Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-10-2013, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Georgia
5,845 posts, read 6,113,656 times
Reputation: 3573

Advertisements

I keep hearing this claim come up in the New Falcons Stadium thread. So I thought I'd look into it. Specifically, I wanted to classify all 32 NFL stadiums (counting New York twice) according to their type of location: Downtown, in-town, suburban, or exurban. Occasionally-used stadiums such as the Hall of Fame Stadium in Ohio are not considered. The definitions are as follows:

Downtown: The stadium is in or directly bordering downtown. A short walk away is acceptable if not across a river.

In-town: In the team's listed city, but not right next to downtown.

Suburban: In a suburban city, or in a part of the listed city with density low enough to qualify as suburban (subjective--to be continued).

Exurban: A sizable distance from the nearest major city. Almost rural.

It is important to note that these definitions were chosen BEFORE I made the analysis. Also, to counter any personal feelings I may have, any stadium in the team name's city but in an area that could easily pass for a suburb was classified as a suburban team. This meant that Kansas City, San Diego, and Tampa got moved from "in-town" to suburban.

Classification was done primarily using Google maps and Wikipedia.

Downtown (11): Atlanta, Baltimore, Carolina, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Indy, Jacksonville, Minneapolis, New Orleans, St. Louis.
In-town (10): Chicago, Denver, Green Bay, Houston, Oakland, Philly, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seattle, Tennessee.
Suburban (10): Arizona, Buffalo, Dallas, Kansas City, Miami, New York (x2), San Diego, Tampa Bay, Washington.
Exurban (1): New England.


Obviously there is some wiggle room--Tennessee and Pittsburgh's stadiums are just across the river from their respective downtowns, Lambeau Field is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, etc. But the overall trend is pretty clear: About a third of the stadiums are in downtowns, about a third are elsewhere in town, and most of the remaining third are in the suburbs.

In short, the claim that most NFL stadiums are in the suburbs is false. A clear majority of them lie in major cities--sometimes right in the heart of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2013, 08:06 PM
 
Location: The big blue yonder...
2,061 posts, read 3,715,198 times
Reputation: 1183
a Falcons stadium in Atlanta's suburbs would be tragic......

What works for one city doesn't work for all
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 08:09 PM
 
Location: 30080
2,390 posts, read 4,382,822 times
Reputation: 2180
And realistically, the ones that are in the suburbs are most likely there because there's nowhere to put them downtown. Where would Miami, Washington, New York or Tampa build NFL sized stadiums downtown?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 08:13 PM
 
2,406 posts, read 3,335,237 times
Reputation: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by toll_booth View Post
I keep hearing this claim come up in the New Falcons Stadium thread. So I thought I'd look into it. Specifically, I wanted to classify all 32 NFL stadiums (counting New York twice) according to their type of location: Downtown, in-town, suburban, or exurban. Occasionally-used stadiums such as the Hall of Fame Stadium in Ohio are not considered. The definitions are as follows:

Downtown: The stadium is in or directly bordering downtown. A short walk away is acceptable if not across a river.

In-town: In the team's listed city, but not right next to downtown.

Suburban: In a suburban city, or in a part of the listed city with density low enough to qualify as suburban (subjective--to be continued).

Exurban: A sizable distance from the nearest major city. Almost rural.

It is important to note that these definitions were chosen BEFORE I made the analysis. Also, to counter any personal feelings I may have, any stadium in the team name's city but in an area that could easily pass for a suburb was classified as a suburban team. This meant that Kansas City, San Diego, and Tampa got moved from "in-town" to suburban.

Classification was done primarily using Google maps and Wikipedia.

Downtown (11): Atlanta, Baltimore, Carolina, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Indy, Jacksonville, Minneapolis, New Orleans, St. Louis.
In-town (10): Chicago, Denver, Green Bay, Houston, Oakland, Philly, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seattle, Tennessee.
Suburban (10): Arizona, Buffalo, Dallas, Kansas City, Miami, New York (x2), San Diego, Tampa Bay, Washington.
Exurban (1): New England.


Obviously there is some wiggle room--Tennessee and Pittsburgh's stadiums are just across the river from their respective downtowns, Lambeau Field is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, etc. But the overall trend is pretty clear: About a third of the stadiums are in downtowns, about a third are elsewhere in town, and most of the remaining third are in the suburbs.

In short, the claim that most NFL stadiums are in the suburbs is false. A clear majority of them lie in major cities--sometimes right in the heart of them.
Just a few notes:
Jacksonville is "downtown," but it is surrounded by a sea of parking lots.
Green Bay is in-town, but you are talking about a town with a population of Sandy Springs. I'd consider it suburban. (You kinda hit on this one already)

However... who I don't recall a lot of people saying most are in the suburbs like you said. I have heard people say that they prefer a stadium like this in the suburbs for logistical reasons. There are obvious benefits to having a stadium that is used for football games no more than 10-15 times a year in a place other than downtown. The idea that a stadium that is used so infrequently is an economic engine is false. A baseball stadium with 81 events can drive a localized economy, but a stadium used 10-15 times for football games doesn't fuel anything beyond the parking lot attendants and bootleg merchandise dealers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 08:48 PM
 
