Pro Franchise in Austin? [Archive] - SkyscraperPage Forum

southsideatx04

Feb 21, 2007, 3:25 PM

Since Austin is getting bigger every year when should we get our pro franchise besides the Wranglers? Maybe have a sports franchise in between San Antonio and Austin so the market would be stronger. If there was an attempt in Austin to put a franchise here would meet strong opposition by the University of Texas ? I think:shrug: back when Austin wanted it's minor league baseball in the 90's UT opposed it greatly(probably why the minor league team never made it). UT probably was thinking that it would lure away fans and money away from their sport programs.

Saddle Man

Feb 21, 2007, 3:46 PM

UT sports are better than any pro team. They're relatively cheap (not football so much), and you can get very close to the action.

southsideatx04

Feb 21, 2007, 4:02 PM

UT sports are better than any pro team. They're relatively cheap (not football so much), and you can get very close to the action.

If you are a UT fan. Can't we have both. I don't think the fan base would be affected if there is a pro team. They are just paranoid.:koko:
Some team names:
Austin Condo's
Austin Yuppie's
Central Texas Sprawls
Cedar Park Tree Choppers
Austin Transplants (for the Californian's and others)
Austin Longhorns?
Austin Congestions

Saddle Man

Feb 21, 2007, 4:27 PM

UT is the hometown team. Why not be a fan then? Why support a pro hometown team and not a college hometown team? Plus UT doesn't ask/demand that Austin/Travis County somehow pay for new stadiums every decade or so, because "they'll" (that's the fictional pro team in Austin) will leave town if "they" don't get it.

Complex01

Feb 21, 2007, 4:40 PM

UT sports are better than any pro team. They're relatively cheap (not football so much), and you can get very close to the action.

:lmao: Hmm, i know a lot of people who would disagree with that...

Why was this thread even started???

Saddle Man

Feb 21, 2007, 5:10 PM

/\/\/\ I know a lot of people that would disagree with you and your people. Prices are relative. Some how I see sports at UT up close and for very little. Go check the ticket prices.

Why are any threads started? Because someone wanted to talk about this subject.

NBTX11

Feb 21, 2007, 5:12 PM

If you put teams inbetween SA and Austin and called them the San Antonio/Austin "whatevers", so that both cities had ownership in the teams, then the area could support 3-4 pro teams imo.

texastarkus

Feb 21, 2007, 5:31 PM

If you put teams inbetween SA and Austin and called them the San Antonio/Austin "whatevers", so that both cities had ownership in the teams, then the area could support 3-4 pro teams imo.

The problem is the guys in SA want everything in SA including the name.They feel that since they're bigger (not by much anymore) it belongs there.Don't expect much support from Austin, since we've adopted the Titans. They need to realize that San Antonio ain't all that!

Saddle Man

Feb 21, 2007, 5:42 PM

Titans?

rad707

Feb 21, 2007, 5:58 PM

Why are any threads started? This is the wrong question. Why is this thread started on Skyscraper page is a more reasonable question. The goal, as I understand it, is to discuss topics relevant to planning and development.

To that end, another question might be what impact a pro sports franchise would provide any given area.

I would argue that pro stadiums do more harm than good unless they are easily accessible by public transportation, thereby requiring less parking facilities. Most often stadiums are placed in areas where, even with the addition of special events like concerts, they remain empty and lifeless most of the year. I would cringe at the idea of putting one in downtown austin, and it would be against my new urbanist principles to support one being built outside of an urban area.

It is a catch 22...unless you have public transport. In this way you can build and support the next wrigley, the next garden, etc. Hell even the AA center in Dallas is better off with DART next to it.

Another question that may be interesting is what type of pro franchise would someone want in their downtown. I would argue that baseball is the most lucrative from the perspective of a tax base. More games equates with more constant traffic equates with a more stable environment that can exist outside of football sunday. Baseball parks in downtowns from SF to SL to Baltimore do incredibly well with mixing into their surroundings when not in use. Football stadiums, not so much. Basketball, not so much. Hockey is somewhat better, but who watches hockey? nobody according to their viewership levels that continue to plummit.

these points of view are specific to austin. i would vote against any stadium midway between cities and feel that, given the alamodome is already there and UT is not, SA may be a better place to incorporate a pro franchise if one were to come knocking.

JAM

Feb 21, 2007, 7:31 PM

southsideatx04

Feb 21, 2007, 9:35 PM

IMO -done properly, pro teams can be good for a city. Its yet another entertainment option, a way to bring people and businesses to the city, spurs investment, provides national and global media attention and associated dollars. I think Austin would be an awesome place to hold the Super Bowl.

