Sports in Austin

[electricron]

Originally Posted by PartyLine

Nashville has 2 Pro Teams Hockey and NFL

Thanks, I'll correct my earlier post.

But the point I wanted to make is still valid.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

LA now has football.

Seattle does not have basketball. Sonics moved to OKC years ago.

Thanks, I'll correct my earlier post.

But the point I wanted to make is still valid.

[brando]

The Aztez will cancel their season for the 2nd consecutive year. Look at a 0% chance Austin will get an MLS team in the next 5 years when they can't even field a 3rd tier league team.


http://www.mystatesman.com/news/spor...017-too/nr6nd/

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by brando

The Aztez will cancel their season for the 2nd consecutive year. Look at a 0% chance Austin will get an MLS team in the next 5 years when they can't even field a 3rd tier league team.


http://www.mystatesman.com/news/spor...017-too/nr6nd/

Who can't field it? This one particular owner who wants a handout?

The Aztex want to own a stadium (the article mentions renting the rugby one is basically off the table, even if it existed already).

But they also don't want to pay to build it. And you know Epstein can afford it.

[Jdawgboy]

And this my friends is why Austin doesn't have any pro team sports and probably won't for the foreseeable future.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

And this my friends is why Austin doesn't have any pro team sports and probably won't for the foreseeable future.

I agree. Austin didn't build a minor league baseball stadium, they didn't build a minor league basketball arena that could be shared with a minor league hockey, and if they will not build a minor league soccer stadium. I think it's safe they will not build a minor or major league football stadium. Austin's suburbs have come through for minor league baseball, basketball, and hockey, I suggest the minor league soccer team should look outside Austin's city limits too. And major league soccer only needs a stadium that can hold 20,000 fans - minor league soccer would probably be happy with a stadium that holds just 10,000 fans.

So Austin's history of providing sports teams a facility to play in is absolutely the worse it can be.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

I agree. Austin didn't build a minor league baseball stadium, they didn't build a minor league basketball arena that could be shared with a minor league hockey, and if they will not build a minor league soccer stadium. I think it's safe they will not build a minor or major league football stadium. Austin's suburbs have come through for minor league baseball, basketball, and hockey, I suggest the minor league soccer team should look outside Austin's city limits too. And major league soccer only needs a stadium that can hold 20,000 fans - minor league soccer would probably be happy with a stadium that holds just 10,000 fans.

So Austin's history of providing sports teams a facility to play in is absolutely the worse it can be.

For purposes of sports, Austin (the metro) _did_ build a baseball stadium. And an arena.

If you discount suburbs, there's many "major" cities without sports.

[drummer]

That's true, the suburbs are king in a lot of more recent constructions for sports facilities around the country. Not across the board, but a lot of them. Metro areas still win by virtue of people having a sports team, but I still wish more were built in downtown areas. Dallas only has NBA and NHL in Dallas proper. NFL and MLB are in Arlington; MLS is in Frisco.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by drummer

That's true, the suburbs are king in a lot of more recent constructions for sports facilities around the country. Not across the board, but a lot of them. Metro areas still win by virtue of people having a sports team, but I still wish more were built in downtown areas. Dallas only has NBA and NHL in Dallas proper. NFL and MLB are in Arlington; MLS is in Frisco.

True, suburbs have come through building pro sport facilities, but the central city participates almost everywhere too. So many facilities are located in the Central cities that the list would be smaller if we listed just the teams with homes in the suburbs.
San Francisco 49ers
California Angels
Anaheim Ducks
Texas Rangers
Dallas Cowboys
Miami Dolphins
Washington Redskins
NY Jets
NY Giants
New England Patriots
Soon to be Los Angeles Rams
Minnesota Wild in St.Paul*
*Would we consider Ft. Worth a suburb of Dallas?
That's 11 or 12 teams out of 122 teams, around 10%. That means the remaining 90% have homes in the central cities with the majority of them located in or very near to their central business districts.

[drummer]

Wow, I didn't realize those numbers. Thanks for bringing that up, electricron.

To answer your other question, I would not consider St. Paul a suburb of Minneapolis and I wouldn't consider Fort Worth a suburb of Dallas either. I would say that Fort Worth has been greatly influenced by Dallas and the economy/culture/etc. there, but it has also been a significant contributor in its own right.

[AustinYIMBY]

Originally Posted by electricron

True, suburbs have come through building pro sport facilities, but the central city participates almost everywhere too. So many facilities are located in the Central cities that the list would be smaller if we listed just the teams with homes in the suburbs.
San Francisco 49ers
California Angels
Anaheim Ducks
Texas Rangers
Dallas Cowboys
Miami Dolphins
Washington Redskins
NY Jets
NY Giants
New England Patriots
Soon to be Los Angeles Rams
Minnesota Wild in St.Paul*
*Would we consider Ft. Worth a suburb of Dallas?
That's 11 or 12 teams out of 122 teams, around 10%. That means the remaining 90% have homes in the central cities with the majority of them located in or very near to their central business districts.

