Dickey on Jerry Brown & ballpark
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Dickey on Jerry Brown & ballpark
| By bubba69 on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 02:31 pm:|
Schott...Open mouth insert foot!
| By darth2900 on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 02:41 pm:|
That is untrue about commercial real estate... I am currently looking at the market report for a commercial real estate firm in the bay area (my brother creates the report) from 2001... the cost of commercial real estate in San Francisco rose in every section of town year over year from 1997 to 2000... it has since decreased in every section of town due to dot com failures and more real estate being available (supply v demand) but at present all sections of town in San Francisco have seen increases in the price per square foot since 1997, for most sections of town it is nominal but the most notable increase is in SOMA South (which includes China Basin) where it has doubled (at it's highest point it had quadrupled but it has decreased due to the dot com blood bath previously mentioned)I don't think I can attribute this to P*B Park alone but it has to be considered a contributing factor... a blanket statement that says because commercial real estate goes up in one section of town means a "likely" decrease in another part of town is wrong. At least that did not happen in San Francsico. I will continue to research this for my own knowledge in the other cities where urban ball parks were built but I don't have the information readily available to do a quick check.
Now here is my prediction... in 20 years the Castro section of San Francisco will be a bustling business section where straight 20 somethings live and work... can I be on NPR? (sorry that was uncalled for on my behalf but it was fun to write)... My point is no one can predict how a section of town will be in 20 years, that is ridculous, the area around the Coliseum has been a transport hub for a long time, BART already runs shuttles to the Airport from there now so how is that changing, there are better places for a baseball only stadium now... You show me some numbers or research that indicates otherwise, the excerpts of that book didn't say anything relevant about why the Coliseum area of oakland will be bustling in 20 years. It seems to me your arguments are based on your opinion and not facts... perhaps I am wrong.
| By buzz on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 03:28 pm:|
I could produce dozens of news stories about the subject of Selig, Miller Park, and the downtown site favored by the majority of fans and citizens in Wisconsin, but I don't want to go overboard. The fact is that Selig would never consider another site -- even if it was better for Milwaukee -- because he is a GREEDY PIG. Here's a few articles about the subject, the first which I've condensed to the stuff relative to Selig to save space.....
Too bad light rail can't move park downtown
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
...But hugely expensive, publicly financed stadiums shouldn't just be about baseball fans or even baseball. A downtown stadium would have produced customers for all kinds of downtown businesses, including the new convention center an effect that would have come closer to justifying the use of well over half a billion dollars in local taxes for the projects....
"I would have preferred a downtown stadium," (State Senator Alberta Darling) said. "Yes, definitely. But that was not my call, and that was not an option because it seemed that the Brewers . . . did not support a downtown location."
Bud Selig, then president of the Brewers, was, it is true, adamantly opposed to a downtown site.
He said four or five years ago that a downtown stadium would happen only "over someone's dead body," called downtown stadium proposals "irrelevant capers," and warned that picking stadium sites was not "an area for amateurs."
Who should, I guess, stick to paying taxes.
Unfortunately, some business leaders and lots of politicians the ones who made the decision in the end kowtowed to Selig even after it became obvious the Brewers could contribute virtually no money of their own to the $400 million project.
Community divided on stadiun process: Selig asking too much of us
DONALD L. NOEL
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Bud Selig is trying to throw the high, hard one past the community, and we should not let him get away with it. Three specific points suggest that only Selig will profit from a new stadium in the Menomonee Valley and that the rest of us will pay and pay and pay. If we kowtow to his demands and the implicit threat of moving the Brewers out of Milwaukee (a threat now becoming explicit as other owners discuss relocation), we will very probably wind up with a "white elephant" in the valley for which we and our children will be taxed for decades to come.
First, we were initially told that Selig would pay all the costs of building a new stadium except those associated with relocating Highway 41 and infrastructural improvements needed to provide access to the stadium.