Also gives the fuzz easy targets to chase after for DWI's. Hard not to spot the giant ring bling and $200,000 automobile swerving and exceeding the speed limit :)

If Austin wants to grow and become more of an national or international city then it needs its pro franchise. "Build it and they will come".

What sport though? Something more internationally recognized like baseball or basketball. I lived in San Diego for a while and I loved when the baseball season started because of the climate, outdoors, the people, or just the whole scene. Now that downtown will be more of a populated area why not put a franchise there.

Austin loves doing business so why not take a client to see a game, then go get your client drunk downtown and then close the deal.

southsideatx04

Feb 21, 2007, 9:41 PM

Having two big ass stadiums downtown would look awesome against the backdrop of all the new high downtown skyscrapers. One being the UT stadium and the other being a pro franchise.

Or you could just add to the convention center and make it a /better convention center and /basketball court and I am not talking about the toros.

KevinFromTexas

Feb 21, 2007, 9:42 PM

Stay on topic folks...

Plus UT doesn't ask/demand that Austin/Travis County somehow pay for new stadiums every decade or so, because "they'll" (that's the fictional pro team in Austin) will leave town if "they" don't get it.

Actually Austin and Travis County don't pay a dime for UT, the State does. They even have their own police department. The only connection between UT and the City of Austin is that they use Capital Metro's busses which they have a specific fleet for the campus that only runs around the campus area.

I'm no sports guru, so I'll ask, are there any two cities that co-own a team currently, professional or otherwise?

M1EK

Feb 21, 2007, 9:48 PM

Stay on topic folks...

Actually Austin and Travis County don't pay a dime for UT, the State does. They even have their own police department. The only connection between UT and the City of Austin is that they use Capital Metro's busses which they have a specific fleet for the campus that only runs around the campus area.

Uh, he was pretty obviously saying the same thing - just pointing it out as a positive to having a college team vs. a pro team.

Nevertheless, UT does impose costs (and some benefits, but not as many direct financial ones) to Austin - think transportation. Capital Metro gives UT students free rides on all buses, not just the shuttles; and the roads to/from campus get a hell of a pounding from all the students, staff, and professors driving there every day (and they don't get any gas tax money to pay for maintenance either - none are eligible except for I-35). Money to maintain infrastructure around UT must therefore come from sales and especially property taxes - which UT doesn't pay.

Typical town/gown problems, magnified by Texas' spectacularly disproportionate urban-screwing road funding scheme.

texastarkus

Feb 22, 2007, 1:15 AM

If Austin wants to grow and become more of an national or international city then it needs its pro franchise. "Build it and they will come".

What sport though? Something more internationally recognized like baseball or basketball. I lived in San Diego for a while and I loved when the baseball season started because of the climate, outdoors, the people, or just the whole scene. Now that downtown will be more of a populated area why not put a franchise there.

Austin loves doing business so why not take a client to see a game, then go get your client drunk downtown and then close the deal.

what makes you think Austin wants to grow up? Maybe we like being a big college town.

texboy

Feb 22, 2007, 1:17 AM

The problem is the guys in SA want everything in SA including the name.They feel that since they're bigger (not by much anymore) it belongs there.Don't expect much support from Austin, since we've adopted the Titans. They need to realize that San Antonio ain't all that!

I love it when people post stuff like that...

I believe Austin could support a pro franchise... probably basketball more than likely. I think UT football pretty much has the market cornered in Austin. Does anyone know the stats on the Toros? How has attendance been? A team between Austin and San Antonio I think would be kind of ridiculous imho. San Antonio has the capital now to support its own SECOND major league franchise with ease...period.

Mikey711MN

Feb 22, 2007, 1:26 AM

I'm no sports guru, so I'll ask, are there any two cities that co-own a team currently, professional or otherwise?

AFAIK, the Packers are the only municipally-owned professional sports franchise.

At present time, of course, the Hornets split time between New Orleans and OKC (IIRC, but it was that way last year and I know they'll exclusively be back in NO next season), but this was a decision by a private owner.

JAM

Feb 22, 2007, 2:21 AM

what makes you think Austin wants to grow up? Maybe we like being a big college town.

Austin sure seems to be growing up. 100,000 is a big college town. 1.5M is a big city. People move here from all over the country and they accelerating the growth. More people = more problems and more benefits associated with big cities. I doubt all these skyscrapers would be built otherwise. Talk of Pro sports teams and big cities are natural.

It seems there are a few owners around the majors that own a team or two.

southsideatx04

Feb 22, 2007, 3:47 AM

If they proposed a pro sports team here in Austin and you lived here (beside football) would you vote for the bond and go to the games?

