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.
Yeah... I'm gonna go ahead and sort of respectfully disagree with you about Cleveland, though I'm sure there are ballparks that aren't helpful. Frankly, I think many suburban people wouldn't even think to venture into downtown if it wasn't for a game, so I think that if done right, it can lead to major results. I would say that the Gateway Project in Cleveland is one of the biggest victories in the city's history, and the results of that will continue to be seen for years to come.
Here is a Google Maps view of businesses located immediately adjacent to the stadium, it looks like storefront occupancy is mostly full across those sections, or the "Gateway" section of town.
Right now, it doesn't even show how vibrant it is going to become, as the surface lot located across from the two stadiums will be hosting a lifestyle/shopping/entertainment/office center called nuCLEus, with first floor storefronts set to open up as soon as next year. I attached a shot of that below.
The Tower City Center Mall, was originally a home of luxury department stores and was a shopping destination across the city. As the realities of suburban travel, and 2 other upscale malls opened on the East and West sides, respectively, most of these stores left. However, the fact that many park within and walk to games from said mall, is one of the major reasons the mall has actually been able to survive, and in addition has added a casino. Having downtown stadiums is also helpful because downtown rapid lines are actually pretty full on game nights, adding a sense of urban vibrancy.
Here are a few pictures of the things I was mentioning.
I think baseball stadiums can help a downtown be more lively, but that the effects are often overstated. IMO for downtowns the positive effects are like this: basketball/hockey arenas > baseball > football.
Basketball and hockey arenas are the best (especially when combined) b/c their footprints are smaller (usually either 1 or 2 city blocks) and they can more easily be folded into the existing fabric of a city. They each have over 40 home games, so when you combine them that is over 80 busy dates in a relatively compact area. Capacities are smaller (usu about 17,000-21,000 people) and you don't need as much parking. Verizon Center in DC is a great example. It meshes with the neighborhood and really revitalized the area.
Baseball stadiums are more hit or miss. They are roughly two or three times as large, with capacities that are usually around 35,000-50,000 people. The upside is that they have a lot of dates (81). IMO the downtown ballparks are more fun to go to, but can be more disruptive of the fabric of the city. There are lots of successes (Wrigley, Fenway, Nats, O's, Minneapolis, San Fran), but also some that seem like they either don't help or actively hurt the area (Atlanta, Philly, Houston, US Cellular)
Football stadiums are the worst b/c their footprints are so large and they require such massive amounts of parking for only 8 home games a year. As lame as it is to go to a game out in the suburbs, I think that is often the best place for these b/c otherwise you have a massive deadzone in prime real estate areas for 350 days out of the year.
It's a tough call. In many of the cases (as has been mentioned), the neighborhoods would probably gentrify on their own. However, I do think that having a ballpark there can change the way the development around the stadium occurs. You could make the case that there wouldn't be as many restaurants and bars along King Street if AT&T Park wasn't there.
Fenway and Wrigley are the original urban stadiums. They're not downtown per se, but they are urban parks at the core of their neighborhoods. While there's no question that Fenway (the neighborhood) and Wrigleyville would be active urban neighborhoods without the stadiums, it's hard to argue that the ballparks haven't shaped the way that those neighborhoods have developed in some way. There's no way you'd see the same concentration of retail, dining and drinking establishments in those areas without the ballparks. Baseball stadiums in particular (81 home games, more than the other major sports - though a shared NBA/NHL Arena does have 82 home games per year between the two sports) generate foot traffic and in an urban setting, definitely spawn businesses that feed off of that traffic.
As with all things, development takes time. It'll be years (potentially even decades) until development really takes hold around some of these newer stadiums. I don't believe that a stadium will generate a neighborhood on its own (again, in most cases, these areas would develop without the ballpark), but they certainly do something to increase the volume of retail, dining and drinking establishments. I think that's fairly undeniable.
I agree that basketball/hockey arenas are best suited to be downtown, as opposed to baseball and football stadiums, largely because they can use a shared space, and are more compact. I would love to see in Philadelphia the Flyers and Sixers move to that huge lot on 8th and Market, an area that could use some further development (although it is seeing a lot of that lately). It is a great location for fans living in AND out of the city, as it is close to Jefferson Station, which is a stop on the city's Market-Frankfurt line, and a stop on all of the regional rail lines that go into the suburbs. That way you can mitigate the traffic impact of suburbanites coming into the city for games, as hopefully a good portion of them will op to take the train. It's also close to a lot of the popular tourist destinations in the city (Independence Hall, namely) so perhaps some tourists would be willing to see a game too. If you can line the arena with retail facing the street, that would be an amazing development that would bring some life to that area of the city in the winter. With 82 sports dates, and throw in some concerts and other live events... Wow it would be spectacular.
So I haven't read the comments on this thread, but if your downtown is seriously impacted by a sports stadium, then your downtown absolutely sucks.
A stadium is only utilized a small part of the time, for a few hours, a few dozen times a year. And the people are in the stadium, they aren't hanging around outside. If that really makes the difference in terms of having people on the street, as they're walking from their cars or wherever, then your downtown is pretty pathetic.
Seattle actually has a lot of development and activity near the NFL and MLB stadiums downtown - Pioneer Square is right there and is blowing up these days. I guess you could say Safeco is a little bit removed from the main part of the action, but it's still pretty close. Also, both stadiums are served by multiple rail stations (Stadiums station and Intl. District stadium).
So I haven't read the comments on this thread, but if your downtown is seriously impacted by a sports stadium, then your downtown absolutely sucks.
A stadium is only utilized a small part of the time, for a few hours, a few dozen times a year. And the people are in the stadium, they aren't hanging around outside. If that really makes the difference in terms of having people on the street, as they're walking from their cars or wherever, then your downtown is pretty pathetic.
Utter nonsense. Having 30-some thousand people in the downtown area several dozen times a year can make a substantial economic impact regardless of whether the downtown is otherwise "pathetic" or not. That impact is particularly magnified in small-market cities; I don't think that necessarily makes their downtowns "pathetic," it just means they're smaller.
And if there are other amenities around the stadium, no, they don't all just sit in the stadium and then go home. Many of them will also avail themselves of those other amenities while they're in the area. Wrigleyville is an obvious example of this, and while there would probably be nightlife there anyway, it almost certainly wouldn't be what it is without the stadium.
I like the neighborhood stadiums like Fenway and Wrigley the best.
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.