Now, Selig agrees to pay only one-third of the projected $250 million cost and we, the public, are picking up the tab for the rest. What about the inevitable cost overruns? Who will pay the excess when construction costs soar past the current estimate? Even this rather overstates Bud's contribution, as $40 million of his "share" will come from Miller Brewing for naming rights.
Moreover, Selig borrowed money to buy back stock owned by others in anticipation that once the stadium was built the stock would be worth more. Since this leaves him strapped for funds and credit, Selig wants us to underwrite the remaining $50 million of his share and pick up the tab if he defaults on the loan.
Second, despite the public's minimum contribution of $160 million, Selig cannot understand why the city and state are "interfering" in the plans of (ostensibly) private business. He wants the $160 million, but he does not want any public input into the decision-making process and no public sharing in the profits from parking, concessions or any other aspect of operating the ball club and the new facility. It is a classic example of socializing the costs but keeping the profits in the hands of a few. Here Selig is emulating his friend and fellow owner, Jerry Reinsdorf of the Chicago White Sox, who openly boasts that he did not put even a nickel of his own money into the new Comiskey Park but gets every penny of profit out of it. We (the public) pay; they (the owners) profit.
Third, Selig is not satisfied with socializing the costs and monopolizing all the potential profit. He also wants to dictate where the stadium will be built: in the valley and nowhere else. But the big successes among the major league clubs with new stadiums have several things in common: They not only all have good teams but they are all located in the downtown area where their economic impact is maximized.
Build downtown and fans will flock to Water St. and the Grand Avenue before and after the game. Build in the valley and fans will tailgate before the game and go home afterward. (Yes, tailgating is fun, but it can also be done in downtown parking lots, and, in any event, to make tailgating a determining criterion in stadium location is like making easy access to the supermarket a major criterion in residential location. Worthy of some consideration, yes; but don't let the tail wag the dog.)
Baltimore, Cleveland and Denver all have downtown stadiums that have been regularly filled with great benefit to downtown economic revitalization. The Brewers could do the same. But Selig says no perhaps because he could not monopolize parking revenue in a downtown location.
Despite the Journal Sentinel's continuous shilling to give Selig what he wants, a valley stadium constructed at taxpayer expense for the profit of the owner is not a good idea. This Bud is not for you but only for him.
Donald L. Noel is a professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
BUD, WHY DO THE THINGS YOU DO?
The Capital Times
(Copyright (c) Madison Newspapers, Inc. 1996)
If the cynics were searching for omens, they didn't have to look far.
On opening day, just two months ago, Bud Selig, the beleaguered owner of the Milwaukee Brewers (who dabbles on the side as commissioner of baseball), was spotted shmoozing in his mezzanine box with Bill Bartholomay.
The same devious carpetbagger who 31 years ago moved the Braves to Atlanta? Yes, that Bill Bartholomay (still the Braves' chairman of the board).
How's that for symbolism?
Unfortunately, that's not the least of it.
Indeed, those who insist that Selig's efforts to keep the Brewers in Milwaukee are nothing but window dressing, that he's grown weary of all the haggling and wants nothing more now than to unload this turkey of a franchise, could certainly cite enough bizarre happenings to make such a case.
There was Selig's cavalier dismissal last year of Charles Harper, a prominent 68-year-old Shorewood businessman and diehard Brewers fan, whose proposal to rebuild County Stadium would have been at least $140 million cheaper than a new ballpark -- and wouldn't have cost the taxpayers a cent.
(And who says, by the way, that his door is still open.) There was Selig's arrogant refusal to even consider the very intriguing idea of building a stadium in downtown Milwaukee -- much to the chagrin of the city's business leaders.
There was his even more arrogant refusal to open the franchise's books while, at the same time, asking state taxpayers to help fund a new stadium.
And, most galling of all, there was his stunning revelation last month that, even with the taxpayer bailout, the team didn't have enough financial resources to complete its end of the deal.
This was curious stuff. Curious in that Selig, a Milwaukee native and longtime baseball nut, seems the least likely candidate to pull anything sinister or -- more implausible yet -- to give up on Milwaukee as a Major League city.
