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.
That's the easiest part when the economy recovers. Remember, this is a minor league ball park. It won't be Coors Field. 12,000-15,000 capacity as compared to 55,000 or so for Coors. The difference in cost in materials will be huge. For example, AT&T Bricktown Ballpark went up for only 34 million in the late 1990s, and is considered one of the top facilities in Minor League Baseball.
There is no shortage of ways to fund it. Yes, the city at some point may rely on the taxpayers, but before it reaches that point, there is corporate money and naming rights issues to explore. Not to mention grants from the league, and even Major League Baseball, which supports many Minor League Activities. Then there is the Colorado Rockies organization, who has it in their best interest if they upgrade the facilities of their AAA affiliate.
So the money issue is something that can easily be solved. Just getting the project approved will be much more difficult.
I don't think Colorado Springs will leave Security Service Field. I think they will talk about it but people will say why spend the money to build a new stadium when there is a good one that just needs to be upgraded. They will claim that is yet another waste of money. So in the end the government will just stay there and make the minimal required upgrades.
Much as I would love to see a baseball field in the downtown area, I have to agree with Josseppie. Though I am new to the area, my take on the political environment is that this is not something the taxpayers and the local government will get behind. With the economy in the pits, that makes it even more unlikely. On the plus side, I've been to Security Service Field, and was impressed with what I found. There's lots of parking, the seats are modern and comfortable, the sight lines are great (there's not a bad seat in the house), the facility itself seems to be well maintained and clean, and the staff and concessionaires are friendly and polite (even if the beer is a bit expensive and our usher didn't know that the SkySox was a AAA team). Altogether, we've had an enjoyable and inexpensive baseball experience. Now that we're living here, we'll probably buy a season package this upcoming year. That said, the park doesn't really impress as a AAA facility. When I first saw it, I immediately thought it was more like the A level ballpark we attended in our last location. I think that with some judicious upgrades to the existing facility, it could prove to be a better draw than it is (though the crowds were pretty healthy the three times we were there). Much as I hat to admit it (as I'd really like to see it downtown), I suspect the demographics in that area (lots of new suburban development, families with kids, etc.) make it more desirable to the team to leave it where it is.
That's a very good point about the suburban location making the stadium a bigger draw for families. It's really as good an argument as you'll ever find for not relocating.
Of course we are reminded that the stadium did undergo some renovations just a few years ago, so that has extended the life of the facility for the foreseeable future.
That is how the residents of Colorado Springs think but I don't think that is how a city should be planned. The problem is if the government is not willing to invest downtown, why should any private company? In my opinion the government's job is to use all the tools they can to direct money and resources to things they think are important. If Colorado Springs doesn't care enough about its downtown's success to locate amenities like the baseball stadium there that shows downtown is not a priority for them. Then fewer private companies will invest as well, and that is what you see in downtown Colorado Springs. However, if Colorado Springs locates amenities like the baseball stadium downtown it gives the citizens a reason to go downtown creating a built-in customer base for supporting downtown businesses. You can say its just a baseball stadium or its just a arena, or its just a convention center but they all add up to millions of dollars of lost revenue to help the urban core and that is why the downtown in Colorado Springs is not what it could be for a metro area of its size.
That is how the residents of Colorado Springs think but I don't think that is how a city should be planned.
Perhaps not, but if the city is comprised of the residents, should it not be built to their preferences? I happen to agree that a downtown stadium is preferable, but if it would detract from attendance by families, then people are not necessarily better off. There is the team to consider, after all. It is a private business, even though we don't always think of sports teams as such. They are in the business of developing baseball players, and providing public entertainment in the process. In return they receive revenue from the public. If their revenues were to drop due to family attendance dropping due to a relocation downtown, they are not better off, even though the entire city may be. And the Sky Sox are in business first for the Sky Sox, not the City of Colorado Springs, and all the businesses that could potentially benefit from a stadium downtown.
It's an interesting debate, no doubt, and I can easily see both sides of this issue.