I was born here and I saw how Austin has grown. It's time to move on. Austin has a responsibility for becoming and being an international city. We have plenty of international companies to become an international city. Leave the other cities behind in Texas. Houston had its oil rush and Dallas had it's sprawl. Austin is and the future, w/ tech and it's planning we are light years in front of others from Mid to Northern cities in the U.S.

southsideatx04

Feb 22, 2007, 3:51 AM

Austin sure seems to be growing up. 100,000 is a big college town. 1.5M is a big city. People move here from all over the country and they accelerating the growth. More people = more problems and more benefits associated with big cities. I doubt all these skyscrapers would be built otherwise. Talk of Pro sports teams and big cities are natural.

It seems there are a few owners around the majors that own a team or two.

Very good point would have said the same thing.

NBTX11

Feb 22, 2007, 4:34 AM

There are other cities that have major universities AND pro sports. Why can't Austin do it too. If they are the largest city without a franchise, it's time to get one.

I still say if you called the team the SA/Austin whatevers and put the team in NB or SM, the area could support all 4 pro franchises. Other than the Spurs, they are already in SA.

vertex

Feb 22, 2007, 6:44 AM

Stay on topic folks...
I'm no sports guru, so I'll ask, are there any two cities that co-own a team currently, professional or otherwise?

There have been a few examples in the past of pro sports franchises playing in two-city arrangements.

The Packers did it for years, splitting their home games evenly each season between Milwaukee and Green Bay.

The NBA Kings did it with Kansas City and Omaha throughout the '70s, before moving on to Sactown.

The Hawks, before eventually moving to Atlanta, played in the Quad cities area of Iowa/Illinois, at multiple coliseums.

The Golden State Warriors played games in both S.F. and Oakland in the same season. They did this often throughout the '60s.

The King's experience is worth noting. The team thought they could play in both cities, and it worked for about 6 seasons. But then the Kings decided to pit both cities against one another in order to build a new stadium, and instead alienated the fan base in both cities. K.C. would eventually lure them with the Kemper arena, but it wasn't enough, and the Kings bolted to Sactown by '85.

If you folks are seriously considering pooling resources to lure one team, I don't think it will work.

JManc

Feb 22, 2007, 7:40 AM

I'm no sports guru, so I'll ask, are there any two cities that co-own a team currently, professional or otherwise?

co-own? don't know about that but the NE patriots are half-way between boston and providence in foxboro, mass.

anyway, it just wouldn't be austin with a pro-team.

oilcan

Feb 22, 2007, 2:16 PM

UT sports are better than any pro team. They're relatively cheap (not football so much), and you can get very close to the action.

http://shop.grasscity.com/images/thumb/jfbu1_115.jpg

Saddle Man

Feb 22, 2007, 3:31 PM

/\/\/\/\ Paid $15 for the women's basketball last night, and was only 50 feet from the court on the bench side. Not close enough for you? Maybe I can try to arrange free and up close tickets to the games for you. You would have to actually play in the games though.

Apparently some people don't actually buy tickets to UT sporting events. Because if they did, they would realize it is cheap. I could take a group of four people to a UT sporting event (not football) for around $100 including 4 tickets, 4 drinks, 4 nachos, and parking. Try that at a Spurs, Astros, Stars, or Texans game while being that close to the action on the court/field/rink.

oilcan

Feb 22, 2007, 3:53 PM

Some people may not just be interested in cheap prices but may be willing to pay that extra dollar for the higher level of competition/athletics/entertainment on that professional level...

But yes. those are great seats and decent prices for consessions.. hats of to you... sounds like you personally don't need professional sports and present a valid point on why you yourself think UT athletics are better than professional sports more cost effective...

NBTX11

Feb 22, 2007, 4:17 PM

There have been a few examples in the past of pro sports franchises playing in two-city arrangements.

The Packers did it for years, splitting their home games evenly each season between Milwaukee and Green Bay.

The NBA Kings did it with Kansas City and Omaha throughout the '70s, before moving on to Sactown.

The Hawks, before eventually moving to Atlanta, played in the Quad cities area of Iowa/Illinois, at multiple coliseums.

The Golden State Warriors played games in both S.F. and Oakland in the same season. They did this often throughout the '60s.

The King's experience is worth noting. The team thought they could play in both cities, and it worked for about 6 seasons. But then the Kings decided to pit both cities against one another in order to build a new stadium, and instead alienated the fan base in both cities. K.C. would eventually lure them with the Kemper arena, but it wasn't enough, and the Kings bolted to Sactown by '85.

If you folks are seriously considering pooling resources to lure one team, I don't think it will work.

The differnce between those teams and SA/Austin is that SA/Austin are RIGHT next to each other ala Dallas/Fort Worth (although a little farther apart than those 2 cities). Those other cities are MUCH farther apart, except for Oakland/SF.

rad707

Feb 22, 2007, 4:24 PM

As an opponent of the idea I must add that I have yet to read an interesting POV for proposing a professional team in Austin. The "grow up" logic does not apply in a post-industrial economy where size and strength no longer corrolate. Brainpower is the new barometer, and we have more than our share with less than half the size of other Texas brain centers (Houston and Dallas).