This is, after all, the same guy who stole the Brewers (then the Pilots) from Seattle in 1970 -- five painful years after the Braves had abruptly left town.
This is the same guy who loves to tell the story of how, after the Brewers defeated California, 4-3, to win the American League pennant in 1982, he had to pull off the freeway while driving home because there were tears in his eyes.
And yet, I'm reminded of Oliver Kuechle, former sports editor of the Milwaukee Journal, who insisted in his column again and again in 1964 that the Braves would never pull up stakes, that his sources in the Braves organization had assured him that the mere idea was ludicrous.
When it actually happened, a humiliated Kuechle apologized to his readers and admitted that the Braves had used him -- that he hadserved as a sacrificial lamb.
Whatever Selig's motives -- and, in fairness, there are those who claim he's more Chevy Chase than Darth Vader -- he's succeeded in alienating fans and non-fans throughout the state.
Kathryn Lake, who co-hosts a morning talk show on WTSO/AM, says she's astounded by the animosity Selig has stirred up -- to the point where she dreads even bringing up the stadium controversy.
She estimates that eight of every 10 callers are vehemently opposed to a taxpayer bailout.
"I still get calls from people who say, `I love baseball -- especially the Brewers -- and I think it's prudent in the long run that we help Selig out,' " she says.
"But I doubt I get more than one or two of those a month. Mostly, there's a feeling that Selig doesn't really care how the taxpayers feel."
And that's what's so hard to fathom.
If anyone needs friends these days, it's Bud Selig.
Even under the most ideal circumstances, Milwaukee's a tough market. There's the arctic-like climate, which makes a domed stadium almost a necessity. There's limited TV and radio revenue to be made, with the lake to the east and the Cubs and White Sox to the south.
And there's the harsh reality that Milwaukee is a blue-collar town that doesn't think highly of big-shot millionaires who are in it mainly for themselves.
But that's the perception these days -- and Selig has only himself to blame. There's a stench in the air that's so foul, I'm not sure even a new stadium will save him.
It's sadand baffling at the same time.
Maybe that's what happens when you hang out with carpetbaggers.
| By emkey on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 05:28 pm:|
darth, I don't see the cause and effect on Pacbell and the commercial real estate boom in SF. As you note, costs were going up everywhere at the time. BTW, did you look at the book I mentioned? Before you criticise my conclussions I'd suggest you look into it.
buzz, you'll get no argument on Selig's character from me. Lets do a little math though.
Say you have 7k parking spots.
Say you charge $10 dollars on average for people to use them.
Say you are sure to sell all those parking spots for each of you 81 game home schedule. Thats just a tad under $5.7 million.
So, if you are Bud Selig and you have a choice between a downtown location that you feel will draw pretty much the same number of people as your current location, sans the better part of $6 million per year in income, what is your reaction going to be? Especially when your team is in the smallest market in MLB....
No, I don't know how many parking spots they have, what they cost or what the occupancy % is but I'll guarantee you that the income is several million dollars.
Please note as well that the aborted south bay ballpark was going to be built in the middle of a parking lot. This isn't a coincidence in my opinion and likely reflects the desire of Schott to collect on those lucrative parking revenues. The people planing a new ballpark in Oakland need to think long and hard on how they are going to come up with a design downtown that will earn the owners enough money to make up for the lost parking revenues. Frankly I don't think it's possible.
| By darth2900 on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 05:59 pm:|
Emkey... in the middle of a parking lot next to an amusement park and businesses, not on Hegenberger Road. Further, how would Schott expect to get "lucrative" parking revenues from Viacomm Great America? I guess he would stand to get some of the revenue, but the lot where people would park for the games is already owned by another company whom he would have to get to agree to give him some of that revenue... and yes I did look at the link you sent me as noted above, and I asked what does that have to do with proving that the area around the coliseum is up and coming? The same question still stands, if nothing changes in the area how is it going to get better, it is already a transportation hub so what about the area is going to change and make it an "affluent" area in the next 20 years and what fact based research do you have to back that claim up?
