HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted May 9, 2018, 6:56 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
Considering the average value of a MLS team has more than doubled from 100 million to 220 million in 3 years, I'd say it's more about the money than the sport itself. Granted this is a USL team not MLS... but $5 million seems pretty cheap. Many of the most successful USL teams eventually become MLS teams.

Also, average attendence per league for 2017/18

NFL 67,405
MLB 30,023
MLS 22,106
NBA 17,830
NHL 17,446

Definitely a large and growing market for soccer.
Is this nationally or just the Chicago market? If the latter, I'd expect the NHL numbers to be significantly higher... which leads me to believe its the former.
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted May 9, 2018, 7:07 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
Also, average attendence per league for 2017/18

NFL 67,405
MLB 30,023
MLS 22,106
NBA 17,830
NHL 17,446

Definitely a large and growing market for soccer.
MLS teams only play 34 games a year. MLB has 162, NBA and NHL have 82, and the NFL has 16. This stadium will need lots of alternative programming to make it profitable to build. Chicago Red Stars, the local women's soccer team, would be an option. Maybe they are angling for an eventual second MLS team in Chicago as LA and NYC each have two.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted May 9, 2018, 7:21 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 987
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
Is this nationally or just the Chicago market? If the latter, I'd expect the NHL numbers to be significantly higher... which leads me to believe its the former.
Definitely national numbers, the Bulls average 21k a game(best in the NBA, and yes even while tanking)
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted May 9, 2018, 7:22 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 987
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj View Post
MLS teams only play 34 games a year. MLB has 162, NBA and NHL have 82, and the NFL has 16. This stadium will need lots of alternative programming to make it profitable to build. Chicago Red Stars, the local women's soccer team, would be an option. Maybe they are angling for an eventual second MLS team in Chicago as LA and NYC each have two.
The original design looks like it would be amazing for the mid-tier concert market, so that could help somewhat, but obviously only for the warm weather months
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted May 9, 2018, 7:22 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,034
Those are national numbers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted May 9, 2018, 7:27 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,415
I have been waiting for Rahm to make a play to bring the Fire into the city limits. That could still happen at some point I bet.. Rezkoland or something
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted May 9, 2018, 7:48 PM
BorisMolotov's Avatar
BorisMolotov BorisMolotov is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 531
Quote:
MLS teams only play 34 games a year. MLB has 162, NBA and NHL have 82, and the NFL has 16. This stadium will need lots of alternative programming to make it profitable to build. Chicago Red Stars, the local women's soccer team, would be an option. Maybe they are angling for an eventual second MLS team in Chicago as LA and NYC each have two.
Don't forget that there are other soccer competitions going on all the time which could fill up spots (World Cup qualifying, CONCACAF Gold Cup, international friendlies, etc.) With the rate of growth of the sport in this country there could soon be other tournaments set up for North American/South American teams ala the Champions league, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted May 9, 2018, 7:58 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
Considering the average value of a MLS team has more than doubled from 100 million to 220 million in 3 years, I'd say it's more about the money than the sport itself. Granted this is a USL team not MLS... but $5 million seems pretty cheap. Many of the most successful USL teams eventually become MLS teams.

Also, average attendence per league for 2017/18

NFL 67,405
MLB 30,023
MLS 22,106
NBA 17,830
NHL 17,446

Definitely a large and growing market for soccer.
Enough for two MLS teams in Chicago? I know this team would be in the USL, but if it did transition to MLS, can Chicago support two soccer teams? The Fire have the history and existing fan base, but this stadium's location could very easily undermine all of that...especially if the Fire are tied up at Toyota Park for another 15-20 years. It'll be interesting to see what happens here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted May 9, 2018, 8:23 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 6,037
My conservative comment was pure jest, but some of you never disappoint in your ability to misread, over-analyze and otherwise smother nuanced satire.
__________________
My signature proved way too controversial. Fiddling while Rome burns...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted May 9, 2018, 8:53 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 987
It was hardly "nuanced", but nice job at patting yourself on the back.
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted May 9, 2018, 9:56 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 6,037
That makes me feel appreciated. Thank you
__________________
My signature proved way too controversial. Fiddling while Rome burns...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted May 10, 2018, 4:05 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,717
If the Fire ever leaves Toyota Park, Bridgeview is absolutely, utterly screwed. They will fight tooth and nail to keep the team.

