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.
I'm well aware of the Metrodome. No need for the constant shtick. No college wants to play in an oversized NFL stadium. I've been to many stadiums across the country. College games in NFL stadiums are awful all the way around. Also, TCF Bank Stadium has been used for hockey, soccer, concerts, and high school activities. Doesn't seem like it's just being used for just Gopher and Vikings football.
Baseball stinks in football stadiums. There's only one stadium left (Oakland) that continues to do that. I've been to the Metrodome for baseball and Target Field. I guarantee you that the Vikings new stadium will get used for more than Vikings games. Take a look at the Cardinals stadium here. There are constant events there. I get your argument, just go cheap and throw everything together for one awful experience. I'm speaking from the fan experience and as someone who has paid taxes before to build stadiums/arenas. The tax really didn't have much impact at all in the long run.
Once upon a time, there was the Metrodome. The Vikings, Twins, and MN Gophers played in it. It was a ugly 1970ish caliber concrete stadium and it was time to rebuild. But the MN Gophers wanted their own. Reason: they wanted to be ON CAMPUS. The 7 minute drive was waaaaaaaaaaaaay to long. So they build a new stadium for the 13 home games. Same as always argument: "but we can attract concerts and other venues, bla, bla, bla".
But then the Twins wanted THEIR stadium too. It needed to be layout for Baseball you see.
Next up, the Vikings needed their own stadium to play their 8 home games. The same stale argument: " but we can attract concerts and other venues ....". It's the 4th redundant pro stadium in MPLS.
Football/Baseball sharing is much different than shared NBA/NHL arenas. There are at least 6 or 7 shared NBA/NHL facilities (including Barclays Center that was just completed a few years ago).
Most definitely, if it was designed for both. The Suns arena was planned just for basketball, that's why there were so many obstructed seats when the Coyotes played there.
I'm well aware of the Metrodome. No need for the constant shtick. No college wants to play in an oversized NFL stadium. I've been to many stadiums across the country. College games in NFL stadiums are awful all the way around. Also, TCF Bank Stadium has been used for hockey, soccer, concerts, and high school activities. Doesn't seem like it's just being used for just Gopher and Vikings football.
Baseball stinks in football stadiums. There's only one stadium left (Oakland) that continues to do that. I've been to the Metrodome for baseball and Target Field. I guarantee you that the Vikings new stadium will get used for more than Vikings games. Take a look at the Cardinals stadium here. There are constant events there. I get your argument, just go cheap and throw everything together for one awful experience. I'm speaking from the fan experience and as someone who has paid taxes before to build stadiums/arenas. The tax really didn't have much impact at all in the long run.
I suspect if they built another 10 stadiums, each would tout how much they are used for other venues. You just re-made my point. It's become a cliche.
Personally, I don't care if the UofMN football plays in a pro stadium. They can play their 10 games (or 2.7% of the year) a few miles down the road like they did before. UofMN football figured it out for more than a decade. Of course the boosters said they could recruit better players if they had their own on campus stadium. That idea of better players didn't pan out so well. And I'm a UofMN Alumni.
Let's call a spade a spade. Stadiums are boondoggles. I get it. You love sports and figured out a way to justify them. Why not if it works. But we all figured out a way to have fun on the 1950's to early 1980's without building massive shiny new shrines to athletes. By definition, pro athletes income is "subsidized" by taxpayers (taxpayers help create stadiums to raise the revenue thereby allowing owners to brag that they owned a winning team). As I said a while back; let's be rational. 2 players on the Coyotes are American's. What makes them "Arizona"????
In short, cities are caving in so that owners find ways to generate more ticket sales and other revenue so that they can race to overpay their next generation of players. Like I said, we all use to figure out a way to enjoy ourselves by watching sporting events. it's gotten further out of control.
The Glendale situation turned real bad when something major happened around 08, you might remember the recession when plenty of people lost their jobs, their homes, and development basically stalled. believe I have seen you write about getting a great deal on a house around that time. Westgate is starting to turn into what was planned for 10 years ago but alas it's too little too late for the Coyotes in Glendale. It's nowhere near as simple as not enough fans.
It was more than just the recession. It was the entire fiasco of moving a pro hockey team to a location which basically is (or was) in the middle of nowhere. Show us an example of how Westgate is starting to become what was planned 10 years ago. I was last there about five years ago, and it looked pretty much the same as it did in 2005. On Google Maps Street View, the area still looks about the same: lots of vacant land surrounding Westgate where major development was supposed to take place but never did. How do you feel about Glendale having to subsidize the arena and the team with tax money, and they're still in the red? Even the Super Bowl turned out to be a money losing deal for Glendale. Face the facts: the site is a poor location for sports & entertainment. Those things belong in a more centralized location for many reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64
Or the isolation from 2/3 of the city. 1.5hrs driving into the sun in gridlock to watch a team lose at Hockey doesn't help.
I suspect if they built another 10 stadiums, each would tout how much they are used for other venues. You just re-made my point. It's become a cliche.
