a city's testosterone level more than their economies. I'm not sure they actually help a downtown when those areas could be more mixed use and vibrant more often. I'm from KC and I would love for KC to have a downtown ballpark for one reason. To showcase downtown KC to the rest of the country. The KC skyline as a backdrop beyond the fountains of kauffman stadium would be amazing. But would it really help downtown? Not really. Not on the level several smaller more active and less intrusive venues would such as the Sprint Center, Theaters, the Performing Arts Center etc. Those venues collectively keep a constant flow of people downtown year around and do so without overwhelming downtown and scaring off others not going to games and they don't create the need for excessive parking capacity that is not needed 80% of the time.
I would chose a downtown stadium over one that is not downtown. I'm just debating their actual impact on a downtown area.
What does it have to do with anything? The question is: can you say if there are more lively downtowns after a new stadium is built? Did Cincinnati have a more lively downtown after riverfront stadium was built?
Obviously not, but that was also during an era in which Americans were largely shunning the center cities in favor of the suburbs. Furthermore, the riverfront in Cincinnati has always been hindered, IMO, by the Fort Washington Way freeway (I-71/75), which effectively disconnects the riverfront from the CBD.
I preferred the Broadway Commons concept for the new Reds ballpark, but Marge wouldn't have anything to do with it. I see no reason the Banks couldn't have been developed without GABP, and there would've been the possibililty of bring some buzz back to another part of town.
Finally, a technical edit: Riverfront opened in 1970, not 1972.
Furthermore, many consider the old RCA Dome to have been one of the major catalysts behind downtown revitalization in Indy.
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.
