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.
Look at how much attention their legacy of losing has brought to Chicago and Wrigley Field.
The Kansas City Royals won the AL title twice in a row just a few years ago-anyone even remember that?
Go to any rust belt city that's experienced massive population loss-Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc. When you see those stadiums and people wearing team jerseys on game day, I guarantee you're going to get a more dramatic sense of being somewhere than in a place without pro teams like Austin.
To the people who don't care about sports (which is probably the majority in all cities), they'll still see the visitors and tourists that sports bring. I witnessed this firsthand living in Columbus when the Blue Jackets started. Never went to a game, but seeing Ontario plates parked downtown to see NHL hockey created a far more dramatic sense of being somewhere than any sellout of a Buckeye football game could (which would be 5X as many spectators).
So yes, pro sports matter.
I agree for Buffalo it Milwaukee, OKC or Green Bay. Otherwise these places would fall into the abyss. Hartford, Grand Rapids, Providence, Birmingham, Richmond (maybe not because of US History) are by all accounts like Buffalo or Milwaukee except they don’t have a pro franchise. this don’t get the same attention.
Detroit?, DC?, Chicago? Sports teams do nothing for them. In fact for big markets I’d argue the leagues need them far more than they need the league. That’s why in Boston, LA or NYC the teams build their own stadiums while in Edmonton, Indianapolis or Cincinnati it’s expected the city will do the heavy lifting
I agree for Buffalo it Milwaukee, OKC or Green Bay. Otherwise these places would fall into the abyss. Hartford, Grand Rapids, Providence, Birmingham, Richmond (maybe not because of US History) are by all accounts like Buffalo or Milwaukee except they don’t have a pro franchise. this don’t get the same attention.
Detroit?, DC?, Chicago? Sports teams do nothing for them. In fact for big markets I’d argue the leagues need them far more than they need the league. That’s why in Boston, LA or NYC the teams build their own stadiums while in Edmonton, Indianapolis or Cincinnati it’s expected the city will do the heavy lifting
Well Chicago has no shortage of attractions for its tourist and locals. But Wrigley IS A TOURIST ATTRACTION.
#14 of 689 things TripAdvisor list for a Chicago Tourist. Less so in the middle of winter of course.
TripAdvisor still list Wrigley Field Chicago as a tourist local attraction and Wrigleyville sub-neighborhood of the Greater-Lakeview neighborhood Chicago for attractions like bars of course too by the stadium.
I tend to agree, but the Cubs are not a good example as they have a lot of built-in loyalty for being the "lovable losers" up until recently. Winning usually creates a better environment and better revenue. Though I would say there are some fan bases that will always support...Green Bay, Seattle, Denver in the NFL, and obviously in the MLB, said Chicago Cubs, perhaps also LA Dodgers, Boston Red Sox, Seattle Mariners, perhaps even the SF Giants. With many of these teams the "experience" is more important than winning.
What are you talking about? The Mariners have been in the bottom third in attendance for probably the last 15 years or more. I know they killed it attendance wise in the early 2000’s when Safeco Field was still new, they were winning a butt ton of games, and Ichiro first arrived. I usually take in a game while visiting family and the crowds have been dismal for years.
TripAdvisor still list Wrigley Field Chicago as a tourist local attraction and Wrigleyville sub-neighborhood of the Greater-Lakeview neighborhood Chicago for attractions like bars of course too by the stadium.
Yes but Wrigley (and Fenway and Yankee Staduim) are things you do when you go to those cities not why you go to those cities.
A tourist to Winnipeg is likely going to see a Jets game. Places like Cleveland, St Louis or are in the middle.
People visit Chicago fir Chicago and the Cubs are there. People go to see a Jets Game that happens to be in Winnipeg
I agree for Buffalo it Milwaukee, OKC or Green Bay. Otherwise these places would fall into the abyss. Hartford, Grand Rapids, Providence, Birmingham, Richmond (maybe not because of US History) are by all accounts like Buffalo or Milwaukee except they don’t have a pro franchise. this don’t get the same attention.
