Falcons new stadium (Atlanta, Dalton, Nashville: 2013, how much, hotels)

[frankieg73]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

17.and they only avg about 17,000 fans per game.

Existing Dome + New Braves Stadium > braves leaving and the new 'robot anus dome'

Good MLS clubs can average over 20,000 per game, but that is rare. Most MLS clubs average around 15,000 tickets per game - note that this is tickets 'distributed' which is not the same as tickets sold or actual attendees. My New England Revolution have been near the bottom in attandance for years (also playing in an NFL stadium) and their reported attendance is often well above the actual number of people that showed up.

As for the new name, I was thinking "Sphincter Bowl."

[frankieg73]

Originally Posted by arc-lang

I understand your points, but the taxpayers who live in Atlanta will not be paying for the new stadium. Arthur Blank, and other private entities, will pay approx 70% to 80% of the costs, including overruns, and the rest of the funds will come from the cities hotel/motel tax, which will mostly be paid by visitors. I am not saying I am totally sold on the new stadium, but I believe that creating a better game day experience for fans is something that I am looking forward to.

Let's say the math really is this simple (note: it's not.) Why can't that money be used towards services that benefit the whole city and not just the few sports fans that can actually afford to go to an NFL game? More teachers, more cops, more fire protection, better roads and parks, neighbourhood redevlopment, etc. There already is a perfectly good stadium here and big money like this can and should be used elsewhere. This project creates no new jobs - it just moves them a few hundred feet - and the vast majority of the revenues from the new stadium go to the team.

[afonega1]

Originally Posted by frankieg73

Let's say the math really is this simple (note: it's not.) Why can't that money be used towards services that benefit the whole city and not just the few sports fans that can actually afford to go to an NFL game? More teachers, more cops, more fire protection, better roads and parks, neighbourhood redevlopment, etc. There already is a perfectly good stadium here and big money like this can and should be used elsewhere. This project creates no new jobs - it just moves them a few hundred feet - and the vast majority of the revenues from the new stadium go to the team.

Thats not necessarily true.

You have to remain competitive or you will loose to other cities with newer facilities.
Yes the Dome looks fine but it lacks all the new advances that are now available.
Those jobs surrounding having a new dome are a major part of Atlanta's growing tourism economy.


This was a good deal as far as this type of investment goes.
If was gonna happen,so at least it was done the best way it could have been done with the least expense to tax payers.

[jsvh]

Taxpayer money should not have gone to either stadium.

But the better deal is obvious. $400M for a $650M stadium that will host the Braves and maybe some concerts after. Vs $200M that would have gone to maintain the Dome anyways for a $1.2B rain / shine venue that keeps NFL and gains the city MLS, Super Bowl, World Cup, Final Four, and about any other even we are able to secure.

Wish they could have found a way to drop the GA Dome funds entirely from the new stadium but it does look great and will be a great draw for bringing major events to the city.

Plus the planned "college town" redevelopment for Turner site looks great. Will be nice to see baseball being played on the historic AFCS diamond again.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by afonega1

If was gonna happen,so at least it was done the best way it could have been done with the least expense to tax payers.

Good point.

[cqholt]

The Georgia done was built using 100% taxpayer.

[erick295]

Hate to jump in to this tired debate, but that whole "OMG tax dollars, what about the children!!!" argument is ludicrous. This is being paid for by the hotel tax. The hotel tax isn't allowed to be used for things like sidewalks and schools. It can only be used for things like conventions and tourism, which this stadium certainly falls under.

The money is being used as it was intended to be used. You can disagree about whether we should be building a football stadium or some other event/tourism-related thing, but it isn't taking funds away from basic services for residents.

[frankieg73]

Originally Posted by erick295

Hate to jump in to this tired debate, but that whole "OMG tax dollars, what about the children!!!" argument is ludicrous. This is being paid for by the hotel tax. The hotel tax isn't allowed to be used for things like sidewalks and schools. It can only be used for things like conventions and tourism, which this stadium certainly falls under.

The money is being used as it was intended to be used. You can disagree about whether we should be building a football stadium or some other event/tourism-related thing, but it isn't taking funds away from basic services for residents.

Sorry, but your counter-argument is ludicrous. If this money has to go to tourism, it can go to any tourism project, and virtually any other tourism initiative is bound to provide a better ROI than giving it all to a stadium where the vast majority of the return goes to the team and the municipality sees virtually nothing, and there is a perfectly fine stadium next door.

And all of the tax revenues available to the government can be shuffled around at will - the government can say this $200 million is going to any existing tourism project, which could have freed up $200 million from other revenue sources that was being allocated to any other project.

[frankieg73]

Originally Posted by afonega1

Thats not necessarily true.

You have to remain competitive or you will loose to other cities with newer facilities.
Yes the Dome looks fine but it lacks all the new advances that are now available.
Those jobs surrounding having a new dome are a major part of Atlanta's growing tourism economy.


This was a good deal as far as this type of investment goes.
If was gonna happen,so at least it was done the best way it could have been done with the least expense to tax payers.

What will this city lose to other cities? No new jobs will be created by this project as existing jobs will only move a few hundred feet. It will create temporary construction jobs, but it's not like this city is starving for new construction projects. The new stadium will have more ways to spend your money inside of it than the old one, so there will be less opportunity for local businesses to make money outside the stadium. The new stadium will also have fewer seats, so you are actually reducing the number of opportunities for toursists to come in and spend their money here.

This deal may not be as bad as others, but throwing away any amount of money is not a good idea.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by frankieg73

What will this city lose to other cities? No new jobs will be created by this project as existing jobs will only move a few hundred feet. It will create temporary construction jobs, but it's not like this city is starving for new construction projects. The new stadium will have more ways to spend your money inside of it than the old one, so there will be less opportunity for local businesses to make money outside the stadium. The new stadium will also have fewer seats, so you are actually reducing the number of opportunities for toursists to come in and spend their money here.

This deal may not be as bad as others, but throwing away any amount of money is not a good idea.

Its a much bigger venue, so it will need a few more low-skill, low-paying jobs.