Professional teams will not make us an "international" city. If anything, international tourists are looking for authenticity, not another arena. And those that are/could be interesting in opening offices in Austin are not viewing our access to professional sports as a determinant...and if they are they may recognize that DFW has any and all professional teams...so why choose a town with merely one.

Again, professional sports may be fun to attend, and may be fun to watch, but statistically they do more harm than good to a city. Wanting one merely for recognition is like wanting a Hummer to compensate for one's small hands.

Saddle Man

Feb 22, 2007, 4:37 PM

Saddle Man

Feb 22, 2007, 5:13 PM

I used to love pro sports, but I'm now disillusioned. They (the owners and players) are always wanting more. Players are grown men playing childrens' games, being paid a lot of money, and some how still find ways to bitch about it. At least they did when I stopped watching them in the mid to late 90's. The owners want new taxpayer (corporate welfare) bought stadiums every decade or so, or they will move to Portland, Las Vegas, or Buttfuck where ever. After the taxpayers pay for the studium, the owners want all revenue the stadium makes. And they want you to pay out the ass for a ticket too. If owners would pay for their own stadiums I probably wouldn't have a problem with pro sports. Maybe they could get donations to build stadiums like arts organizations do for concert halls, or out of their own pocket. At the college level, you don't have to worry about player's salaries, constant new 'state-of-the-art' stadiums, endorsement chasing players, and relocations. So many in college sports will never play professionally, so they do it more for the love of it. That's something I can get behind.

21bl0wed

Feb 22, 2007, 6:00 PM

I would drive to austin to see a neighbor pro team playing. I've never driven to go see a college sporting event. I would like austin to get a basketball team but I don't see that happening soon..I guess a baseball team is the first posibility? Anything but soccer lol

JRCool

Feb 22, 2007, 8:56 PM

Ya, I don't think anyone is saying that college games aren't cheaper, or that you can't get really good seats, the point is that a major league sports team brings in alot of money and publicity for the city. Has anyone mentioned the fact that Austin is the largest city in the country without a major league team? If major league sports are so "un-worth it" then why does almost every other major city in the country have them. Not to mention, a team for Austin would be cool, another thing to identify with from your city. UT is somewhat a state team, ya know? Its much more prevelant in Austin, but they are still the "Texas Longhorns" not the "Austin Longhorns."

Something else to point out, several other major cities with large colleges in them have major leage teams.

I think the pros out-weigh the cons on this issue. It would bring money, national attention, and a new form of entertainment to the city.

I still don't see it happening too soon though.

MichaelB

Feb 22, 2007, 9:16 PM

Personally.... and just personally, I hope Austin manages to withstand the pro-franchise "stuff". It is just a step to "become every other city". (It's like thinking your non a legit city if you don't have a suburban mall.)

I LOVE college sports.....and think the sports presence in this town is just great. I think the identification of the town and the students to the team is wonderful.

On the other hand....I would totally support the team on the north end of SA or in the middle..... besides, at this point if you wanted to build a major sports complex, you would probably have to go that far out anyway! I can't imagine anywhere in the city I would want to see such a monolith.

vertex

Feb 22, 2007, 10:53 PM

The differnce between those teams and SA/Austin is that SA/Austin are RIGHT next to each other ala Dallas/Fort Worth (although a little farther apart than those 2 cities). Those other cities are MUCH farther apart, except for Oakland/SF.

Last time I checked, Austin and SA were 70 miles apart, a 1.5 hour away from each other, and a world apart in attitude.

I think a good example for Austin to follow might be Raleigh-Durham. They have UnC, Duke and NCSU right next to each other, and yet they have some success supporting the Carolina Hurricanes (hockey of all things).

Trae

Feb 22, 2007, 11:38 PM

The differnce between those teams and SA/Austin is that SA/Austin are RIGHT next to each other ala Dallas/Fort Worth (although a little farther apart than those 2 cities). Those other cities are MUCH farther apart, except for Oakland/SF.

Yeah, Austin - San Antonio may be coming close together by sprawl, but by city centers, hell no! Dallas - Fort Worth are 30 miles apart (this is city centers). Their city limits are at times less than 10 miles apart.

BSofA04

Feb 23, 2007, 12:00 AM

KevinFromTexas

Feb 23, 2007, 12:10 AM

Yeah, Austin - San Antonio may be coming close together by sprawl, but by city centers, hell no! Dallas - Fort Worth are 30 miles apart (this is city centers). Their city limits are at times less than 10 miles apart.