Detroit?, DC?, Chicago? Sports teams do nothing for them. In fact for big markets I’d argue the leagues need them far more than they need the league. That’s why in Boston, LA or NYC the teams build their own stadiums while in Edmonton, Indianapolis or Cincinnati it’s expected the city will do the heavy lifting
Milwaukee would hardly fall into an abyss. The teams are a bonus...they're not the reason the city exists.
Milwaukee would hardly fall into an abyss. The teams are a bonus...they're not the reason the city exists.
Agreed 100%. I knew Milwaukee long before I started following sports watching Happy Days as a young kid. Even today the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Milwaukee is beer and their rich history with it. Sports aside, I bet Milwaukee is better known in this country and around the world than most US cities.
What are you talking about? The Mariners have been in the bottom third in attendance for probably the last 15 years or more. I know they killed it attendance wise in the early 2000’s when Safeco Field was still new, they were winning a butt ton of games, and Ichiro first arrived. I usually take in a game while visiting family and the crowds have been dismal for years.
I think you may have missed my point. I am referring to how fans sometimes consider the experience more than rooting for the team. Seattle baseball has quite a few of those types.
.
The vote for the stadium was only put to the city, which likely has the smallest concentration of Charger fans in the metro area. We don't have an accurate assessment of what "the people of San Diego" think in this matter, IMO. You're giving the standard issue San Diego talking points on this issue, which I don' think represent the majority of interested parties.
Why yes, I am giving the standard issue argument to not give away hundreds of millions of tax dollars to a private business and millionaire. It's valid, logical, and clearly what the majority of San Diegans (city) agreed with. The measure lost 56.4% to 43.6%. Who cares what the rest of the county thought if their tax base wasn't paying for it? You're basing an assumption on a complete unknown and I don't really care to speculate on it.
Quote:
Pitt is ranked 13th in medical schools nationally, SDSU is ranked 13th in California. Not the only way to gauge a "medical scene", but its one way. Pittsburgh has CMU, a national leader in computer science, and has emerged as a leader in Robotics/AI (global base of driverless car tech). I only bring up Pittsburgh as a comparison because its a small, supposedly vanishing city that has all this while supporting 3 iconic pro sports franchises (and dealing with the same kinds of headaches that the Charges posed to San Diego).
But wait, I thought Pittsburgh and Cleveland had a bigger tech/medical scene than San Diego? You've mentioned a single ranking with no source. In fact, you did not provide a single source for any assertions. Also, as far as these "school rankings" go, it takes about 5 minutes of reading their methodology to see that they are BS based on cherrypicked and incomplete data. I'd love to see your source so I could debase the methodology. Please do provide! (Also, I'll be nice and overlook the fact that you referenced SDSU for comparison...despite the fact that it makes you look absolutely clueless)
As for innovation, referencing USPTO number of patents by MSA from 2000-2015, it appears that San Diego has FOUR TIMES the number of Pittsburgh or Cleveland. San Diego is right behind the bay area in patents per capita. Pittsburgh and Cleveland are ranked 30th and 20th, respectively.
As for R&D, UCSD had more R&D money than Harvard, MIT, or Stanford.
But please, I'd love to hear how Pittsburgh and Cleveland have a "bigger tech/medical scene". Your evidence so far is completely nonexistent.
Lastly, the only person here who said Pittsburgh is "vanishing" is you. I personally think it's a great city with beautiful urban neighborhoods, landscapes, attractions, universities, etc. I get why you have a chip on your shoulder about San Diego, especially since you are from Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh reputation/perception is usually pretty [unfairly] low...like a 5 out of 10, whereas San Diego is boosted as a 9/10 by many. The reality is that both cities/metros are a solid 7-8/10 and are on par with each other. Good cities with their own appeal. So please, enough with the incessant downplaying of San Diego on measures that it actually does quite well. There are many things to be critical of, but arguing the Cleveland has a bigger medical/tech scene than San Diego is just a bit much.
