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.
As you may or may not know, the City of Atlanta will be tearing down one football stadium in its urban core to construct another stadium in its urban core. On the one hand, the new Falcons stadium will be bring revenue to the city, but on the other hand, the stadium will hog up a lot of land in a city that's seeking to add density.
Do you think the sacrifice in real estate is worth the return that downtown or intown ballparks bring? Do you think that certain types of stadiums, for example basketball arenas, are a better fit for more urban areas than football stadiums?
I think downtown/near downtown arenas are a great use of land. The problem is they almost never bring any net revenue to a city's coffers. There's exceptions to that, of course. The Telephone Booth in San Francisco, for example.
Atlanta is infamous for traffic congestion and sprawl. Building a big new sports stadium isn't going to help them with those problems, it will just make it worse. And worse, city and state officials seem to have greenlighted public funding for the project without any voter input. Apparently it was never put to a public vote before being approved. Using public funds without the public's authorization? How can that be legal in a democratic society? Is this how sports stadiums usually get built? With no voter input?
Atlanta is infamous for traffic congestion and sprawl. Building a big new sports stadium isn't going to help them with those problems, it will just make it worse. And worse, city and state officials seem to have greenlighted public funding for the project without any voter input. Apparently it was never put to a public vote before being approved. Using public funds without the public's authorization? How can that be legal in a democratic society? Is this how sports stadiums usually get built? With no voter input?
Don't you live in CA? Do you vote on all your taxes there, like we do in CO? Not every state does that.
Actually, in Pittsburgh, they voted down a new stadium for the Steelers, so the state decided to build one anyway, plus one for the Pirates, and two new stadia in Philadelphia for the Phillies and
Eagles.
Depends on the city. For large cities with good transit, it doesn't make sense to have one "right downtown." For smaller ones without a dominant central core it can be a great draw. Another factor is how the stadium is used off season. Is a football field with only eight home games sitting empty the rest of the time or do they find other uses for it?
Chicago and NYC have done fine with their ballparks out away from downtown. If you have a happening downtown you don't need a ballpark there, indeed, I think you wouldn't want one there.
In Chicago the hockey-basketball stadium is on the West Side, not downtown. The closest stadium to downtown is Soldier Field, on the Lake not far south of downtown.
Don't you live in CA? Do you vote on all your taxes there, like we do in CO? Not every state does that.
Actually, in Pittsburgh, they voted down a new stadium for the Steelers, so the state decided to build one anyway, plus one for the Pirates, and two new stadia in Philadelphia for the Phillies and
Eagles.
The OP lives in New York. Is he not allowed to comment on the subject? You yourself live in Colorado. So why are you so interested in it? I moved out of California long ago but still visit family there on occasion. Doesn't matter what state or province you live in, the same principle applies. People should be allowed to vote for or against large scale projects involving a lot of public money. Ca. voters approved Prop. 1a in 2008 authorizing the state to spend $50 billion on a high-speed rail project. It wasn't decided on by the state. Why are sports stadiums exempted from the process?
Last edited by cisco kid; 06-12-2013 at 07:59 PM..
BTW: There is a petition drive on to hold up the $200Million of City $'s for a vote in November.
One group says city charter say they get 40K?? sig's they can force a public vote. City says State Supreme Court toss out that part of the charter 20? years ago.
Either way its going to wind up in Court.
Also there are two churches in the way, and the mayor said if they don't sell, they will look to put it else where (Site2).
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.