See that's the thing. For Austin and San Antonio to be that close San Antonio would have to be where San Marcos is. San Antonio's downtown would actually be located between the San Marcos Factory Outlet Mall and the Texas State University Campus. Perhaps because this is Texas, (big state), even 78 miles seems close, which it is really considering how large the state is.

Gosh, I can't even imagine San Antonio's city limits being just 10 miles from the southern reaches of South Austin. I'd live just 25 miles from downtown San Antonio.

Trae

Feb 23, 2007, 12:37 AM

titans!? :whatthefuck: I will always support VY for everything he did for UT, but I wouldn't give bud adams and the titans one f-ing penny after moving the Oilers. There's no shame being a bandwagoner I guess. :tup:

Say it loud and proud. Hopefully when Bud Adams moves on, the next owner of the Titans moves the Oilers records back to Houston. Having an Earl Campbell jersey in the Titans Hall of Fame is real stupid.

Mr. Earl:

http://forums.houstontexans.com/image.php?u=4485&dateline=1140392766

NBTX11

Feb 23, 2007, 4:31 AM

Last time I checked, Austin and SA were 70 miles apart, a 1.5 hour away from each other, and a world apart in attitude.

I think a good example for Austin to follow might be Raleigh-Durham. They have UnC, Duke and NCSU right next to each other, and yet they have some success supporting the Carolina Hurricanes (hockey of all things).

Maybe 1.5 hours if you are driving 45 miles an hour. Last time I checked, most poeple drove 80 mph on I-35. Also, from city limit to city limit is probably about 40 miles not 70. SA limits start around exit 175 on I-35, and Austin's start somwhere around 215-220 (I think) That's around 40-45 miles. That's alot closer than GB/Milwaukee or KC/Omaha you gave as examples. Those don't compare.

BSofA04

Feb 23, 2007, 4:34 AM

Say it loud and proud. Hopefully when Bud Adams moves on, the next owner of the Titans moves the Oilers records back to Houston. Having an Earl Campbell jersey in the Titans Hall of Fame is real stupid.

Mr. Earl:

http://forums.houstontexans.com/image.php?u=4485&dateline=1140392766

Yes, I agree!

JAM

Feb 23, 2007, 5:50 AM

Personally, it would be unlikely for myself to go to a game in S.A. or somewhere inbetween. If I was a pro owner, I would want to depend on local population. Its strange, but 40 miles in the country seems a lot futher than 40 miles across town, even though in the country you can get there faster and maybe safer.

BG918

Feb 23, 2007, 6:12 AM

Do not a lot of Austin people drive to SA for Spurs games or Houston/Dallas for Texans/Cowboys games? All of those cities, especially SA, are not far at all from Austin. When the Hornets moved temporarily to OKC after Katrina many thought it would hurt OU sports being that more people in OKC and Norman would rather spend their money on NBA rather than college football and especially basketball. But there wasn't really any effect as the NBA attracted either a non-college fan or people simply just kept going to both pro and college games. If OKC can support NBA then Austin certainly can, but the nearest NBA team to OKC is in Dallas 3 hours away while SA is a lot closer to Austin...

kickazzz2000

Feb 23, 2007, 11:55 PM

Last time I checked, Austin and SA were 70 miles apart, a 1.5 hour away from each other, and a world apart in attitude.

I think a good example for Austin to follow might be Raleigh-Durham. They have UnC, Duke and NCSU right next to each other, and yet they have some success supporting the Carolina Hurricanes (hockey of all things).

As a Tar Heel, I will admit that nothing was as surreal as joining my fellow Heels, archrival Wolfpeckers, and hated dookies in tailgating and cheering like hell for our Stanley Cup Champion Hurricanes last year during the playoffs.

Something like the NBA or NHL might actually work in Austin.

M1EK

Feb 25, 2007, 3:45 PM

Do not a lot of Austin people drive to SA for Spurs games or Houston/Dallas for Texans/Cowboys games?

No, they do not. Especially not for the Spurs. (Football is a big enough deal to be worth a trip).

And as for the person who thinks the drive is 45 minutes - what brand of crack are you smoking? Maybe from Austin's extreme southern city limit - but Austin's population center is actually quite a bit north of downtown.

southsideatx04

Feb 25, 2007, 4:14 PM

No, they do not. Especially not for the Spurs. (Football is a big enough deal to be worth a trip).

And as for the person who thinks the drive is 45 minutes - what brand of crack are you smoking? Maybe from Austin's extreme southern city limit - but Austin's population center is actually quite a bit north of downtown.

I live in South Austin and I drive to go see the Spurs games takes about an hour to get to AT&T center and also they have some pretty cheap tickets not the best seats but tickets are something like $11.00-13.00 for the cheapest. Driving to Dallas or Houston to watch any games there is out of the question.