Quote:
Didn't mean to imply that stadiums are akin to mass transit systems, apologies to any reader who inferred that. The PR spin that comes out of places that lack things such as pro sports, multiple runway airports, and mass transit networks often sounds the same-that the cities are somehow "smart" to not have such things because they don't add real value and are expensive boondoggles.
You didn't imply, you were explicit in stating that there isn't a difference between "investing in transportation and investing in a stadium...it's an amenity that people might expect". Maybe read over your comments before posting?
Let be clear on the "PR spin" from San Diego:
- Single runway airport: It's absolutely ridiculous and embarrassing that leaders (historically and today) are so short-sighted.
- Mass transit network: It's absolutely ridiculous and embarrassing that leaders (historically and today) are so short-sighted.
- Pro Sports: It's absolutely justified that millionaires and billion-dollar businesses pay for their own facilities.
I completely agree with your angst over the small-town mindset of SD leaders. I'm actually from here, so I guarantee it bothers me more. But not cooperating with the NFL and Spanos family was the right decision.
Quote:
You miss the point. I can't figure out for the life of me why people would watch another person play golf, yet I can acknowledge its massive popularity in this country. If San Diego has been awarded three Super Bowls previously, there would have been a really good chance for a fourth in the near future.
Intermittently hosting a Super Bowl is not worth the public investment. San Diego's reputation stands on its own with or without sports. It's not a part of our brand or reputation and you will die waiting for a sports team to get people to care about your city.
Quote:
Never once have I done this.
Actually, you do it all the time in your posts about San Diego and San Francisco. You have a huge chip on your shoulder for these cities and some obsessive need to boost LA to the point of delusion.
Quote:
I'm only talking about San Diego, a metro area large enough to easily support all four major pro sports, that has only one. It's not like we're talking about a small town whose biggest event is the annual chili cook off or something. Contrary to hater rhetoric, San Diego is a legacy NFL city (Fouts, Rivers, Alworth, host for 3 SB's, played in one), at least in the modern era. Kind of odd that a big, rich place like San Diego would just let that slip through their fingers.
Only 13 metros support the four major pro sports...and most of these are the largest metros in the U.S. The ones that aren't the largest metros either are in large media markets or states/regions with no other competition (e.g. Minneapolis)
San Diego is the 17th largest metro and the 29th largest media market. It's very clear why San Diego does not and could not support 4 teams. Why is this so challenging to understand--don't you live in SD/shouldn't you know this? It's really common sense.
That being said, San Diego definitely underperforms in this category of amenity by only having one major sports franchise. But does that detract from San Diego's reputation or perception? Nope, not even in the least.
Anyone with simplified statements like "Rust belt is rust belt" seem to be a bit uninformed.
Agree. Even though, I'm not a big fan of the term "Rust Belt", I always found it pejorative and insulting. Most of the country assume/presume that cities in the region are all broke, dirty, depressed, full of smokestacks and factories, no jobs, no beaches. Oh, and they feel that if you choose to stay in "Rust Belt" cities it's because you can't afford to live anywhere. But, that's another discussion for another form.
I think sports fans in the region embrace that teams, college or pro, more than people on the Coasts and the South because the Coasts and South are filled with transients and transplants. Plus, a good amount of those folks feel they're too cool for school in those two regions. The "Rust Belt" most of the people are lifers, so fans in those cities grow up with their teams so the fandom is passed down from generation to generation. Whether it be Browns fans, Steelers fans, Bengals fans, Reds fans, Indians fans or Ravens fans; these fans ride with their teams through it all. I enjoy die-hard fandom for reason that has always fascinated me. So, I always say that sports in this region is a trademark of the cities and their fan bases. But, I don't think it enhances it IMO the only Great Lakes cities that get enhanced by sports teams success are Pittsburgh, Detroit and maybe Baltimore (since it's so close to D.C.).
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.
Less so in the middle of winter of course.