Lastly, the commercial real estate prices... let's see, the whole city went up because of the dot coms, actually the whole city shot through the roof, they have all come back down to show a nominal gain over the last 4 years except for 2 areas of the City known as SOMA West and SOMA South (SOMA South encompasses China Basin)... one of those has doubled and the other has gained by about 50 per cent over a 4 year period... what has changed in that area of the city in the last 4 years to make the real estate prices there double when the rest of the city has had a nominal gain... Pac Bell Park. It isn't trig.
Now before you call me one of the brain washed masses, I invite you to check this information out. It looks pretty straight forward to me.
Your assertion that Urban Ballparks do nothing more than redistribute existing revenue is wrong as displayed by the FACTUAL evidence I have presented. Please don't come back with more of your opinions and represent them as fact.
Now I am still researching Cleveland and Denver to see how the commercial real estate in the area surronding those parks and the rest of the city was affected by the building of Urban stadiums... it may be that the facts in those city support your claim and if they do I will be the first to admit I am wrong... but so far your claims and my research do not exactly match up.
| By emkey on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 06:30 pm:|
darth, I never disupted that PacBell had a positive impact on the area around it. I did however claim that the increase comes at a cost to other areas nearby. The logic for this is simple. There are N people/companies looking for space. These people/companies have a fixed number of dollars to spend on office space. Some have lots of money and will thus go to what they view as more desirable areas. Some have less money and will thus be forced to go to less desirable areas. The building of a ballpark may change people perception of a given area, but it has zero impact on the overall dollars available.
Thus when PacBell went in it raised the desirability of the surrounding area while slightly decreasing the desirability of other areas. This shifted the distribution of money towards the area surrounding PacBell, that is all. Money wasn't magically generated just because the Giants had a new brick coated concrete edifice. If such money was magically generated then you need to explain where it came from. Note that this is tricky given the complex nature of the factors involved. The biggest being the economy. Economists with very impressive degrees have said exactly what I'm saying, so you don't have to take my word for it. :-)
On another topic, I believe the proposed ballpark included new parking. My guess is that Schott planned on getting as big a piece of the parking pie as he could, and given the near nonexistance of mass transit in the area there would have been a lot of people driving. I'd always viewed that as a negative. Schott on the other hand might not have.
| By diamond_lil on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 07:06 pm:|
Emkey, that parking lot location in Santa Clara was not chosen because it was an ideal location.
I was the only location.
In fact it was far from being the ideal situation and Schott was not going to make much money with that parking. The site was a 40-acre parking lot leased to Viacom for its Paramount's Great America Theme Park. That contract would have to be renegotiated and the parking replaced by the city. They were thinking of solving the problem with a parking garage.
And you are correct in that they was no mass transit in the area, just massive traffic jams.
| By emkey on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 07:19 pm:|
Lil, I don't think I used the word ideal. Heck, when it comes to the A's moving the only ideal place is some place in Oakland, on that I think we both agree. :-)
| By diamond_lil on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 07:31 pm:|
Emkey, I know. I only wish we just had to argue about the location of the ballpark.
We have to wait and see what
HOK and Horrow come back with in mid February. We know that Robert Bobb and other Oakland officials are working hard to come up with a sound financial proposal.
I think there are many things to consider when finding a location and one the biggest hurdles I see is bringing Schott and/or Hofmann to the table with a good attitude. Of course there is always the fear that Selig has other plans for the Oakland A's, regardless of what Schott and Hofmann may or would like to do with the ballpark offers.