Location: The big blue yonder...
2,061 posts, read 3,715,198 times
Reputation: 1183
If Atlanta builds a suburban stadium, where? What suburban city/area?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Georgia
5,845 posts, read 6,113,656 times
Reputation: 3573
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownhornet View Post
And realistically, the ones that are in the suburbs are most likely there because there's nowhere to put them downtown. Where would Miami, Washington, New York or Tampa build NFL sized stadiums downtown?
Over the water!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 09:10 PM
 
2,406 posts, read 3,335,237 times
Reputation: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownhornet View Post
And realistically, the ones that are in the suburbs are most likely there because there's nowhere to put them downtown. Where would Miami, Washington, New York or Tampa build NFL sized stadiums downtown?
Miami built an baseball park on the site of the old Orange Bowl less than 3 miles from downtown.

Washington built a baseball park less than 2 miles from the Capitol building.

New York had plans around 2005 to build the Jets a new building on the west side of Manhattan. The plan fell through though.

Tampa... move that team to suburban London for all I care.

Now the baseball parks have a slightly smaller footprint, but if they really wanted to, I'm sure they could find the land. It might be cost prohibitive however.


I still fail to see why having a stadium downtown is so important. Sure it gives an identity, but the Georgia Dome has proven that the downtown stadium can be a black hole for development. I wonder what the cost difference would be between building it downtown versus in a suburban site. I really don't care where they build it, but I think these are healthy things to at least consider.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 09:31 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,574 posts, read 10,686,347 times
Reputation: 6512
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtcorndog View Post

I still fail to see why having a stadium downtown is so important. Sure it gives an identity, but the Georgia Dome has proven that the downtown stadium can be a black hole for development. I wonder what the cost difference would be between building it downtown versus in a suburban site. I really don't care where they build it, but I think these are healthy things to at least consider.
Well in the unique context of Atlanta only....

Simply because it needs to be apart of the GWCC complex. It is a mixed use-facility and brings in major conventions that works in tandem with the convention halls. It is a big asset in our convention offerings some of our competitors can't offer.

The catch is the upkeep on the stadium isn't worth it w/o the revenue and fanfare from Football, so if Arthur Blank goes 100% suburban on his own dime, the GWCC will not be able to support the Georgia Dome upkeep for convention offerings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 12:20 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
4,991 posts, read 5,908,878 times
Reputation: 4313
Interesting! One of LA's stadium proposals is for a downtown stadium and we keep hearing about how the NFL owners are skeptical of downtown stadiums. When I was in Atlanta I noticed that your stadium was downtown, although not quite as central as LA's planned stadium. It has plenty of parking allowing for tailgating, which the LA one wouldn't. I think that most of the other downtown stadiums are the same and have abundant parking. So maybe they can be downtown as long as they have a suburban parking situation? Tailgating is pretty important to the game experience according to the NFL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Castleberry Hill
104 posts, read 141,040 times
Reputation: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
Well in the unique context of Atlanta only....

Simply because it needs to be apart of the GWCC complex. It is a mixed use-facility and brings in major conventions that works in tandem with the convention halls. It is a big asset in our convention offerings some of our competitors can't offer.

The catch is the upkeep on the stadium isn't worth it w/o the revenue and fanfare from Football, so if Arthur Blank goes 100% suburban on his own dime, the GWCC will not be able to support the Georgia Dome upkeep for convention offerings.
Please explain this to me because I've been to dozens of conventions at the GWCC and not one, not a single one, has made the slightest use of the Georgia Dome. As best I can tell, the GWCC is important to the Georgia Dome but not vice verse. For the SEC Championship there is usually a fan day event in the GWCC, so that puts a few bucks in the GWCC pockets but that's the only spill over even I can think of. The Chick-fil-a events might have something similar. The SEC event is small but is nice for the Dome to have indoors. If they were in the 'burbs, they'd have to put up a bunch of tents to host the fan days event. But I've never been to a single professional conference that made use of the Georgia Dome in any way, shape, or form. I just sits there like a huge wall blocking the GWCC off from other parts of town. Of course maybe that's the point. To keep "those people" in Vine City hidden away from the good upstanding conventioneer crowd. If that's the real reason, it'd explain why the mayor gets so upset about the north site since in that location all it would block would be the Northyards office complex.

The stadium deal has been filled with "everybody knows" statements with absolutely no backing. This is just another one of those. Show me an INDEPENDENT analysis that states that the GWCC would fail to attract conventions without the Georgia Dome. Until then, I'll go with my own extensive professional experience which is the Georgia Dome does absolutely nothing to attract the professional conferences that make up the bulk of GWCC events. I'd much rather go to a convention in a city where it blends into the neighborhood rather than a site next to a big lifeless wall that blocks it off from the rest of the city. I have to wonder how many people here have actually attended GWCC events versus how many are playing SimCity in their head while looking at the satellite maps on Google Earth. It's the only explanation I can see for thinking something so absolutely mind boggling inane as the GWCC being unable to attract a proctologist convention because there is no Georgia Dome sitting next to the meeting hall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top