NBTX11

Feb 26, 2007, 5:24 AM

I live in South Austin and I drive to go see the Spurs games takes about an hour to get to AT&T center and also they have some pretty cheap tickets not the best seats but tickets are something like $11.00-13.00 for the cheapest. Driving to Dallas or Houston to watch any games there is out of the question.

And it probably only took you 45 min or less from south Austin to get to the SA city limits, and an hour to the ATT center. I realize it's at least an hour from DT to DT, depending on traffic.

Jdawgboy

Feb 26, 2007, 6:49 PM

No, they do not. Especially not for the Spurs. (Football is a big enough deal to be worth a trip).

And as for the person who thinks the drive is 45 minutes - what brand of crack are you smoking? Maybe from Austin's extreme southern city limit - but Austin's population center is actually quite a bit north of downtown.

Not everybody lives north of downtown either and let us not forget that south of the river is expected to grow substantially over the next decade especially from Slaughter into Buda and Kyle. You are right depending on where you live and if the traffic is heavy it can take over an hour to get there, but from South Austin near the city limits to the city limits of San Antonio and with no traffic it takes only 45 min. Ive driven it many times. In fact from the city limits of Austin to the city limits of San Antonio it is almost exactly 50 miles apart.

M1EK

Feb 26, 2007, 9:47 PM

You are right depending on where you live and if the traffic is heavy it can take over an hour to get there, but from South Austin near the city limits to the city limits of San Antonio and with no traffic it takes only 45 min. Ive driven it many times. In fact from the city limits of Austin to the city limits of San Antonio it is almost exactly 50 miles apart.

So what you're saying is that from the edge of Austin where there's nothing but crappy subdivisions and strip malls to the edge of San Antonio where there's nothing but crappy subdivisions and strip malls, it's a 45 minute drive if there's no traffic.

Hmmm. Sounds like the original claim is more truthy than true.

People aren't driving from Austin to 1604; they're going to downtown or Sea World or a couple other places.

Schertz1

Feb 26, 2007, 10:58 PM

So what you're saying is that from the edge of Austin where there's nothing but crappy subdivisions and strip malls to the edge of San Antonio where there's nothing but crappy subdivisions and strip malls, it's a 45 minute drive if there's no traffic.

Hmmm. Sounds like the original claim is more truthy than true.

People aren't driving from Austin to 1604; they're going to downtown or Sea World or a couple other places.

From what I have seen of Austin, most of the nicer neighborhoods are south or west of town ( I do not agree with calling people's homes crappy ). Maybe you can explain what a crappy subdivision is for us? In San Antonio, just north of 1604 and I35 are Garden Ridge, Schertz, and Olympia. While they may not be The Dominion, it is not uncommon for homes to range from 300K to 600+K in these areas.

greenbelt

Feb 26, 2007, 11:12 PM

let me try somthing...:cool:

greenbelt

Feb 26, 2007, 11:25 PM

Yeah, Austin - San Antonio may be coming close together by sprawl, but by city centers, hell no! Dallas - Fort Worth are 30 miles apart (this is city centers). Their city limits are at times less than 10 miles apart.

With all the talk about DFW and AUS/SA wanted to see how they stack up. Man, the metroplex is huge! I know, I lived there for 10 years, and really don't want our Central Texas area to develop anywhere close to the DFW area. That's why we moved here. :tup: Besides, the Hill Country is harder and more costly to develop, so if anything, we might have retail/housing spread along I-35, more so than what's already happening. Austin will continue to grow, San Antonio will do the same, and inbetween, I-35 will become where peanut butter meets jelly. :D

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f386/streetwise2/dfw-aus-san-overlapcopy.jpg

Trae

Feb 26, 2007, 11:48 PM

Austin's nicer neighborhoods are west and northwest, where the large hills are (especially west).

southsideatx04

Feb 27, 2007, 1:07 AM

With all the talk about DFW and AUS/SA wanted to see how they stack up. Man, the metroplex is huge! I know, I lived there for 10 years, and really don't want our Central Texas area to develop anywhere close to the DFW area. That's why we moved here. :tup: Besides, the Hill Country is harder and more costly to develop, so if anything, we might have retail/housing spread along I-35, more so than what's already happening. Austin will continue to grow, San Antonio will do the same, and inbetween, I-35 will become where peanut butter meets jelly. :D

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f386/streetwise2/dfw-aus-san-overlapcopy.jpg

San Marcos could be the next Arlington as far as being in the middle of both Austin and San Antonio. It would be especially nice if CAMPO can come up with a train route from Austin to San Antonio or visa versa could solve some issues just in case you wanted to drink and not drive and still go to the game.

