[MikefromCT]

Folks, it's time to start being realistic about this. There are dozens of other medium-sized cities that are growing that currently lack a hockey team. These are cities that are so much more vibrant than anything CT currently offers, so it's ludicrous not to see that we're punching above our weight class if we think we can compete with this. We can't. Of course, now that I've said that I'll be accused of being negative, of not wanting the cities to succeed, of being a stalemate for not towing the line. All of this is false. Speaking clearly, our cities are small not just geographically but in terms of population and what they currently and will in the future offer. There are limits to what we can do. And please, for anyone thinking all we need to do is annex the suburbs and this will solve the issue, just drop it. That isn't going to happen, nor should it. And frankly, this fantasy that a sports team is the tide that will lift all boats needs to stop. Baltimore built Camden Yards and a new football team, yet the majority of the city is still deteriorating (anyone who doubts this needs only to visit Berea or Sandtown). Cleveland built Jacobs Field and the new Browns stadium, and the conventional media wisdom was that it had become Mayberry, leaving out the fact that poverty went from 14% in 1970 to over 40% by the mid '90s, and the city's schools were drained of funds. But at least their image is positive.

[ryanthegoldengod]

Originally Posted by MikefromCT

Folks, it's time to start being realistic about this. There are dozens of other medium-sized cities that are growing that currently lack a hockey team. These are cities that are so much more vibrant than anything CT currently offers, so it's ludicrous not to see that we're punching above our weight class if we think we can compete with this. We can't. Of course, now that I've said that I'll be accused of being negative, of not wanting the cities to succeed, of being a stalemate for not towing the line. All of this is false. Speaking clearly, our cities are small not just geographically but in terms of population and what they currently and will in the future offer. There are limits to what we can do. And please, for anyone thinking all we need to do is annex the suburbs and this will solve the issue, just drop it. That isn't going to happen, nor should it. And frankly, this fantasy that a sports team is the tide that will lift all boats needs to stop. Baltimore built Camden Yards and a new football team, yet the majority of the city is still deteriorating (anyone who doubts this needs only to visit Berea or Sandtown). Cleveland built Jacobs Field and the new Browns stadium, and the conventional media wisdom was that it had become Mayberry, leaving out the fact that poverty went from 14% in 1970 to over 40% by the mid '90s, and the city's schools were drained of funds. But at least their image is positive.

You're conflating improving cities themselves with improving metro areas.

[BHW2436]

Originally Posted by MikefromCT

Folks, it's time to start being realistic about this. There are dozens of other medium-sized cities that are growing that currently lack a hockey team. These are cities that are so much more vibrant than anything CT currently offers, so it's ludicrous not to see that we're punching above our weight class if we think we can compete with this. We can't. Of course, now that I've said that I'll be accused of being negative, of not wanting the cities to succeed, of being a stalemate for not towing the line. All of this is false. Speaking clearly, our cities are small not just geographically but in terms of population and what they currently and will in the future offer. There are limits to what we can do. And please, for anyone thinking all we need to do is annex the suburbs and this will solve the issue, just drop it. That isn't going to happen, nor should it. And frankly, this fantasy that a sports team is the tide that will lift all boats needs to stop. Baltimore built Camden Yards and a new football team, yet the majority of the city is still deteriorating (anyone who doubts this needs only to visit Berea or Sandtown). Cleveland built Jacobs Field and the new Browns stadium, and the conventional media wisdom was that it had become Mayberry, leaving out the fact that poverty went from 14% in 1970 to over 40% by the mid '90s, and the city's schools were drained of funds. But at least their image is positive.

Hartford isn’t getting a major 4 pro sports team so it’s irrelevant anyways but I don’t think anyone said a team would automatically make Hartford an awesome place.

For every “failed” example are positive examples. For instance, in Washington DC, Navy Yard area is becoming a wonderful place. Nationals baseball, DC United soccer, and even the XFL Team had a sold out stadium and amazing crowd participation. The area has tons of restaurants, new apartments/condos, water views, metro access. It’s a great spot and continues to improve.

A new stadium that had a NHL Team would also double as a nice shiny new venue to attract performers/bands/artists for shows/concerts. 40 hockey games plus another 20 concerts plus all the other random misc stuff would be an extra 20% of the year with new exciting things to do. It would attract people and provide some fun.

