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.
St. Louis is the perfect example of downtown baseball vs. football stadiums. I visited a few summers ago, stayed downtown, and did a lot of walking around the city.
Football Stadium
The area around the Edward Jones dome was dead, except for a homeless guy who asked me for a cigarette.
Baseball Stadium
The area around Busch Stadium was filled with people several hours before a game. People were hanging out by the plaza, families were walking around, and there were pre-game activities going on around the stadium. A large number of people staying in my hotel were there for the game. All of this on a weekday.
I noticed that too when my wife and I stopped in St Louis to visit the arch.
That makes no sense. New Orleans has the Superdome downtown, probably the best placement of any stadium in the country.
The Superdome is used throughout the year for concerts, conventions, etc and hotels are packed as well as streets whenever an event is held. Also the Smoothie King Center is right next to it which holds more concerts and conventions which provide the same boost to the CBD and French Quarter.
The Superdome is placed on the fringe of the CBD where I-10 and 90 meet. It is not exactly a great example sticking a football stadium downtown not having a dead zone. The highways serve as the dead zone. In fact, most of the pro-downtown football stadium crowd are citing Denver, Indianapolis, and New Orleans. All three have their stadiums on the fringes of downtown. New Orleans has the interstates, Indianapolis has the industry, and Denver is across the interstate. If those are the best three examples, then it is obvious they don't automatically belong downtown.
St. Louis is the perfect example of downtown baseball vs. football stadiums. I visited a few summers ago, stayed downtown, and did a lot of walking around the city.
Football Stadium
The area around the Edward Jones dome was dead, except for a homeless guy who asked me for a cigarette.
Baseball Stadium
The area around Busch Stadium was filled with people several hours before a game. People were hanging out by the plaza, families were walking around, and there were pre-game activities going on around the stadium. A large number of people staying in my hotel were there for the game. All of this on a weekday.
Not exactly a huge city and honestly, you can barely even call it an actual "city".
Arlington itself has only slightly less population than the city of New Orleans itself, and is the 50th most populous city in the US. #58 is St Louis.
It doesn't matter though. If stadiums created life around them (thus earning the right to be downtown), it should have created some around Cowboys Stadium.
Arlington itself has only slightly less population than the city of New Orleans itself. It doesn't matter though. If stadiums created life around them (thus earning the right to be downtown), it should have created some around Cowboys Stadium.
Actually it has slightly more. But Arlington is a "city-burb". It grew because of two other large cities it is sandwiched in between. Though it is a city in terms of population, you can't really compare it to New Orleans or anything like that.
And come to think of it, there are plans to build around Cowboys Stadium and The Ballpark. "Glory Park" is what it's called. But it has been delayed due to lack of a major tenant.
Like I said, Cowboys Stadium is only a "good example" because of where it is and why it was put there. Maybe not in downtown, but at least closer to it. I didn't say anything about stadiums "creating life around them", since most stadiums, ballparks, and arenas already have life around the footprint of the building before it's even built.
Actually it has slightly more. But Arlington is a "city-burb". It grew because of two other large cities it is sandwiched in between. Though it is a city in terms of population, you can't really compare it to New Orleans or anything like that.
And come to think of it, there are plans to build around Cowboys Stadium and The Ballpark. "Glory Park" is what it's called. But it has been delayed due to lack of a major tenant.
Like I said, Cowboys Stadium is only a "good example" because of where it is and why it was put there. Maybe not in downtown, but at least closer to it. I didn't say anything about stadiums "creating life around them", since most stadiums, ballparks, and arenas already have life around the footprint of the building before it's even built.
SD's baseball stadium has sort of created some new life - reluctant to say on its own
that said really there is probably no perfect formula
A football stadium in midtown Manhattan probably would not make sense yet MSG works
interesting in that i didn't realize that the Rangers park was that close to Cowboy stadium
The stadium complex in Philadelphia for as much heat as it gets is actually pretty functional.
Direct 10 minute rapid subway transit from the core. Ample parking shared by the three arenas/stadiums
Very close proximity to NJ (NJ a large part of the Philly metro) and I95 and I76 - jut feet away really
exists in an area that is most warehouses for the port
is close to the city, good PT and highway access yet accessible to many highways
Madison Square Garden is an arena that gets used for a lot of different functions which is why it works well in Manhattan....Though it will probably be torn down in 10 years.
The area has handled three simultaneous event on a fairly regular basis which can mean 200K people there
You mean Cowboys Stadium is close to the Ballpark... because the Rangers were there loooooong before the Cowboys playing outside of Dallas County was even a thought.
Philly has something over the entire Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, and that's much bigger and better public transportation. The Dallas side is far more established than the Fort Worth side, but neither cities compare in that regard to Northeastern cities for reasons that I'm sure you already know of, so it's easier to get away with having even arenas and ballparks further away from downtown without having a car.
In Texas, as well as a lot of other sunbelt states, people are now moving back into the core of the city, and stadiums are the same way.
Either/or, but connect it to mass transit or commuter rail with enhanced service on game days. Stadium parking even way, way out in the middle of nowhere is way, way too much expense and hassle nowadays, especially if you're not doing the tailgating thing.
Whatever you do, don't do a Marlin's Park deal and put it in an urban neighbourhood, and not build enough parking, and put it a mile from the nearest transit station with 3 ft sidewalks and 40 mph traffic and a drawbridge in between.
I don't give a damn what's going on in Portland. They don't have an NFL team, so any comparison to what's going on there with some stadium of theirs is irrelevant.
I see you missed the point, I will try again. You seem to "give a damn" about Denver. I bet you the Pepsi Center gets more use than the Mile High stadium. You have to agree with that fact....
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.