NBTX11

Feb 27, 2007, 1:15 AM

Looks like if you put Ft Worth where SA is, Dallas would be somewhere between New Braunfels and San Marcos.

Trae

Feb 27, 2007, 1:26 AM

Around New Braunfels and not too far north of it.

M1EK

Feb 27, 2007, 1:53 AM

From what I have seen of Austin, most of the nicer neighborhoods are south or west of town ( I do not agree with calling people's homes crappy ). Maybe you can explain what a crappy subdivision is for us? In San Antonio, just north of 1604 and I35 are Garden Ridge, Schertz, and Olympia. While they may not be The Dominion, it is not uncommon for homes to range from 300K to 600+K in these areas.

A crappy subdivision = "a subdivision". HTH. Nobody drives "45 minutes" to go look at a bunch of single-family houses whose primary feature is their magnificent garage.

SSLL

Feb 27, 2007, 4:42 AM

It could happen. But I think it's more likely in a sport SA doesn't have a team in, say, MLB, MLS or NHL.

NBTX11

Feb 27, 2007, 3:50 PM

It could happen. But I think it's more likely in a sport SA doesn't have a team in, say, MLB, MLS or NHL.

SA already turned down MLS. MLS wanted to put a team in the Alamodome, and it was almost a done deal, but Mayor Hardberger told them to get lost when he got elected, because he wanted to concentrate on getting an NFL or MLB team, not rinky dink MLS. MLS then decided to go to Houston instead.

Trae

Feb 28, 2007, 1:35 AM

SA already turned down MLS. MLS wanted to put a team in the Alamodome, and it was almost a done deal, but Mayor Hardberger told them to get lost when he got elected, because he wanted to concentrate on getting an NFL or MLB team, not rinky dink MLS. MLS then decided to go to Houston instead.

Are you sure that is what happened? You better watch out for the MLS in five years. YOu make it look like the MLS was begging to put a team in SA.

tildahat

Feb 28, 2007, 5:03 PM

MLS is the only one I could see happening for Austin, maybe a dedicated stadium in or near the Domain, thus serving the suburban base for a soccer team, and also part of the hispanic base. MLS has thrived in Columbus which is in a similar situation to Austin - growing capital city with a huge university, but not quite big enough to be a major league sports town, plus Ohio, like Texas, already has multiple big league franchises. MLS doesn't compete directly with Ohio State.

Before someone points out that "This is Texas, we love our [American] football" let me assure you Ohio is just as nuts as Texas when it comes to football. And we have a larger hispanic population to boot.

I'm not necessarily arguing that this could or should happen, just that it's the only scenario I find plausible, unlike NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB....

NBTX11

Feb 28, 2007, 9:23 PM

Are you sure that is what happened? You better watch out for the MLS in five years.

Yes I am sure. When Harberger was elected, a reporter asked him what he would tell the MLS (whether to put a team in SA), and he told them "I would tell them goodbye". I believe that is a direct quote. Talks immediately broke off. Everyone knows Harberger is only interested in bringing in the NFL, MLB or nothing. Until then it was a done deal with the previous mayor, who wanted to bring in MLS. They had news conferences and such announcing that they were beginning play at the alamodome in whatever year that was.

NBTX11

Feb 28, 2007, 9:28 PM

Trae

Feb 28, 2007, 9:48 PM

Are there any NHL fans in Austin? Just because it has the population, doesn't mean it will automatically be supported.

NBTX11

Feb 28, 2007, 10:18 PM

Are there any NHL fans in Austin? Just because it has the population, doesn't mean it will automatically be supported.

Probably just as many as there were in Nashville and Raleigh before teams moved there.

sammyk

Mar 1, 2007, 12:16 AM

Are there any NHL fans in Austin? Just because it has the population, doesn't mean it will automatically be supported.

There's at least one. :D

Trae

Mar 1, 2007, 1:00 AM

Probably just as many as there were in Nashville and Raleigh before teams moved there.

Austin is a completely different city.

TexasBoi

Mar 1, 2007, 7:05 PM

Austin is a completely different city.

in terms of what? In a way they can't support the NHL? I completely disagree if that's what you are trying to say.

tildahat

Mar 1, 2007, 8:04 PM

Probably just as many as there were in Nashville and Raleigh before teams moved there.

I don't know about Nashville, but Raleigh gets a lot of people from the northeast, the way Austin gets people from California, probably moreso, so I think Raleigh had a much better hockey fanbase to start out with.

tildahat

Mar 1, 2007, 8:06 PM

Good comparison, Austin and C-Bus are nearly the same size. (1.5 mil to 1.7 mil) But C-Bus has an NHL team, so I think Austin could support one too, since that wouldn't compete against UT.