At least we don't have long to wait to find out if Selig will be throwing ice water on any effort and then we will know who to fight...and believe me fight we will.
| By eyleenn on Saturday, February 02, 2002 - 12:16 am:|
I don't claim to have any expertise in city planning, real estate, redevelopment or any such topic. However, my gut and my common sense tell me that putting a new ballpark next to the Coliseum makes about as much sense from a "redevelopment" point of view as putting a new stadium for the 49ers adjacent to the Stick and building a mall in that neighborhood, which is unattractive at best. Sure, people would still go to to those neighborhoods to watch games, but I don't think anyone is sticking around to drink, dine or shop there.
The downtown location for the proposed A's ballpark is the only one that I believe makes sense in terms of benefit to Oakland. There is redevelopment potential at that location. Bringing "prosperity" to the area around the Coliseum would take a miracle, not redevelopment.
| By emkey on Saturday, February 02, 2002 - 09:51 am:|
One of the things that David Rusk (Author of "Cities without Suburbs") in his NPR talk was the need for cities to essentially create smaller cities within their borders. IE, he said that it was poor planing that led to the currently common model of very large islands of one type of development with little or no access to other islands other then by care.
He considers large tracts of housing with little or no retail space within walking distance a a bad idea as they lead to traffic congestion and isolation. Even when these islands are close together one does not have the choice of walking to the grocery store often as there may be no side walks and/or busy streets without traffic lights between the houses and the shoping area.
To remedy this situation he recommends channelling development in the direction of developing neighborhoods that encourage people to shop and work nearby. Think of it as building hundreds of villages within larger cities. By doing so we would have significantly less traffic, less polution, and a higher quality of living.
Transportation hubs are ideally suited to be the center pieces of such urban villages. The Coliseum has a Bart station, is right by railroad tracks and is near the intersection of several freeways. It is also within a short distance of the airport. It is in short an ideal location for David Rusk's ideas.
Rusk's ideas seem to be very popular with urban and city planners these days, and you can already see them at work in the Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore corridor.
If I were a rich guy I'd be buying up property around the Coliseum as fast as I could. It's a long term investment, but it's likely to pay off big. Building a new ballpark in the area as part of the first step in remaking the neighborhood would be a wonderful thing from an economic and social perspective.
Rusk has a lot to say beyond what I've mentioned above, and I'm paraphrasing of course. I strongly urge those of you involved in this ballpark issue to read his books. Some of the people you are likely to deal with will have and it will give you a much better insight into what needs to be done to sell any such proposal.
Geez, and to think I don't even like the concept of sporting facilities being largely funded by the public. ;-)
| By emkey on Saturday, February 02, 2002 - 11:45 am:|
First paragraph should end with the word car. There are some other typos as well. Sorry.
| By ramjet1 on Saturday, February 02, 2002 - 04:37 pm:|
"Emkey", your comments are well taken but I have to disagree with you on a ballpark working to remake the neighborhood if constructed in the Coliseum parking lot. Rusk's model works best when applied to a suburban community backed by capitol and investments and large tracks of vacant land and the luxury of saying NO to a developer's first proposal. Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore have that luxury. Oakland's only real advantage is that it has an established street scape that should not be ignored when considering locations of new land uses. Reinvestment in established areas and adaptive reuse of existing structures is what Oakland needs. The big problem I see with the Coliseum parking lot is that it is so disconnected from the rest of the residential and commercial land uses that any new ballpark constructed there would simply follow the old 60's pattern of a bowl surrounded by a sea of parking. Though I agree that the area around the Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART station will become hot property the first wave of investment that occurs there will probably follow the old style suburban pattern. The reasons are that the city decision makers will not want to scare off potential developers by making them think outside of the box. Money lenders think very conservatively when it comes to development. I know this is unfortunate and I hope it changes but it seems to happen all over the country when depressed communities try to spur economic activity. What they usually get is a cheap model of what occured in the burbs 10 years ago. This has happended in Oakland with the only exception being parts of the downtown and the JLS areas. Furthermore, all of the startegic planning for this area is slated for the land east of the BART station. Unfortunately, the ballpark would be to the west and seperated from any new residential and neighborhood serving commerical by the railroad tracks, cyclone fences and a wide San Leandro Boulevard. For me the classic model for all baseball parks are the two most loved, Wrigley field and Fenway, and the only site we have that can come close to this model is Uptown. Its transit friendly, easily accessible from the freeway, and there are plenty of existing commercial parking lots. And most of all it would be built into an existing street pattern. Hopefully it will spur activity in the blighted storefronts that surround the site and eventually result in new housing. The big issue is will those making the investment decisions see it for its potential. If you haven't already, I highly recommend you read "City Baseball Magic" by Phillip Bess.