Are pro sports teams worth the tax dollars for stadiums? No, probably not, but people who have never lived near/in an actual city would never understand that anyways.

[SteveM85]

Camden Yards greatly enhanced the harbor area.
Cleveland stadiums and Rock HOF enhanced downtown.

Another NHL team in the northeast would throw division alignments into chaos.
There are no clandestine meetings for Hartford people.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by BHW2436

Hartford isn’t getting a major 4 pro sports team so it’s irrelevant anyways but I don’t think anyone said a team would automatically make Hartford an awesome place.

For every “failed” example are positive examples. For instance, in Washington DC, Navy Yard area is becoming a wonderful place. Nationals baseball, DC United soccer, and even the XFL Team had a sold out stadium and amazing crowd participation. The area has tons of restaurants, new apartments/condos, water views, metro access. It’s a great spot and continues to improve.

A new stadium that had a NHL Team would also double as a nice shiny new venue to attract performers/bands/artists for shows/concerts. 40 hockey games plus another 20 concerts plus all the other random misc stuff would be an extra 20% of the year with new exciting things to do. It would attract people and provide some fun.

Are pro sports teams worth the tax dollars for stadiums? No, probably not, but people who have never lived near/in an actual city would never understand that anyways.

I've made these points as well in a prior thread on the subject. It's a loss leader if you will and it is just one component to making a metro area more attractive to individuals and companies alike. No different than the Hartford Symphony, Wadsworth Atheneum, The Ballet, Science Center, Mark Twain House etc. All are vital cogs in the life blood of the region and adding a pro team will only help the region, not hurt it.

[WestRiverTraveler]

Originally Posted by BHW2436

Hartford isn’t getting a major 4 pro sports team so it’s irrelevant anyways but I don’t think anyone said a team would automatically make Hartford an awesome place.

For every “failed” example are positive examples. For instance, in Washington DC, Navy Yard area is becoming a wonderful place. Nationals baseball, DC United soccer, and even the XFL Team had a sold out stadium and amazing crowd participation. The area has tons of restaurants, new apartments/condos, water views, metro access. It’s a great spot and continues to improve.

A new stadium that had a NHL Team would also double as a nice shiny new venue to attract performers/bands/artists for shows/concerts. 40 hockey games plus another 20 concerts plus all the other random misc stuff would be an extra 20% of the year with new exciting things to do. It would attract people and provide some fun.

Are pro sports teams worth the tax dollars for stadiums? No, probably not, but people who have never lived near/in an actual city would never understand that anyways.

I lived in an actual city for twenty years. Given the realities of CT being split between two major markets, it's never going to make sense. I would love it to happen, but it's just not reality. Hartford has the Yardgoats, Wolf Pack, and Hartford Athletic. Minor league city with minor league teams.

[Johnho771]

Originally Posted by WestRiverTraveler

I lived in an actual city for twenty years. Given the realities of CT being split between two major markets, it's never going to make sense. I would love it to happen, but it's just not reality. Hartford has the Yardgoats, Wolf Pack, and Hartford Athletic. Minor league city with minor league teams.

Same could be said about New Jersey being between the major markets of NYC and Philly, yet NJ has 3 Big 4 teams. It can be done. I'd argue NJ uses its proximity to major markets as an advantage.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by Johnho771

Same could be said about New Jersey being between the major markets of NYC and Philly, yet NJ has 3 Big 4 teams. It can be done. I'd argue NJ uses its proximity to major markets as an advantage.

New Jersey one NHL team. Who else is Jersey based not named Jets or Giants?

[Johnho771]

Originally Posted by robr2

New Jersey one NHL team. Who else is Jersey based not named Jets or Giants?

Out of the Big 4, none. Jersey Nets moved to NYC a few years ago.

[WestRiverTraveler]

Originally Posted by Johnho771

Same could be said about New Jersey being between the major markets of NYC and Philly, yet NJ has 3 Big 4 teams. It can be done. I'd argue NJ uses its proximity to major markets as an advantage.

New Jersey has 3x the population of CT and the majority of it lives in the northeast corner. Newark alone has more than 2x the population of Hartford. Jersey City is also more than 2x Hartford. Their basketball team moved.

It's not comparable.