I completely forgot that Columbus has an NHL team. However they in an area where it actually snows and near states where hockey is on par with football and basketball....

NBTX11

Mar 1, 2007, 8:25 PM

I completely forgot that Columbus has an NHL team. However they in an area where it actually snows and near states where hockey is on par with football and basketball....

There are LOTS of NHL teams in areas that don't snow, so that's not really a good excuse. For example, Miami, Tampa, Raleigh, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, etc. etc. etc. The NHL would be supported as much in Austin as any of those cities. Maybe moreso because it would be the only pro game in town.

7Towers

Mar 1, 2007, 8:27 PM

The city of Austin will never build a high dollar arena that is needed to attract a NHL or NBA team. Ditto on the NFL or MLB stadium. Austin may one day have the population to attract one of those teams but I don't see a stadium referendum passing in the next 25 years. I agree with the fact that MLS might be the right pro-franchise fit for Austin, but I don't see them coming in with a sports hungry heavily hispanic population down in San Antonio. Also, the University of Texas will put all its might in any of these teams coming in on their territory.

Trae

Mar 1, 2007, 10:16 PM

in terms of what? In a way they can't support the NHL? I completely disagree if that's what you are trying to say.

I don't think there are many hockey fans in Austin. Nashville and Raleigh are closer to the areas where hockey is popular. It could be a Dallas-Fort Worth situation if Austin got an NHL team.

Trae

Mar 1, 2007, 10:17 PM

There are LOTS of NHL teams in areas that don't snow, so that's not really a good excuse. For example, Miami, Tampa, Raleigh, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, etc. etc. etc. The NHL would be supported as much in Austin as any of those cities. Maybe moreso because it would be the only pro game in town.

It snows every year in these cities.

Trae

Mar 1, 2007, 10:19 PM

Yes I am sure. When Harberger was elected, a reporter asked him what he would tell the MLS (whether to put a team in SA), and he told them "I would tell them goodbye". I believe that is a direct quote. Talks immediately broke off. Everyone knows Harberger is only interested in bringing in the NFL, MLB or nothing. Until then it was a done deal with the previous mayor, who wanted to bring in MLS. They had news conferences and such announcing that they were beginning play at the alamodome in whatever year that was.

That's him. SA could have had year-round sports. If a franchise wants to come to your city, why not take it? SA is not LA.

KevinFromTexas

Mar 1, 2007, 10:55 PM

I don't think there are many hockey fans in Austin. Nashville and Raleigh are closer to the areas where hockey is popular. It could be a Dallas-Fort Worth situation if Austin got an NHL team.

Well, Austin has the Icebats. That has to count for something fan-wise with hockey.

NBTX11

Mar 2, 2007, 12:34 AM

It snows every year in these cities.

The one or 2 inches of snow Dallas averages a year doesn't make them more prone to ice hockey.

What about Tampa. There were NO ice hockey fans before the NHL put a team there, and now they are HUGELY successful (sellouts galore in the St Pete Times Forum). I know, I used to live there. Build it and they will come.

sammyk

Mar 2, 2007, 2:40 AM

Tampa has a lot of transplants. They show up when their team visits and are usually Lightning fans as well so I'd say there were hockey fans there. Similar to Raleigh.

Nashville seemed to get a lot of incentives from the city to make it work for ownership but even they are hinting at relocation even as they are the #1 team in the league at the moment.

Snow in Dallas did not make the Stars successful. Deep pocketed ownership and a winning team did.

Phoenix, I don't know what is going on there or what their attendance is like but the team has been crap for many years.

The SoCal teams do well simply because of the huge market they're in. Adding Gretzky back in the day did big things for them too.

NBTX11

Mar 2, 2007, 3:41 AM

Tampa has a lot of transplants. They show up when their team visits and are usually Lightning fans as well so I'd say there were hockey fans there. Similar to Raleigh.

Yes, Tampa does have a lot of transplants, but ever since the Lightning got good a few years ago, it's mostly lightning fans in the arena, not fans of opposing teams.

sammyk

Mar 2, 2007, 3:59 AM

Right because most of those transplant hockey fans adopted the Lightning as their own. Point is that a decent amount of hockey fans existed in the area.

JRCool

Mar 2, 2007, 8:42 PM

Um, wow, is anyone seriously trying to say that hockey is more succesful in cities that have alot of snow? The Dallas Stars are a HUGE hockey team, and cold weather is very uncommon there.

Baseball and Football are both commonly played outside, and prefer warmer dryer weather, but do you see the NFL staying away from Chicago or Seattle or other cold wet places?

If the NHL didn't come to Austin just because its not cold, that would be rediculous.

Anyway, that would be awesome if they did, I love hockey! And the Ice Bats are pretty succesful so thats a good sign.