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.
^ 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.
Downtown stadiums are great and there is a huge difference between say Heinz field and the Meadowlands as far as looks and definitely energy. Obviously they add to the bottom line for business in the immediate area as they count on those x amount of games and the traffic it brings. Overall steady impact on the surrounding area is well dependent on other factors outside of the respective season. What is it used for? A lot of the older stadiums are one trick ponies, they are used for that one purpose and dead during the off season. The newer stadiums being built are being specifically designed to be true multipurpose venues esp. the ones that were built in respective downtowns. It allows stadiums to function and bring people into the city center throughout the year instead of only during the season.
Next, how is it positioned? Is it "If you build it, they will come" mentality or did they put actual thought into it. Does it integrate with the entertainment district downtown? Do you provide parking spaces for 50k or do you provide fewer and let the regular downtown parking garages/lots make up the difference?
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're comparing 1970 America to 2011 America. Honestly, if you can't see a difference there, I can't help you. Using your beloved Michigan as an example of how things have changed the past four decades: the Pontiac Silverdome opened in the 1970s in extreme suburban Detroit and was home to the Lions and, for a time, the Pistons. How has that turned out? The Lions moved back downtown, the Pistons wish they could, and today the Silverdome is a ghostly relic sitting there unsused, biding its time until the wrecking ball puts it out of its misery.
Riverfront Stadium, which opened in 1970, was never intended to do much of anything related to riverfront development. It was a generic, dual-purpose, cookie-cutter stadium purposely surrounded by a sea of surface parking lots meant specifically to ease the in-and-out flow of the teams' biggest customers: car-driving suburbanites. The same exact concept was duplicated, with mediocre results, in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Atlanta and St. Louis.
I'm sure you understand that Great American Ball Park, and most all of the other new downtown ballparks (Baltimore, Cleveland, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Denver, Seattle, San Diego, St. Louis, Detroit, etc.), was built with the goal of integrating it into the urban fabric of the city - something that was entirely unimportant and unvalued in 1970. And the effect has been undeniable, not only in Cincinnati but elsewhere. Were you ever in the lower downtown section of Denver before Coors Field was built? It was a neglected, seedy and altogether avoidable eyesore that nobody gave a second thought to. Today, thanks largely if not entirely to Coors Field, Lodo is a trendy, high-rent, thriving and populated area of one of America's great downtowns, filled with restaurants, hotels, breweries, loft apartments/condos, art galleries, offices, etc.
I'm just debating their actual impact on a downtown area.
Actually, you're not debating at all. You opened the thread with this question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo
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?
What you are doing is challenging anyone who has an opinion different from yours. I have a difference experiences than you, and as a result, do not share your opinion, as perplexing as that may be to you.
To answer this question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo
Ever go to a game in St Louis, Denver, Baltimore?
Denver, no. St Louis and Baltimore yes, along with Houston, KC, Boston and Philly.
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.
If anything GABP seems to have been a boon for Newport. The riverfront on the Kentucky side seems to be where the action was after the games. That's where my friend and I went after games, mostly because our hotel was right across the river from the stadium. And by the looks of all the Cubs/Reds jerseys hanging out on the levee, a lot of people followed us. Walk across a bridge, hang a left, and there you are with a bunch of bars and restaurants and stuff.
was just up in boston this past week and went to a red sox game. i don't think the green line is a true subway. seems to be light rail. but hey it was easy as could be getting to fenway taking pt. i'd add them to the list.
The Green Line is sort of a hybrid. It's subway through the center of the city and runs above ground as light rail outside of the urban core. I don't know if you're familiar with San Francisco's Muni Metro, but they're almost identical in that regard.
I'd certainly count Boston as rail accessible. You have 3 branches of the Green Line (they split off and run above ground right after the Kenmore stop, by the way) as well as Commuter Rail access (Yawkey Station is right there). It's a 5-10 minute walk from the MFA stop on the Green Line and a 15 minute walk from Ruggles on the Orange Line too.
Quote:
fenway by the way was incredible and the atmosphere around the game was so great.
I love what they've done there over the past decade+. Closing down Yawkey Way and having that street open for ticket holders is great. Lansdowne has a great atmosphere before/after as well. It is a great spot. I've never been to Citizen's Bank, but for what it's worth, I know a lot of people who have gone and loved it.
