MLB stadiums

[SmoothieX]

^ I still think the Marlins attendance will go up when they get the new stadium. I'm convinced that part of the reason they don't get many big crowds now is that Sun Life Stadium simply sucks. You get a stadium that sucks, your crowds will suck. The new stadium will look better, play baseball better, and have a fucking ROOF, all of which can be nothing but a good thing.

Shea was a total dump, and plenty of people showed up when the team was playing well.

Citi Field is a beautiful new park, but with the team being mediocre at best this year, attendance is down.

Simply building a new stadium won't grow your hardcore fan base, merely attract the casual fan who wants to see the new digs.

 

[Timby]

New stadiums aren't about increasing the bottom lines of the localities they're in, they're about increasing the organization/owner's bottom line with more suites, PSLs, renegotiated concessions deals that are more favorable to the organization, tax credits and breaks for building, pieces of the parking revenue, and so on.

No shit.

I cannot put into words just how infuriated I get when I hear about public financing for stadiums and how cities need to "step up" to "keep their teams." It's disgusting that when Peter Magowan presented his plan to privately finance the construction of AT&T Park, it was the first entirely privately financed major stadium in several decades. (Don't get me started on Jerry Jones and his Dallas monstrosity, after Jones held the city hostage for more tax increases and more money in bonds.)

And I'm going to punch the next person who says that building a new stadium creates jobs. It doesn't. It creates work, a temporary job for construction workers. There are almost no new jobs created by closing one stadium and opening another; at best, it's a minor net increase, and at worst, it's a lateral move, and in any event, they're minimum-wage, shit jobs.

I mean, Christ, Wrigley Field is a dump. The place is a shithole, even with the renovations, and its existence is artificially limiting the Cubs' revenue streams because of the attendance limits. It's got a lot of charm, and I love seeing games there (even though I haven't gone to the stadium in half a decade), but I'll be the first to say that it's not a good field, anymore. The seating, in particular, is execrable.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I mean, Christ, Wrigley Field is a dump. The place is a shithole, even with the renovations, and its existence is artificially limiting the Cubs' revenue streams because of the attendance limits. It's got a lot of charm, and I love seeing games there (even though I haven't gone to the stadium in half a decade), but I'll be the first to say that it's not a good field, anymore. The seating, in particular, is execrable.

So what would you suggest the Cubs do? You say it's not a good field, but you also disapprove of new stadiums...

(I would love to go there myself, actually. Am planning on making a trip to Chicago next year to see Wrigley and the Cell.)

 

[Captain Ice]

New stadiums aren't about increasing the bottom lines of the localities they're in, they're about increasing the organization/owner's bottom line with more suites, PSLs, renegotiated concessions deals that are more favorable to the organization, tax credits and breaks for building, pieces of the parking revenue, and so on.

No shit.

I cannot put into words just how infuriated I get when I hear about public financing for stadiums and how cities need to "step up" to "keep their teams." It's disgusting that when Peter Magowan presented his plan to privately finance the construction of AT&T Park, it was the first entirely privately financed major stadium in several decades. (Don't get me started on Jerry Jones and his Dallas monstrosity, after Jones held the city hostage for more tax increases and more money in bonds.)

And I'm going to punch the next person who says that building a new stadium creates jobs. It doesn't. It creates work, a temporary job for construction workers. There are almost no new jobs created by closing one stadium and opening another; at best, it's a minor net increase, and at worst, it's a lateral move, and in any event, they're minimum-wage, shit jobs.

I mean, Christ, Wrigley Field is a dump. The place is a shithole, even with the renovations, and its existence is artificially limiting the Cubs' revenue streams because of the attendance limits. It's got a lot of charm, and I love seeing games there (even though I haven't gone to the stadium in half a decade), but I'll be the first to say that it's not a good field, anymore. The seating, in particular, is execrable.

Totally right. The ONLY time building a stadium increases jobs in a given city at all is when that city didn't have a team or stadium to begin with. Building a new stadium in a town that already has a team/stadium only preserves the jobs that are currently there.

 

[Timby]

I mean, Christ, Wrigley Field is a dump. The place is a shithole, even with the renovations, and its existence is artificially limiting the Cubs' revenue streams because of the attendance limits. It's got a lot of charm, and I love seeing games there (even though I haven't gone to the stadium in half a decade), but I'll be the first to say that it's not a good field, anymore. The seating, in particular, is execrable.

So what would you suggest the Cubs do? You say it's not a good field, but you also disapprove of new stadiums...

Show me anything I said that indicates I disapprove of new stadiums.