It’s honestly not a bad location, it’s pretty centrally located for Chicago’s Mexican and Central American populations. I assume that was much of the rationale for the location. Unfortunately it does nothing for urbane, educated white soccer fans who mostly live on the North Side and north suburbs.

(Honestly I’d be lobbying for an Orange Line extension if I was Bridgeview’s mayor... It could be done on the cheap, with at-grade tracks along the north side of Clearing Yard.)
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted May 10, 2018, 12:52 PM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 981
^ I always thought The Fire should have located next to Sox park or United Center. Of course no one was offering a free stadium there. United Center location would have accelerated westward recovery. Both sites have ample transit.

Unfortunately The Fire are stuck on a long term in Bridgeview and Bridgeview is up to its hat brim in bond dept.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted May 10, 2018, 2:17 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs View Post
^ I always thought The Fire should have located next to Sox park or United Center. Of course no one was offering a free stadium there. United Center location would have accelerated westward recovery. Both sites have ample transit.

Unfortunately The Fire are stuck on a long term in Bridgeview and Bridgeview is up to its hat brim in bond dept.
The only way the Fire can leave Bridgeview before 2036 (when the lease is up, iirc) is if both parties mutually agree to end the agreement. The only way that will happen is if Bridgeview is paid off. As the value of MLS teams continue to increase that payoff becomes increasingly plausible.

As an example, Orlando City, a relatively new team to the league who have a brand new stadium in downtown Orlando, was recently valued at $490 million. An increase of $250 million since their 2016 valuation of $240 million.

Surely the value of Chicago Fire would grow considerably with a well located stadium that could be marketed appropriately. At some point it'll be worth it to pay off Bridgeview.

I'm hoping that this deal with USL and Ricketts is just a motivating tool to get the Chicago Fire owner to sell the team at a reasonable price to Ricketts, who would then buyout Bridgeview and move the team to Lincoln Yards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted May 10, 2018, 3:14 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,034
^ While I love the thought of the Fire playing in Lincoln Yards, the truth is that traffic will be a complete and total disaster.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted May 10, 2018, 3:28 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,355
this could have all been solved with just letting the Fire continue to play at Soldier Field. its a public facility after all, but pretty sure the Bears were the ones who were crying about them tearing up "their" field

we dont need so many silly single use facilities
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted May 10, 2018, 3:30 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
^ While I love the thought of the Fire playing in Lincoln Yards, the truth is that traffic will be a complete and total disaster.
Traffic around every sporting venue is a complete and total disaster when its game day. If its THAT bad then maybe those people should use alternative modes of transport to get to the stadium? Unlike at Toyota Park, there actually are alternatives. The traffic wouldn't impact me in the slightest because I would never in a million years drive to a stadium that is a less than a 15 minute walk from multiple rail lines. Even if you don't live near one of those rail lines, park somewhere along the line and ride it in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted May 10, 2018, 3:36 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
Traffic around every sporting venue is a complete and total disaster when its game day. If its THAT bad then maybe those people should use alternative modes of transport to get to the stadium? Unlike at Toyota Park, there actually are alternatives. The traffic wouldn't impact me in the slightest because I would never in a million years drive to a stadium that is a less than a 15 minute walk from multiple rail lines. Even if you don't live near one of those rail lines, park somewhere along the line and ride it in.
For you and me sure, for the vast majority of Americans? Not gonna happen. It will be a complete traffic shit show.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted May 10, 2018, 3:38 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
For you an me sure, for the vast majority of Americans? Not gonna happen. It will be a complete traffic shit show.
Again, who cares? Fuck them.

Should Wrigley Field be demolished because it's not easy to get to by car?

It's strange to me that someone is arguing in favor of auto-centric development here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted May 10, 2018, 3:44 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,650
Sounds like a good argument to not build much, if any, parking for the stadium.

If you don't want people to drive don't build facilities that enable them do it.

Living in the city I'd never consider driving to this just like I wouldn't Wrigley or the United Center. People will figure it out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:49 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.