There are a couple more in the 'burbs.
Buffalo Bills (Orchard Park)
Arizona Cardinals (Glendale)
Detroit Pistons (Auburn Hills)
Florida Panthers (Sunrise)
Arizona Coyotes (Glendale)

For the sake of stadiums being in the metro central cities argument, I would definitely consider Minneapolis-St Paul, DFW, Tampa-St Petersburgh, and NYC-Queens-Brooklyn-Bronx being central cities.
That brings it to about 13% in the suburbs, so you point still stands. But there are a lot of stadiums that are outside of the CBDs.

For comparison, here are the MLS stadiums outside of the central cities:
Colorado Rapids (Commerce City)
New England Revolution (Foxborough)
New York Red Bulls (Harrison, NJ)
Real Salt Lake (Sandy)
LA Galaxy (Carson)
Philadelphia Union (Chester)
Chicago Fire (Bridgeview)
FC Dallas (Frisco)


So that is 8 out of 20 or 40% of the the MLS teams playing in the suburbs. This percentage should decrease though, as new teams are added, because of the leagues emphasis on expansion teams having downtown stadiums.

Personally, I favor stadiums being built as close to DT as possible, but being built into that environment in a way that encourages use 365 days of the year and compliments the surrounding areas. I might have said it here before (in my limited number of posts), but I really love the new Red Wings arena being built adjacent to the CBD of Detroit. The stadium will be surrounded by new mixed-use, including retail, office, hotel, residential and medical/education so there is guaranteed activity everyday. As a huge added bonus, the stadium will have a station for the new light rail down Woodward, right in front of the stadium, making for easy transportation options.

I think something like the Red Wings stadium would be an awesome use of the Statesman property. I think you could make it work with a soccer stadium, which would also double as a great large concert venue. Adding a modern retractable roof, could really extend the usable time for the facility. Then, adding VMU development surrounding the stadium would get the needed density for that area and would create nice street interactions. Hopefully with functioning transit in the future for Riverside Dr, the stadium would be in perfect position to allow people to get to the facility without a car.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by kadingpa

There are a couple more in the 'burbs.
Buffalo Bills (Orchard Park)
Arizona Cardinals (Glendale)
Detroit Pistons (Auburn Hills)
Florida Panthers (Sunrise)
Arizona Coyotes (Glendale)

For the sake of stadiums being in the metro central cities argument, I would definitely consider Minneapolis-St Paul, DFW, Tampa-St Petersburgh, and NYC-Queens-Brooklyn-Bronx being central cities.
That brings it to about 13% in the suburbs, so you point still stands. But there are a lot of stadiums that are outside of the CBDs.

For comparison, here are the MLS stadiums outside of the central cities:
Colorado Rapids (Commerce City)
New England Revolution (Foxborough)
New York Red Bulls (Harrison, NJ)
Real Salt Lake (Sandy)
LA Galaxy (Carson)
Philadelphia Union (Chester)
Chicago Fire (Bridgeview)
FC Dallas (Frisco)


So that is 8 out of 20 or 40% of the the MLS teams playing in the suburbs. This percentage should decrease though, as new teams are added, because of the leagues emphasis on expansion teams having downtown stadiums.

Personally, I favor stadiums being built as close to DT as possible, but being built into that environment in a way that encourages use 365 days of the year and compliments the surrounding areas. I might have said it here before (in my limited number of posts), but I really love the new Red Wings arena being built adjacent to the CBD of Detroit. The stadium will be surrounded by new mixed-use, including retail, office, hotel, residential and medical/education so there is guaranteed activity everyday. As a huge added bonus, the stadium will have a station for the new light rail down Woodward, right in front of the stadium, making for easy transportation options.

I think something like the Red Wings stadium would be an awesome use of the Statesman property. I think you could make it work with a soccer stadium, which would also double as a great large concert venue. Adding a modern retractable roof, could really extend the usable time for the facility. Then, adding VMU development surrounding the stadium would get the needed density for that area and would create nice street interactions. Hopefully with functioning transit in the future for Riverside Dr, the stadium would be in perfect position to allow people to get to the facility without a car.

Adding the additional five teams to my earlier list makes 16, out of 122, and changes the percentage to 13% vs 10%. That's 87% of the Big 4 pro sport leagues having a home base in the central city.

I didn't include MLS because I don't consider it anywhere close to being the top soccer league in the world. While we might call it Major League Soccer, we all know it should be considered a Minor League.

Which brings up a discussion I recently seen on TV. They were suggesting the USA soccer team will never be as good as teams from South America, Asia, Africa, or Europe as long as our players come from suburbia. We need to concentrate building soccer in the inner city, where sports is considered as a means to escape property. Therefore, I suggest more MLS teams should make central cities their home.

