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.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
Advertisements
From an environmental view, the stadiums should all be placed closer to the affluent suburbs where most of the fans come from. Other than season ticket holders I don't know that there is a way to track it, but in the cities I am familiar with it seems that more fans are coming in from the nearby suburbs than from residents of the city itself. Traffic patterns before and after games will provide evidence of this. For example, the Oakland A's could reduce traffic and smog by building a new stadium in Walnut Creek/Concord. The 49ers have already done a pretty good job of this by moving to Santa Clara, but made it worse for the Marin fans.
From an environmental view, the stadiums should all be placed closer to the affluent suburbs where most of the fans come from. Other than season ticket holders I don't know that there is a way to track it, but in the cities I am familiar with it seems that more fans are coming in from the nearby suburbs than from residents of the city itself. Traffic patterns before and after games will provide evidence of this. For example, the Oakland A's could reduce traffic and smog by building a new stadium in Walnut Creek/Concord. The 49ers have already done a pretty good job of this by moving to Santa Clara, but made it worse for the Marin fans.
1. What does that have to do with whether it's located downtown or on the periphery?
2. It has been shown over, and over, and over AGAIN that football stadiums are used for more than football!
Cost/benefit. It can be a lot more expensive to build a stadium downtown. If the stadium is used 80+ days, that can benefit downtown businesses and encourage new development. For 8 games a year, that benefit may be minimal compared to the costs. For those football stadiums that are used throughout the year for other events, it certainly could be beneficial to build it downtown.
From an environmental view, the stadiums should all be placed closer to the affluent suburbs where most of the fans come from. Other than season ticket holders I don't know that there is a way to track it, but in the cities I am familiar with it seems that more fans are coming in from the nearby suburbs than from residents of the city itself. Traffic patterns before and after games will provide evidence of this. For example, the Oakland A's could reduce traffic and smog by building a new stadium in Walnut Creek/Concord. The 49ers have already done a pretty good job of this by moving to Santa Clara, but made it worse for the Marin fans.
That would not really work because a lot of professional sports teams tend to draw attendance from a very large area such as the New York Yankees, Washington Redskins, or Dallas Cowboys. If you want to reduce the environmental impact it would be more effective to build stadiums or arenas near mass transit lines and with easy access to major freeways so fans will have multiple access points to attend events.
Pittsburgh has it the best of any city. Perfect location in the city with great views of the beautiful buildings and rivers. Doesn't get any better, but I wish they put black seats in the football stadium. The yellow ones look tacky.
It depends on many factors. All stadiums, regardless of location, should have multiple ways to access them: roads, multiple modes of transit, walking, biking. They also need smart parking and transportation plans in place to make sure events go smoothly and do not cause too much gridlock.
And cities should not waste their money on single use facilities. All should be mixed use with diverse events scheduled all throughout the year.
Ideally, someone should be able to watch, play and eat within walking distance of the stadium. Once all that is worked out, the location is secondary.
It depends on many factors. All stadiums, regardless of location, should have multiple ways to access them: roads, multiple modes of transit, walking, biking. They also need smart parking and transportation plans in place to make sure events go smoothly and do not cause too much gridlock.
And cities should not waste their money on single use facilities. All should be mixed use with diverse events scheduled all throughout the year.
Ideally, someone should be able to watch, play and eat within walking distance of the stadium. Once all that is worked out, the location is secondary.
Reminded me of the thread about the Super Bowl this year at Giants Stadium.
You could not walk or bike to the game and the trains were overwhelmed.
Reminded me of the thread about the Super Bowl this year at Giants Stadium.
You could not walk or bike to the game and the trains were overwhelmed.
I wasn't following too carefully, but I think that was from poor planning on NJTransit's part. The rail agency assumed fewer would use the trains. It was also on a single-track rail line not capable of that high frequencies, though it still could have better.
I wasn't following too carefully, but I think that was from poor planning on NJTransit's part. The rail agency assumed fewer would use the trains. It was also on a single-track rail line not capable of that high frequencies, though it still could have better.
I'm sure there was some bad planning by the train people, but it was largely due to the fact you could neither walk or bike to this years Super Bowl.
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.