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.
But I just gave attendance numbers that prove otherwise.
But I said regardless of venue and DC is a Redskins town, isn't it? Did you give Redskins attendance? Besides it's not only about attendance for me. What about bars and having friends over for games?
But I just gave attendance numbers that prove otherwise.
If by around the same you mean over a 25% difference (this year, re: capacity), then sure... that number widens even further if you start in 2001.
Raw #'s, ya it is close, but obviously that is because of park size.. (Giants have 200k more than Dodgers this year alone, one of the Dodgers most relevant years in recent history)
The Giants have played five more home games, that's why. Regardless, before the ugly incident in 2011, the Dodgers consistently finished in the top 3 in total attendance year in and year out, even topping the league in 2009.
I don't think any city on this list would be looked upon favorably by Joe Six Pack (cause he's generally an provincial idiot). That goes for almighty NYC too.
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here. "
Melrose is upscale? I take my daughters there all the time and it seems mostly middle and lower end. I guess that there are a few designer stores, but I wouldn't say high end like Rodeo or even close to it. Melrose is very much like a smaller, less nice version of Soho, without as many chains. It doesn't even have a forever 21, which would really help LA in this thread given that Forever 21 started in Highland Park.
I think you're referring to the Melrose District...the trendy, independent, hip stretch of Melrose. Are you familiar with the western end of Melrose, running from Fairfax to La Cienega? Also known as Melrose Heights. It is extremely upscale. Helmut Lang, Vivienne Westwood, Paul Smith, Herve Leger, Fred Segal, Marc Jacobs, Diana von Furstenberg, Carolina Herrera, Sergio Rossi, Alexander McQueen, Oscar De La Renta, BCBG, John Varvatos, Balenciage, Diesel, Vera Wang, and many others, are all there. Plus, many upscale and trendy restaurants are situated there...Rick Bayless' Red O, Michael Voltaggio's Ink, Suzanne Goin's Lucques, AGO (co-owned by Robert De Niro), David Myers' Comme Ca, Fig & Olive.
If by around the same you mean over a 25% difference (this year, re: capacity), then sure... that number widens even further if you start in 2001.
Raw #'s, ya it is close, but obviously that is because of park size.. (Giants have 200k more than Dodgers this year alone, one of the Dodgers most relevant years in recent history)
No, by about the same I mean about a difference of less than 1% or about 300 or so fans. Percent of capacity is kind of a dumb stat to look at considering the variations in ballpark capacities.
The only thing that widens further if you look at attendance back to 2001 is how much less the Giants have drawn. Dodgers have way outdrawn the Giants over the last 10 years. Dodgers drew over 45K for over 4 years straight from 2006-2009. If you go back to Candlestick days the Giants attendance numbers are pathetic compared to Dodger stadium as Giants fans didn't start consistently filling up the stands until At&t.
Out of these cities Sf is second to last ahead of DC but behind LA imo.
But I said regardless of venue and DC is a Redskins town, isn't it? Did you give Redskins attendance? Besides it's not only about attendance for me. What about bars and having friends over for games?
As I already mentioned, the Redskins are not in DC, which is the same reason I only listed the Giants and 49ers for SF... "Bars and having friends over for games?" lol?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
The Giants have played five more home games, that's why.
If you took the time to look at the home games played, why didn't you take the time to see that I factored what you said in that quote in to my original number already (roughly, because as you can see it is a bit off but at the time of that post the Giants had over 300k so I put around 200k cuz I was in a hurry but obviously noticed the home game difference but yes it will most likely be less than 200k by season's end)?
sav: Some issues with what you are saying and the straw man arguments are making this not a fun time so I will be quick since I remembered why I rarely read / post on this forum. "Percent of capacity is kind of a dumb stat" - meh okay but to me you sound like all the blowhards on here who fight over what criteria is fair and what is not and what is wrong and what is right regarding an area's density statistics. But fine okay, the stat is just as dumb as punishing a team for not having as many seats as another team (over 25% of said seats remain empty anyways!). Drawing 45k for over 4 years straight is great, but that isn't even a possibility at AT&T... dumb argument. Giants drew more from 2001 - 2004 and the current trend is back in the Giants favor (see: last 2 years). And was that link supposed to be some kind of a 'gotcha' moment? As if that isn't how it is done in every facility through out every sport since like forever.. SF ahead of DC yes! Oh man I just remembered that that was my original and only point. I didn't bring up LA once or Giants vs Dodgers once. How did this happen?
I actually tallied the census tracts in the downtown area (immediate west loop, south loop, loop and river north) and it did grow a lot during the 2000's. There were over 100 residential highrises built along with thousands of low rise in-fill buildings. The area went from right around 50,000 people to a little over 100,000 in those 10 years. Easily the fastest growing area of the city.
The financial district, or Loop neighborhood actually grew to around 30,000 people. That's almost 100% growth from 2000, which had seen 100% growth from 1990. It's strange to think of that many people living right in the heart of downtown, given it's not the norm for the neighborhood living that defines Chicago for the most part. It's a city of hundreds of small towns smushed together. There are almost a dozen apartment highrises going up in the downtown area right now with around 3,500 units - so although the condo boom is certainly on hold, the residential construction continues at a fairly healthy pace.
My company revolves around the real estate markets in cities across the country. The urban cores are still going pretty strong, even with many areas on hold as far as far reaching development. The drive is still there though, just not the metrics.
There is a Chicago firm building a new ~40 story residential tower in DT Philly right now (think just went over 30 stories this week). No Aqua though...
sav: Some issues with what you are saying and the straw man arguments are making this not a fun time so I will be quick since I remembered why I rarely read / post on this forum. "Percent of capacity is kind of a dumb stat" - meh okay but to me you sound like all the blowhards on here who fight over what criteria is fair and what is not and what is wrong and what is right regarding an area's density statistics. But fine okay, the stat is just as dumb as punishing a team for not having as many seats as another team (over 25% of said seats remain empty anyways!). Drawing 45k for over 4 years straight is great, but that isn't even a possibility at AT&T... dumb argument. Giants drew more from 2001 - 2004 and the current trend is back in the Giants favor (see: last 2 years). And was that link supposed to be some kind of a 'gotcha' moment? As if that isn't how it is done in every facility through out every sport since like forever.. SF ahead of DC yes! Oh man I just remembered that that was my original and only point. I didn't bring up LA once or Giants vs Dodgers once. How did this happen?
Perhaps you have a point, looking at just one or the other is dumb. I guess it is worth mentioning both attendance and capacity since ballpark sizes do differ. Well you mention how it's unfair that the Giants can't draw more than 41K so isn't it unfair to expect the Dodgers to fill up at 99% capacity when their stadium seats 55K? Kind of a double standard there. It's not like the Giants could ever draw that amount even when they had a stadium that big, hell they had trouble drawing half that amount.
The difference between the amount of fans the Giants and Dodgers draw this year is miniscule and not really worth pointing out imo. And if you're going to brag about some "sellout streak" then I think it's worth pointing out how it's really not when thousands of seats are empty at many games.
But since you want to talk about attendance trends, overall the Dodgers have well outdrawn the Giants since they both moved to CA. Sure a few years here and there may favor the Giants but overall the Dodgers have had higher attendance.
Since the post you responded to has DC, SF, and LA listed in that order I decided to chime in on what I felt the order should be, kind of like you did. No need to get so defensive.
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.