Quote:
one thing about the actual game at fenway though that i wanted to bring up and was curious to hear what people from boston had to say. man oh man is that just the most laid back crowd of baseball fans or what? i mean honestly nothing, and i mean nothing brought these people to their feet.... with the exception of the wave.
they also kept hitting around beach balls which seemed to captivate the crowd more than the actual game.
what's the deal? since the sox have become a powerhouse the past ten years or so have the real fans been priced out? nobody seemed to know what was going on. so we basically had the cheapest seats in the house.
Well, I think the game had a lot to do with it. It really didn't matter. A relatively meaningless late July/Early August game against the Indians has a lot to do with it. I know the Indians are a contender, but they're not really a contender. The fans are much better if you're playing later in the year against a real contender (again, Cleveland isn't really a contender)... especially the Yankees. Also, right now, the Sox (fans) are in cruise control. It seems like an inevitability that they'll be in the playoffs and an inevitability that they'll be in the ALCS against the Yankees which they should win. I think people are just complacent. Still, a series against the Indians in early August isn't a good measure of the fans knowledge or loyalty. Yanks in September with a division title on the line? That's a different story. Even a division opponent like the Rays or Orioles is bound to induce a bit more passion. No on has any beef with the Indians. It's really hard to get fired up for a game against them.
That said, the past decade of success has brought out the Pink Hats-- Fans who go to the games because it's "cool." Not because they love the team. This comes with all successful teams (The Yankees, Giants and even the Phillies have their share), but it seems to be a bit more apparent this year than in years past (except '04, '07). Two radio hosts, Toucher and Rich, even have a segment called, "ask a Pink Hat" where they ask 5 simple questions to a "pink hat" fan and see if they (usually a she) can answer them. Absolutely hysterical and worth a listen... here's a link to the most recent clip.
Sox fans are still incredibly passionate, and very knowledgeable. I do think you probably noticed a fair share of pink hats (I hate the wave too... don't know why people are bringing it back), but you also attended a relatively meaningless game. I went to a game two weeks ago against the Royals and it was much the same as your experience. I went to Saturday's game against the Yankees and it's like night and day. The atmosphere in the stadium is electric.
If anything GABP seems to have been a boon for Newport. The riverfront on the Kentucky side seems to be where the action was after the games. That's where my friend and I went after games, mostly because our hotel was right across the river from the stadium. And by the looks of all the Cubs/Reds jerseys hanging out on the levee, a lot of people followed us. Walk across a bridge, hang a left, and there you are with a bunch of bars and restaurants and stuff.
When was the last time you were there? The Banks development is new and is ongoing literally a short foul ball's-distance from home plate. If you haven't been to a game as recently as this summer, you probably wouldn't understand the pre-game and post-game scene that's developing right next door. Newport has its fun spots, no doubt, but to suggest that it is the primary benefactor of GABP is incorrect. Both Newport and The Banks together, along with Fountain Square, will continue to create an appealing dynamic in the years to come. The unique and diverse combination is a great thing for the city.
Well, I think the game had a lot to do with it. It really didn't matter. A relatively meaningless late July/Early August game against the Indians has a lot to do with it. I know the Indians are a contender, but they're not really a contender. The fans are much better if you're playing later in the year against a real contender (again, Cleveland isn't really a contender)... especially the Yankees. Also, right now, the Sox (fans) are in cruise control. It seems like an inevitability that they'll be in the playoffs and an inevitability that they'll be in the ALCS against the Yankees which they should win. I think people are just complacent. Still, a series against the Indians in early August isn't a good measure of the fans knowledge or loyalty. Yanks in September with a division title on the line? That's a different story. Even a division opponent like the Rays or Orioles is bound to induce a bit more passion. No on has any beef with the Indians. It's really hard to get fired up for a game against them.
That said, the past decade of success has brought out the Pink Hats-- Fans who go to the games because it's "cool." Not because they love the team. This comes with all successful teams (The Yankees, Giants and even the Phillies have their share), but it seems to be a bit more apparent this year than in years past (except '04, '07). Two radio hosts, Toucher and Rich, even have a segment called, "ask a Pink Hat" where they ask 5 simple questions to a "pink hat" fan and see if they (usually a she) can answer them. Absolutely hysterical and worth a listen... here's a link to the most recent clip.
