A's: So its true, if you build it, they WILL come.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Its not bad. Just mistake. Baseball is a game for the sophisticated and for the patient and it is a numbers game. If one has ADD I can see how they find it boring.

Surprised you didn't pull out the tired chess/checkers analogy like all the other uptight dullards. You can keep thinking that watching a sport makes you a smarter person, though.

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Diridon is the most pathetic site in any city over 500k. Its a joke now and a joke for baseball to consider it. I can understand people from Oaklands sentiment. Oakland is a city that has had pro ball in town for decades. They have led the major league in attendance from that locale and they have a good history. Makes a lot more sense then a small contingent of wealthy suburbanites in San Jose who likely couldnt care less if a team comes or not.

It's a fine site with plenty of access from all over. You're also a pretty horrible troll when you can't even remain consistent in your bull****ting. Now Oakland's attendance is great? Make up your mind.

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Would be a good thing to look into. Stadiums in general do littleto bolster most local business. You are talking about 80 some games at most played at home. And even at diridon, what local business is going to get picked up over there? That area is dead as a doornail. Last time I was out there waiting for an ACE train, the only thing that struck me as interesting was that there was a run down liquor store down the street. Theres no place to eat or club or take your kids over there. A lot of people in San Jose could have earned a lot of money had they been allowed to put their companies names all over the former purposed stadium. Now of course they realize this.

Try and follow this time: I've stated already that I look forward to the development of the Diridon area, meaning it's not simply without a stadium now. Oakland aims for the same future development at JLS. San Francisco accomplished that with China Basin. San Diego and Denver, too.

As for the impact of a stadium, the arena has done a lot for downtown, particularly San Pedro Square. The reason that stadia are usually a bad investment for cities is because they foot the bill for construction. That would have been the case before but isn't part of the proposal now.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

at diridon, what local business is going to get picked up over there? That area is dead as a doornail. Last time I was out there waiting for an ACE train, the only thing that struck me as interesting was that there was a run down liquor store down the street. Theres no place to eat or club or take your kids over there.

Did you not see the buildings a block or two away? Haven't been to a Sharks game? Diridon/HP Pavilion are about a nine-iron down the street from downtown SJ. Putting a baseball stadium there would attract many more businesses in addition to those already directly benefitting from the before-and-after-game foot traffic from events at HP.

[NorCal Dude]

Surprised you didn't pull out the tired chess/checkers analogy like all the other uptight dullards. You can keep thinking that watching a sport makes you a smarter person, though.

Don't recall ever saying watching baseball makes you more smart. Though of course baseball is 100 times more strategic than soccer. You don't have to like baseball, if watching people in quad-high shorts frollic in the lawn is something you find enjoyable more power to you. I prefer baseball. And judging by the attendance and revenue generated by baseball v soccer, my guess is the rest of the bay area, california, and the country tends to agree with me.

It's a fine site with plenty of access from all over.

From a transportation infastructure metric, diridon is not even as good as the current A's locale. Its an Angels/dodgers traffic jam waiting to happen. Thats why the stadium design is so butt ugly. It looks like hastily planned stadium squeezed in a suburban blah. Very much like a south san jose tract slapped up months before the real estate bust.

You're also a pretty horrible troll when you can't even remain consistent in your bull****ting. Now Oakland's attendance is great? Make up your mind.

Uhhh you should heed your own nonsense and "try to keep up". I never said Oakland A's attendance was great any where in this thread. Please state where I said this. I noted that A's have led the league in attendance from that locale. Which is purely factual.

In fact even when the giants built the new stadium and were at or near the top the mlb in attendance, the A's still managed to fall with in the top 50% of attendance. Similar to what we see now with the Lakers-Clippers. Also one can note that from 2000-2010 there is nearly a direct coorelation with the A's payroll and attendance. When the A's were at the middle of the league in pay roll they drew at the middle. Now that the payroll is the lowest in the mlb, so is attendance.

So my stance has not changed at all. People will not come if you build it. Cleveland, DC, and pittsburg all built "it". And no body is there. The top caliber team is what draws, not the stadium or the city.

Try and follow this time: I've stated already that I look forward to the development of the Diridon area, meaning it's not simply without a stadium now. Oakland aims for the same future development at JLS. San Francisco accomplished that with China Basin. San Diego and Denver, too.

Yea we get it, you have an RE development fetish. Big Deal none of us care. The OP is talking about a coorelation between a stadium and attendance. Not whether or not tax payer funded stadiums prop up urban development programs which make a select few some money.

As for the impact of a stadium, the arena has done a lot for downtown, particularly San Pedro Square. The reason that stadia are usually a bad investment for cities is because they foot the bill for construction. That would have been the case before but isn't part of the proposal now.

Stadiums do not do much for downtowns or their cities from an economic standpoint. If that was the case downtown stockton would be robust. And stadiums are more then a burden to cities beyond of construction costs, though that is part of it.

Sports, Jobs, & Taxes: Are New Stadiums Worth the Cost? - Brookings Institution

Pro sports stadiums don't bolster local economies, scholars say | Archives | News Bureau | University of Illinois

A Closer Look at Stadium Subsidies — The American Magazine

The Sports Page: Corporate Welfare, Publicly Funded Stadiums

The last page some of the links are expired but most work. Happy reading.