Quote:
The problem is if the government is not willing to invest downtown, why should any private company?
Fortunately, this trend seems to be changing, even if it does not result in a stadium going in downtown. Unfortunately, the city's mentality is seemingly changing in a time where they cannot act on any of their new objectives due to economic concerns. Read through the report of FBCs and it's evident that the city is placing a high emphasis on improving downtown.
Quote:
...and that is why the downtown in Colorado Springs is not what it could be for a metro area of its size.
Now this is also an interesting concept, and that is the city vs metro. Colorado Springs is a pretty big city, but it is a relatively small metro. If that makes sense. The city itself has around 400,000 people, and close to 420,000 depending on who you ask. The metro is about 650,000, a small metro considering the size of the central city. Colorado Springs' downtown may be smaller compared to other CITIES of similar size, but it is about right when compared to other METROS of similar size, generally speaking. Most metros of similar size are anchored by cities much smaller than Colorado Springs, after all.
With this in mind, should the downtown reflect the size of the city, or the metro? Or does it matter? I've heard good arguments supporting both sides of this issue.
And with all that said, and in an effort to bring us back to the initial topic, is Colorado Springs lifting their building height restriction a good thing? I think we'll get a better idea when the economy improves and we see some progress on Palmer Village and Pikes Peak Place.
That is how the residents of Colorado Springs think but I don't think that is how a city should be planned. The problem is if the government is not willing to invest downtown, why should any private company? In my opinion the government's job is to use all the tools they can to direct money and resources to things they think are important. If Colorado Springs doesn't care enough about its downtown's success to locate amenities like the baseball stadium there that shows downtown is not a priority for them. Then fewer private companies will invest as well, and that is what you see in downtown Colorado Springs. However, if Colorado Springs locates amenities like the baseball stadium downtown it gives the citizens a reason to go downtown creating a built-in customer base for supporting downtown businesses. You can say its just a baseball stadium or its just a arena, or its just a convention center but they all add up to millions of dollars of lost revenue to help the urban core and that is why the downtown in Colorado Springs is not what it could be for a metro area of its size.
Having local government help pay the expense of building something like an athletic stadium is quite controversial, and I have mixed feelings on such issues. I differentiate, for example, with local government helping with the development of a convention center, versus local government helping with the development of baseball stadium. I will probably never go to a baseball stadium because its purpose is focused on a sport I don't watch or participate in. I used to play golf (before breaking my shoulder), and I know that some localities have built golf courses, but I'm not sure that is the role of a local government, either. Do they build bowling alleys for those who like bowling? Pool halls for those who like billiards? And sports facilities are, generally, for one use. On the other hand, a convention center is typically designed to fill many purposes.
You are correct, however, that some such facilities can bring revenue into the downtown area. But you may be forgetting that if you build a baseball facility downtown, you are simply taking revenue away from a part of the same municipality that already has a baseball facility.
This is very different from the situation in Baltimore or Washington, D.C. The O's stadium in Baltimore could have been built in Baltimore City, Baltimore County, or perhaps even Anne Arundel County. A similar situation exists for sports facilities in the D.C. area. The municipalities that are competing for (for example) a Redskins stadium are D.C., Prince Georges and Montgomery County in Maryland, and Fairfax County or Alexandria in Virginia. Here, you would have Colorado Springs competing with...Colorado Springs...actually pitting one area of the same municipality with other areas of the same municipality.
Having local government help pay the expense of building something like an athletic stadium is quite controversial, and I have mixed feelings on such issues. I differentiate, for example, with local government helping with the development of a convention center, versus local government helping with the development of baseball stadium. I will probably never go to a baseball stadium because its purpose is focused on a sport I don't watch or participate in. I used to play golf (before breaking my shoulder), and I know that some localities have built golf courses, but I'm not sure that is the role of a local government, either. Do they build bowling alleys for those who like bowling? Pool halls for those who like billiards? And sports facilities are, generally, for one use. On the other hand, a convention center is typically designed to fill many purposes.
