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.
One thing that I've realized about stadiums built in either the 80s or 90s; some of them only lasted 20, 30 years (after all that public tax funding!). Owners normally demand a new one after that short of a period, putting more pressure on cities, counties and states after only a short time since funding the 'old one'.
Atlanta
St. Louis
Minnesota
Sacramento
Indianapolis
Are those currently 'new' megastadiums (Dallas, Houston, MetLife, San Fran/Jose, Indy, Detroit, new Atlanta dome and Cobb County ballpark) going to be 'played out' in 20 years, as well with owners demanding new ones, with new bells and whistles? Will this be a cycle every period of time.....?
If its a small market that can easily be replaced then yes.
If you look at all the old Stadiums, Fenway, Wrigley, MSG, Dodgers Stadium, Soldiers Field, they tend to be in bigger markets, while smaller markets are more easily extorted for money because one is much more likely to leave Oklahoma City, St Louis or Milwaukee, than a larger more lucrative Market like New York or Chicago
If its a small market that can easily be replaced then yes.
If you look at all the old Stadiums, Fenway, Wrigley, MSG, Dodgers Stadium, Soldiers Field, they tend to be in bigger markets, while smaller markets are more easily extorted for money because one is much more likely to leave Oklahoma City, St Louis or Milwaukee, than a larger more lucrative Market like New York or Chicago
Atlanta's the biggest market in the South, and two stadia built in the 90s are on the way out.....!
Every last one of those 'big markets' digs you mentioned needed major upgrades to keep up......!
Atlanta's the biggest market in the South, and two stadia built in the 90s are on the way out.....!
Every last one of those 'big markets' digs you mentioned needed major upgrades to keep up......!
Yes but it wasn't 1.2B (Raiders Stadiums), or $625M (Suntrust Park) it much less money spent on those parks because the Cities/States wouldn't grant them the land necessary to build a stadium. I would think just the land alone for a baseball park in Boston these days (8-9 Acres) would run in excess of $20M.
Also Atanta is effectively a smaller market than its population suggests because Sports fans generally are fans of the teams from where they grew up, so a 1990 population would show roughly the market size of Adults with disposable income.
If its a small market that can easily be replaced then yes.
If you look at all the old Stadiums, Fenway, Wrigley, MSG, Dodgers Stadium, Soldiers Field, they tend to be in bigger markets, while smaller markets are more easily extorted for money because one is much more likely to leave Oklahoma City, St Louis or Milwaukee, than a larger more lucrative Market like New York or Chicago
I want to take it a step further and add the history of those stadiums listed as a lot to do with why they won't be replaced unless they burn down. Yankees got a newish ball park even though its market and history is #1.
I want to take it a step further and add the history of those stadiums listed as a lot to do with why they won't be replaced unless they burn down. Yankees got a newish ball park even though its market and history is #1.
The old Yankee Stadium was 'modernized' in '73. Aesthetically, though, it looked horrible. But most important, tiles falling down made it a safety issue! McCombs Park, across the street, was a run-down joint, so the idea of moving across the street and building a 'Ruth-DiMaggio-Mantle-era' looking ballpark had quite a bit of public support. I believe, though, the city did not pay a dime for the 'House that Jeter and Steinbrenner Built', but did pay for the parking lots, tearing down of the old Stadium and making it a playground, 3 baseball diamonds and a track; much better looking than McCombs! The state MTA put down a commuter rail that goes to the park.
As long as their are cities where voters vote out politicians who don't throw obscene amounts of money at owners who aren't satisfied with making gobs of money when there are gobs and gobs of money to made, then yes - stadiums will continue to become 'economically' obsolete after a couple of decades because the ways in which owners can separate fans from their money will continue to change, and there will be no end of politicians willing to pander those one-issue voters whose sole issue is hurling cash at billionaires who employ football players.
Pro sports owners are like 9 yr olds, they need a new toy all the time or they start behaving badly. It's a shame/sham tax payers have to buy the new toys. Tell them no! and send them outside to rake the leaves.
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.