[brando]

That's true, the suburbs are king in a lot of more recent constructions for sports facilities around the country. Not across the board, but a lot of them. Metro areas still win by virtue of people having a sports team, but I still wish more were built in downtown areas. Dallas only has NBA and NHL in Dallas proper. NFL and MLB are in Arlington; MLS is in Frisco.

The trend in the last 25 years is that stadiums are moving closer to the city core. The MLS usually wants a stadium with a lot of surrounding fields so that is harder to accommodate.

Austin is the 11th largest (in square miles) city in the country. However, it's the 33rd or so highest populated metro area. So what would be "the suburbs" for other cities in distance would be the equivalent of the edges of Austin. Boston is less than 1/5 the area of Austin. So a lot of these cities still have stadiums within 12-15 miles of downtown whereas you would have to drive a lot further to get to a San Marcos which is the only place developed enough to pay for a professional stadium. Round Rock is still a generation away IMO.


Also, it's really dependent on the sport. Baseball stadiums have all moved closer into the city because there are so many games. Football isn't as big a deal since there are only 10 games a year. Also, both football and the MLS require a HUGE amount of land which is hard to find in the city but many places still find a way to do it.

[brando]

Originally Posted by Novacek

For purposes of sports, Austin (the metro) _did_ build a baseball stadium. And an arena.

If you discount suburbs, there's many "major" cities without sports.

Ehhhhhhhh that's a little misleading to say they built a "baseball stadium" and "arena". While technically true, the little league stadiums that are a small fraction of the cost of professional venues. Dell Diamond was about 25 million and modern baseball stadiums are about 500 million. Cedar Park was about 50 and modern arenas are between 250-500 million. Also, Round Rock only contributed $7.35 million dollars to Dell Diamond. That's hardly "building a baseball stadium."

I mean what you are saying is technically true but highly misleading.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by brando

Ehhhhhhhh that's a little misleading to say they built a "baseball stadium" and "arena". While technically true, the little league stadiums that are a small fraction of the cost of professional venues. Dell Diamond was about 25 million and modern baseball stadiums are about 500 million. Cedar Park was about 50 and modern arenas are between 250-500 million. Also, Round Rock only contributed $7.35 million dollars to Dell Diamond. That's hardly "building a baseball stadium."

I mean what you are saying is technically true but highly misleading.

It's still $7.35 million Austin wasn't willing to spend.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by brando

Ehhhhhhhh that's a little misleading to say they built a "baseball stadium" and "arena". While technically true, the little league stadiums that are a small fraction of the cost of professional venues. Dell Diamond was about 25 million and modern baseball stadiums are about 500 million. Cedar Park was about 50 and modern arenas are between 250-500 million. Also, Round Rock only contributed $7.35 million dollars to Dell Diamond. That's hardly "building a baseball stadium."

I mean what you are saying is technically true but highly misleading.

No it's not.

The post I was responding to was

Originally Posted by electricron

I agree. Austin didn't build a minor league baseball stadium, they didn't build a minor league basketball arena that could be shared with a minor league hockey, and if they will not build a minor league soccer stadium. I think it's safe they will not build a minor or major league football stadium. Austin's suburbs have come through for minor league baseball, basketball, and hockey,

So the context was (minor league) baseball stadium and (minor league) arena.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by brando

So a lot of these cities still have stadiums within 12-15 miles of downtown whereas you would have to drive a lot further to get to a San Marcos which is the only place developed enough to pay for a professional stadium. Round Rock is still a generation away IMO.

Round Rock is twice the size of San Marcos. And Cedar Park is larger than San Marcos.

I don't have the figures available, but I'm guessing same for their budgets.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by brando

So a lot of these cities still have stadiums within 12-15 miles of downtown whereas you would have to drive a lot further to get to a San Marcos which is the only place developed enough to pay for a professional stadium. Round Rock is still a generation away IMO.

It's the reverse. Round Rock is substantially more wealthy and would have a much easier time getting a pro sports team due to proximity to transportation (toll roads and I-35), population centers (closer to Austin proper, in line with the trend toward building closer to downtowns, relative to San Marcos at least), a history with sports (Round Rock Express, even if their contribution was minimal), closer ties to true metro-wide wealth via employment patterns (Dell, for instance), and the actual presence of sports fans (San Marcos is a university town, with interest mainly concentrated on their own insular teams). Furthermore, Round Rock does, as mentioned by others, have a larger tax base.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Furthermore, Round Rock does, as mentioned by others, have a larger tax base.

Maybe larger than San Marcos, but no where close to the tax base of Austin.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by electricron

Maybe larger than San Marcos, but no where close to the tax base of Austin.

Well of course