Sox fans are still incredibly passionate, and very knowledgeable. I do think you probably noticed a fair share of pink hats (I hate the wave too... don't know why people are bringing it back), but you also attended a relatively meaningless game. I went to a game two weeks ago against the Royals and it was much the same as your experience. I went to Saturday's game against the Yankees and it's like night and day. The atmosphere in the stadium is electric.
the phillies have a ton of these types of fans as of late. not enough that i think they could successfully get a wave to go around the stadium, much less have a wave last a whole half of an inning... but it's getting dangerously close. haha
but yea i know a wednesday night game against the indians in the dog days of summer isn't exactly game 7 against the yankees in the alcs, but it was a good game and it was little weird how no one seemed to care. haha i don't even like the red sox and i was getting more into the game then the people sitting all around me wearing red sox hats and jerseys and what not.
that recording was hilarious. haha i just can't believe there are people who could watch a game for 3 plus hours and not even notice the name of the opposing team. there are plenty of "fans" in philly who would likely fail a similarly easy quiz. it seems to be an unfortunate growing trend.
I go to Minute Maid sometimes and (as an architect major and BIG fan of urban-living) I hate seeing more parking spaces facing the park than buildings. There's even that old hotel there that's just a huge eyesore.
The area looks better than it did before. It was mostly just parking spaces, people holding onto land in hopes of values rising. They really didn't add many new spaces, just on the Freeway side. Minute Maid is just a long way from the prime part of downtown. There are several restaurants in the area and thriving closer to the prime part but on the edge towards Minute Maid. Those restaurants probably would be closed or relocated elsewhere if not for the ballpark.
The combination of the convention center, Toyota Center and Minute Maid does seem to be driving new downtown development to the east instead of focusing on Smith and Louisiana in the west. There is more night life on Main Street, but how much is the rail, how much if any is related to the ballpark and how much is just the fickle nature of bar patrons is impossible to tell.
Stadiums just have a marginal impact and don't transform anything by themselves. Reliant Stadium is something of an exception. They leveled a bunch of by-the-hour hotels to build parking lots and dramatically improved the area and sent the hookers elsewhere.
Personally, I think it's ideal to have them downtown but you made a good argument for the parking aspect. I just think that if there is a development between public-private institutions to do it right, it can work. Yet, you can't deny that when you go to Pittsburgh, go across the bridge, you enter Pirateville. When you go to Colorado the surrounding businesses are doing superb. Your right about Washington. Nice park but terrible surroundings. Actually, kind of scary Yet, where I live-Philadelphia. Nice stadiums, tons of parking but you have to drive a haul to get anywhere else. And nothing around it except Chickie and Petes. Dive restaurant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo
I have always been a huge fan of downtown ballparks and still prefer them over some of the more non-downtown locations.
We hit about six parks a year for actual games, but I have been to them all except the new target field in Minneapolis (it was under construction last time I was there).
One thing I can’t help but notice is that downtown parks just don’t seem to really generate a lot of economic development around them at all and more often than not, areas around stadiums (for many blocks) are some of the deadest areas of an entire downtown area unless it’s before or after a ballgame and then it’s just a mad rush to or from cars or transit stations.
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).
People will say Denver and San Diego and San Francisco have growing gentrifying urban neighborhoods around them, but those areas (LoDo, Gaslight etc) were flourishing before the ballparks went in.
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.
It certainly seems to have little to do with attendance. Cleveland, Pittsburgh etc have beautiful downtown parks that get some of the league’s smallest crowds while places like Milwaukee and Philly and Anaheim draw huge crowds to stadiums surrounded by parking lots.
Should Dodgers stadium be in Downtown LA? (and no Dodgers stadium may as well be 15 miles from downtown the way it is now)
Should Kauffman Stadium in KC be in downtown KC? Would it really do anything but just make people keep parking lots from being developed?
Texas rangers?
What has happened around Baltimore’s stadium? Not much really. Most of the new development in downtown Baltimore is on the other side of downtown or the other side of the harbor.
DC’s stadium is basically part of a heavily subsidized master planned community, so that really doesn’t count and Fenway and Wrigley are unique situations.
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?
China Basin was flourishing before there were plans for what is now named AT&T park?
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.
YES and NO