Personally, I don't care if the UofMN football plays in a pro stadium. They can play their 10 games (or 2.7% of the year) a few miles down the road like they did before. UofMN football figured it out for more than a decade. Of course the boosters said they could recruit better players if they had their own on campus stadium. That idea of better players didn't pan out so well. And I'm a UofMN Alumni.
Let's call a spade a spade. Stadiums are boondoggles. I get it. You love sports and figured out a way to justify them. Why not if it works. But we all figured out a way to have fun on the 1950's to early 1980's without building massive shiny new shrines to athletes. By definition, pro athletes income is "subsidized" by taxpayers (taxpayers help create stadiums to raise the revenue thereby allowing owners to brag that they owned a winning team). As I said a while back; let's be rational. 2 players on the Coyotes are American's. What makes them "Arizona"????
In short, cities are caving in so that owners find ways to generate more ticket sales and other revenue so that they can race to overpay their next generation of players. Like I said, we all use to figure out a way to enjoy ourselves by watching sporting events. it's gotten further out of control.
I agree for the most part. I am a sports fan, but the reality is that public money should not spent on these facilities beyond whatever amount is necessary. If the market is big / rich enough, a team will spend its own money to build one there just to access the market. If it's a smaller market, then you have to pony up some money to reap the benefits of having a pro sports franchise in your city.
There is advertising and economic-development value in having a pro sports franchise(s) in your city. Think of how many shots of the host city are shown during any broadcast, and how much name awareness, etc., is gained nationally through them. There are also XX million in "jock taxes" reaped each year by many states with such franchises. That value is hard but probably not impossible to quantify, and I know that all that national television and media exposure has significant worth. There are also questions like, is there much more benefit having a fourth franchise (Coyotes) versus just the big three? I don't know how much difference the Coyotes make when you have the Cardinals, Diamondbacks and Suns already advertising the Valley. Therefore, I support some public funding but not overwhelming public funding, particularly for hockey, which I think has the most limited economic impact of the four major sports.
Last edited by ScottsdaleMark; 12-15-2015 at 12:25 PM..
How Westgate has changed?? There is an Outlet Mall there now and about 15 restaurants plus other shopping. You can go there almost every night and the place has people in all businesses, 5 years ago it was a ghost town other than game night. A casino is being built near by which will alsi attract people to the area. It's slowly becoming the shopping and entertainment district it was planned for, however the Coyotes leaving will do some damage and set them back yet again. Council was dumb to agree to the last contract with Coyotes and even dumber to cancel it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
It was more than just the recession. It was the entire fiasco of moving a pro hockey team to a location which basically is (or was) in the middle of nowhere. Show us an example of how Westgate is starting to become what was planned 10 years ago. I was last there about five years ago, and it looked pretty much the same as it did in 2005. On Google Maps Street View, the area still looks about the same: lots of vacant land surrounding Westgate where major development was supposed to take place but never did. How do you feel about Glendale having to subsidize the arena and the team with tax money, and they're still in the red? Even the Super Bowl turned out to be a money losing deal for Glendale. Face the facts: the site is a poor location for sports & entertainment. Those things belong in a more centralized location for many reasons.
How do you feel about Art Galleries and concert Halls? These, like arenas, are what attract and keep people in Cities. Like it or not Pro sports bring people and money into the City. You really can't simply measure how much is gotten back by having the Suns, Cardinals, Coyotes, Diamondbacks, and such in newer modern stadiums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
I suspect if they built another 10 stadiums, each would tout how much they are used for other venues. You just re-made my point. It's become a cliche.
Personally, I don't care if the UofMN football plays in a pro stadium. They can play their 10 games (or 2.7% of the year) a few miles down the road like they did before. UofMN football figured it out for more than a decade. Of course the boosters said they could recruit better players if they had their own on campus stadium. That idea of better players didn't pan out so well. And I'm a UofMN Alumni.
Let's call a spade a spade. Stadiums are boondoggles. I get it. You love sports and figured out a way to justify them. Why not if it works. But we all figured out a way to have fun on the 1950's to early 1980's without building massive shiny new shrines to athletes. By definition, pro athletes income is "subsidized" by taxpayers (taxpayers help create stadiums to raise the revenue thereby allowing owners to brag that they owned a winning team). As I said a while back; let's be rational. 2 players on the Coyotes are American's. What makes them "Arizona"????
In short, cities are caving in so that owners find ways to generate more ticket sales and other revenue so that they can race to overpay their next generation of players. Like I said, we all use to figure out a way to enjoy ourselves by watching sporting events. it's gotten further out of control.
One thing that could put some life into Westgate if the Coyotes leave is bringing out the light rail there. I know there is the proposed State Capitol Branch, but I would extend that proposal further west all the way to UOP Stadium and Westgate. That line should be known as the Blue Line, with the existing light rail line being the Red Line.
One thing that could put some life into Westgate if the Coyotes leave is bringing out the light rail there. I know there is the proposed State Capitol Branch, but I would extend that proposal further west all the way to UOP Stadium and Westgate. That line should be known as the Blue Line, with the existing light rail line being the Red Line.
The issue is that that rail would take YEARS to build and we don't have those to work with anymore.
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.
So they build a new stadium for the 13 home games. Same as always argument: "but we can attract concerts and other venues, bla, bla, bla".
)