| By emkey on Saturday, February 02, 2002 - 09:37 pm:|
ramjet1, thanks for the comments/suggestions. You make some very good points.
I still think that people need to keep in mind the lost revenues from parking that a location other then the current one is going to suffer. It's likely to be a factor for whomever owns the A's. Certainly it seemed important to Selig in his pursuit of a new ballpark for the Brewers.
Also note that one of the major barriers to renovation/continued use of Fenway is ressistance from the surrounding neighborhood because of traffic and parking concerns.
| By ramjet1 on Sunday, February 03, 2002 - 02:52 pm:|
Objection to parking will probably be one of the least impact problems with the Uptown site because there's no real business down there now except for Sears, the Oakland Ice Center, and existing structured parking lots. All those uses would welcome the company of a ballpark. Also that site includes the Greyhound bus depot which could be developed with a structured parking lot with revenue going to the team. Granted it wont be as many spaces as the coliseum's surface lot.
One big problem I have with contemporary american architecture and land use controls is that we design everything around parking. Really great urban spaces never have enough parking, and our most expensive real estate never has enough parking, when was the last time you tried to find a parking space in San Francisco. If there is plenty of parking that urban space is usually a dead zone. Some urban people always complain about not enough parking where they live/work/play, but if a city solves the parking problem, in doing so it will destroy the urban charm that attracted the people who are complaining (weird but true). If public funds are used there has to be some positive spinoff for the city, county and region. Professional I feel the Uptown site has it all this is a great opportunity to revitalize a dead zone.
| By emkey on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 09:21 am:|
If a parking garage is added to the cost of a new ballpark won't that lead to a significant increase in the cost?
Also, with baseball, football and basketball all being played within a small area isn't there a significan opportunity for synergy? Thats a lot of people being drawn on a regular basis to a single location.
I'll acknowledge that you raise some very good points ramjet1, but I just don't feel it's as cut and dried as you claim. The current location would almost certainly be the cheapest and could also be used as part of an effort to revitalize a dead zone.
Out of curiousity, how many baseball teams have moved from old facilities with lots of parking to new facilities with little or no parking? We know that the Brewers refused to do so. Camden Yards has very little parking, but I'm under the impression that was true of the Orioles previous home as well... I suppose the Giants are an example, but given how poor their previous location was in terms of quality and access I'm not surprised they would agree to sacrifice the parking revenues.
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 10:24 am:|
Cleveland: Jacobs Field is a short walk from most of Cleveland's downtown garages and surface parking lots, and it is estimated that more than 30,000 parking spaces are available for most Ballpark events.
With an average of 2.5 persons per car, this means that the available spaces within a 15-minute walk are more than enough to accommodate all the fans attending simultaneous sellout events at Jacobs Field and Gund Arena.
In order to avoid getting stuck in traffic created by vehicles and pedestrians near Jacobs Field, choose an access route which avoids streets bordering the Ballpark (Ontario, East 9th, Carnegie, Huron and Prospect), find a parking garage or surface lot a few blocks away, and walk.
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 10:27 am:|
Houston: Finding a parking space in Downtown Houston can be easy and inexpensive when you plan ahead. Use a map to find parking options located near your Downtown destination. Have a second location in mind in case your first choice is full.
Enron Field is a short walk from most of Houston's downtown garages and surface parking lots. It is estimated that almost 25,000 parking spaces are available in a walkable distance for ballpark events.