You are correct, however, that some such facilities can bring revenue into the downtown area. But you may be forgetting that if you build a baseball facility downtown, you are simply taking revenue away from a part of the same municipality that already has a baseball facility.
This is very different from the situation in Baltimore or Washington, D.C. The O's stadium in Baltimore could have been built in Baltimore City, Baltimore County, or perhaps even Anne Arundel County. A similar situation exists for sports facilities in the D.C. area. The municipalities that are competing for (for example) a Redskins stadium are D.C., Prince Georges and Montgomery County in Maryland, and Fairfax County or Alexandria in Virginia. Here, you would have Colorado Springs competing with...Colorado Springs...actually pitting one area of the same municipality with other areas of the same municipality.
Everyone can make your argument. I won't use a convention center so why should I pay for it? I am not a sports fan so why should I pay for a baseball stadium or arena etc., so nothing gets built. Cities have to make decisions for the benefit of the city as a whole not a certain segment of the population.
Why build them in urban centers and not spread around the "suburbs". When all of these things get built in urban centers it creates a demand all year round keeping the core vibrant. Just look at Colorado Springs. The baseball stadium is used part of the year and its busy the rest of the year it sits empty. The same is true for the world arena. If they were built in downtown the area would be busy more often creating a demand for more restaurants and condo's etc. Just look at LODO in Denver with the Pepsi Center and Coors Field, that could of been Colorado Springs on a smaller scale with the Pikes Peak Center development. Sadly, I don't think it will ever happen.
Perhaps not, but if the city is comprised of the residents, should it not be built to their preferences? I happen to agree that a downtown stadium is preferable, but if it would detract from attendance by families, then people are not necessarily better off. There is the team to consider, after all. It is a private business, even though we don't always think of sports teams as such. They are in the business of developing baseball players, and providing public entertainment in the process. In return they receive revenue from the public. If their revenues were to drop due to family attendance dropping due to a relocation downtown, they are not better off, even though the entire city may be. And the Sky Sox are in business first for the Sky Sox, not the City of Colorado Springs, and all the businesses that could potentially benefit from a stadium downtown.
It's an interesting debate, no doubt, and I can easily see both sides of this issue.
Do you really think people in Colorado Springs would not drive to downtown to see a baseball game? People in do in Denver from the suburbs and its a much longer drive. I think the bigger argument is people in Springs do not want to spend the money and that is why their downtown is the way it is.
Fortunately, this trend seems to be changing, even if it does not result in a stadium going in downtown. Unfortunately, the city's mentality is seemingly changing in a time where they cannot act on any of their new objectives due to economic concerns. Read through the report of FBCs and it's evident that the city is placing a high emphasis on improving downtown.
Its changing across the country but I don't see it in the springs. Sure they have another study but that is all I see from them. Time will tell if this time it will mean anything.
Now this is also an interesting concept, and that is the city vs metro. Colorado Springs is a pretty big city, but it is a relatively small metro. If that makes sense. The city itself has around 400,000 people, and close to 420,000 depending on who you ask. The metro is about 650,000, a small metro considering the size of the central city. Colorado Springs' downtown may be smaller compared to other CITIES of similar size, but it is about right when compared to other METROS of similar size, generally speaking. Most metros of similar size are anchored by cities much smaller than Colorado Springs, after all.
With this in mind, should the downtown reflect the size of the city, or the metro? Or does it matter? I've heard good arguments supporting both sides of this issue.
And with all that said, and in an effort to bring us back to the initial topic, is Colorado Springs lifting their building height restriction a good thing? I think we'll get a better idea when the economy improves and we see some progress on Palmer Village and Pikes Peak Place.
My responses in bold.
Take a look at Albuquerque its about the same size.
Right now Denver is the only city in the state with a nice sky line. Once the economy improves it will be interesting to see if Colorado Springs develops one. I am not convinced it will.
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.