The key to a successful parking experience for Astros games will be to park in the area in which you have entered Downtown and to exit in the same direction. By taking advantage of free public transportation or simply walking, you will be able to arrive at the ballpark in a matter of minutes.
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 10:32 am:|
I am looking at the teams web sites and a lot of teams so far do not have much parking it seems
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 10:38 am:|
*At one of the seven downtown Parking Authority garages (just $3.00 on game days/nights).
*At PPG and Westinghouse garages (also just $3.00 on game days/nights).
*These garages are within a 12-minute walk of PNC Park.
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 10:40 am:|
More than 46,000 spaces are located in downtown Denver, approximately 18,000 of which are within a 15-minute walk. During the baseball season, parking restrictions (meters, etc.) will be strictly enforced until 10 p.m. in the neighborhoods surrounding Coors Field. Consider parking along the 16th Street Mall or the Broadway/Lincoln Center and taking the shuttle.
| By emkey on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 10:46 am:|
darth, thanks for the numbers. I was more curious about new->old transitions and if teams accepted a loss of parking. We know the Brewers didn't and that the Giants did. What about the other teams?
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 11:16 am:|
These teams that I posted did... the Rockies moved from Mile High Stadium, the Indians moved from the Mistake by the Lake with plenty of parking, the Astros from the Astrodome and it's parking lot, Pittsbrugh form 3 Rivers to a stadium with no parking lot... all fo these are examples of people going from Multi Purpose stadiums with Parking lots to Urban parks without parking lots, or very limited parking lots.
I only looked at teams that I knew came form stadiums with parking lots
A parking lot is a must. I mean, are you even allowed to BBQ in a covered garage? Vin
| By ramjet1 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 01:13 pm:|
Does anyone know the situation at riverfront in Cincy? To answer vinnieangelo I'm sure current fire codes would probably not allow any type of open flame in or on a public structure.
I'm an advocate of the ballpark philosphy of Phillip Bess which is that a public space such as a ballpark should be constructed within the confines of an existing street pattern and interplay with the surrounding community. That way it becomes a public space and part of the community and you have some variation in field configuration which makes the game more interesting. All of the parks constructed in the 60's and 70's wanted huge parking lots but the stadiums that were constructed resulted in all of the playing fields being nearly identical and the distance of the fans from the field dramatically increased. If any public funds are used the park should have some kind of positive economic spinoff for the surrounding community. The chances of this occuring at the Uptown site are greater than in the Coliseum parking lot. Other surrounding property owners and businesses need to have an opportunity to benefit from such a public investment. In 40 years neither the Coliseum nor Candlestick created the same positive economic synergy for surrounding properties that PB park did in 2 seasons. And if any of our tax dollars are going to possible go towards a ballpark we should want it to potentially benefit as much of the neighboring properties and businesses in order to justify the investment.
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 01:30 pm:|
Another one to add to the list of going from having a parking lot to having no parking lot would be the San Diego Padres if they ever get that dang thing built down there.
the new San Diego park is also following what you are saying ramjet, they are trying to make it part of the community so much so that the left field wall will be a historical building... which to me is beyond cool.
| By linusalf on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 01:46 pm:|
I need to post more so here goes.....
Ramjey i totally agree with you. In my opioion the Coliseum site is a great site, but however there is little capacity for develpompent of the surrounding areas, for it is isolated from the community. You have to think in the sense on who is paying for the park. the park will problably cost 350-450 million dollars, and to make this seem attractive to private corprate investors, and probalby more importantly, taxpayers. There has to be some sort of benifits to the city too. A new park at the coliesum site will help the team just as much as uptown, but there is little room for development there. THe uptown site would help the team AND stimulate development in an improvished neighborhood of Downtown Oakland
| By emkey on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 01:54 pm:|
Isn't the new Cincy ballpark being built in the parking lot of the existing facility? If thats true then we have two for parking lots and several against. Interesting. I can't help but think that at some point in the future owners will start complaining about a lack of parking revenues as part of their never ending quest to maximize their profits.
I'm not familiar with the proposed downtown site, but the area around the coliseum certainly seems to have a lot of space available. The closed theatre and parking lot across the freeway and the home improvement store that closed last year come to mind right away. I believe there are a number of other lots that are no longer in use around that area in addition to the two I just named...
I still think it's going to be build in the parking lot if it gets built anywhere. We'll all have to wait and see though. :-)
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 01:59 pm:|
The Cincy Park is being built on the river front which is in the parking lot of the existing Stadium.... here is how it will look when finished.
| By diamond_lil on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 02:11 pm:|
Well Emkey, if the'll miss the parking revenue I don't really know. But they certainly don't show having all that parking revenue they have now at Coli such a great thing, especially since they get it all while playing rent free. If you're going to wait until an owner stops whinning...forgedabouid
Skydome also has no parking except for the subterranean garage under the ballpark. The ballpark is surrounded by street and shops, restaurants etc...
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 02:13 pm:|
Looking at the picture of the new Cincy field and the renderings of the area around it once the park is completed, I notice something glaring.... no parking lot. Where CInergy Field is currently they are building a Hotel and club offices and a museum and a restaraunt. Maybe none of the knuckleheads thought about parking revenue, or maybe the artist rendering is not accurate of how it will actually be.
| By emkey on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 04:03 pm:|
I will not surrender! :-)
Thanks for the info everyone. Hey, if they build it in the parking lot then maybe Bud will like the A's better. Do you think he'd be flattered that they emulated him?
Why do I feel like retching suddenly? Get the behind me BelzeBud. ;-)
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 04:15 pm:|
Maybe that will work... maybe then he will talk about contracting the Giants because their stadium wasn't publicly funded and he wants to leave the bank holding the bag.
I don't know I have been looking at pictures of Old Stadiums today when I am bored and I guess that parking revenue has been tacked on to the ticket prices... all of the old stadiums had the parking lots and it seems like none of the new ones do... very strange
| By ramjet1 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 04:19 pm:|
Did we mention St. Louis which is also downtown and I dont think they will have much parking.
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 04:25 pm:|
Yeah I don't see much room for parking here either... it looks like a nice idea.... I am not sure how accurate artist renderings are though... It would be cool to see a rendering of say PNC Park and then see and actual picture... I think sometimes they just add stuff around the parks in the drawings that will not be there when the park is built
| By ramjet1 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 04:35 pm:|
I dont think there is any parking around Safeco field or the new football stadium which is within walking distance.
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 05:09 pm:|
This place would have had plenty of boat parking! But alas I have just got done talking to a reporter from Miami and he advised this park will NEVER happen
| By darth2900 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 05:12 pm:|
ramjet, this is true but there wasn't any near the kingdome really either was there? I can't remember, I went o a game there one time but I try to forget it, that was the most dreadful thing ever. Like playing baseball in a High School Gym.
| By ramjet1 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 05:31 pm:|
No there wasn't much parking around it. I can remember it was surrounded by some great taverns and restaurants, and how the Kingdom looked like a big zit on a pretty face. I dont think there is much parking proposed for the new park in Philly either.
| By eyleenn on Tuesday, February 05, 2002 - 12:09 am:|
A big zit on a pretty face. An apt description of the Kingdome. The one and only time I attended a game there, I was in Seattle for a convention and a friend and I walked from the convention center area to the Kingdome, probably about 12 blocks. Lots of restaurants and pubs along the way and I think a small parking lot adjacent to the dome. It was a bright sunny day outside. What a miserable experience it was to go inside to watch the game. The place smelled like stale beer and other fluids which I will not mention...
| By emkey on Tuesday, February 05, 2002 - 10:37 am:|
Rule number one of getting a new facility if you play in a dome... Cut down on the cleaning bill and turn down the ventilation. ;-)
When a facility is run down or dirty it is a symptom of the people in charge not spending enough on clean and/or maintanence. It could also be a design defect, but I doubt that is frequently the case.