My problem is publicly financed stadiums. With one notable exception, sports teams in the United States are private operations. They should pay for their own facilities. I find it nauseating that Commissioner Selig has, in the past, threatened city governments and said teams would move if they didn't get financing for new stadiums from those cities, and later blackballed Peter Magowan after he dared to not take Selig's tack of getting as much public financing as possible, but rather gathered his own private money to get his stadium built.

Especially in a shitty, shitty economy, to say that a city should be responsible for spending hundreds of millions of dollars to provide a new facility for a sports team owned and operated by a private entity is absolutely obscene.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I understand your position. The only thing I can think of is that since a stadium can be enjoyed by the public, it might be within the realm of possibility to ask that public to share in its construction.

Of course, my obsession with baseball (and new stadiums in general* ) means that I'm hardly objective on this. I admit that. But even for those who don't agree - our taxes pay for a lot of things that we personally don't use, in any case.

* really though I only push for new stadiums when they are obviously needed. The A's, Marlins and Rays, for example. And my own city, for the College World Series.

 

[the 4th hanson bro]

^ I understand your position. The only thing I can think of is that since a stadium can be enjoyed by the public, it might be within the realm of possibility to ask that public to share in its construction.

I enjoy going to the movies and having hot wings and beer. By that argument, movie theaters and bars should be, at least partially, funded with taxpayer dollars, no?

Of course, my obsession with baseball (and new stadiums in general* ) means that I'm hardly objective on this. I admit that. But even for those who don't agree - our taxes pay for a lot of things that we personally don't use, in any case.

And most, if not all, of the things paid for by taxes that I may not use don't inflate the net worth of a person or corporation.

* really though I only push for new stadiums when they are obviously needed. The A's, Marlins and Rays, for example. And my own city, for the College World Series.

The main reason that teams think they need a new stadium is to keep up with the Joneses in terms of revenue opportunities such as suites, parking, and increased concession takes. Do any of those stadiums inhibit the play on the field or does the game proceed just fine? Has the attendance outgrown the capacity of the park? (Probably true for the CWS)

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Do any of those stadiums inhibit the play on the field or does the game proceed just fine?

Ask Joe Maddon. He could tell you about all the balls that ricocheted off those damned catwalks and cost the Rays a game (I have personally witnessed this).

And not only *has* the CWS attendance outgrown Rosenblatt, but the NCAA basically said to us, either you build a new stadium or we pull the CWS out of Omaha. You think we could afford that?

No team should be forced to play in a stadium that obviously sucks. You don't miss the cookie cutters, do you? Aren't you glad they're gone?

 

[Squiggy]

In the current economic reality, commercial credit is still tight, consumer spending low, and overall confidence is low. Will a lot of new development "spring up" like flowers after a rain around a new stadium?

Looking at the total lack of development around Washington's Nationals Park...I can tell you the answer is a resounding "no".

 

[the 4th hanson bro]

Do any of those stadiums inhibit the play on the field or does the game proceed just fine?

Ask Joe Maddon. He could tell you about all the balls that ricocheted off those damned catwalks and cost the Rays a game (I have personally witnessed this).

How many a season? Less than 5? Over the course of a 162 game season, that's a miniscule effect at best. And since the field is the same for both teams, the Rays have the same likelihood of benefiting from it, so it's a wash.

If the team has a crappy stadium, will other teams not schedule games there?

And not only *has* the CWS attendance outgrown Rosenblatt, but the NCAA basically said to us, either you build a new stadium or we pull the CWS out of Omaha. You think we could afford that?

So the city of Omaha allowed itself to be blackmailed? How much did the NCAA, who makes a ton of money on the CWS, bring to the table? How much did the ownership of the minor league team bring? How much was left for the taxpayers of Omaha to bear?

The return on investment is inversely proportional to the risk/ amount invested by the major parties.

It's all reward, no risk for the NCAA. They stomp their foot and get a new stadium that will cost the city how much to maintain and operate on an annual basis?

No team should be forced to play in a stadium that obviously sucks. You don't miss the cookie cutters, do you? Aren't you glad they're gone?

No team is being forced to play in a stadium that sucks, but municipalities shouldn't be forced to come up with funding to build a new stadium when the team threatens to leave town over it. Sports franchises that are valued in millions and even billions of dollars shouldn't need to threaten their host to get a new stadium built, especially when the economics don't support it. If you want a new stadium built, build it yourself - take on the risk and raise your own money.

Sports teams contribute greatly to the fabric and feel of a city or region. I can't imagine not growing up with the Denver Broncos, but in terms of the economic benefit the numbers don't add up.

Nationals' ballpark, by your model, should have restaurants, bars, and shopping galore all fighting for space with rents at a premium and revenues through the roof. Current reality is somewhat different.

 

[Timby]

Don't forget the rather ridiculous tax exemptions, along with the benefit of being part of a de facto monopoly, that team owners get.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Okay, time to lighten the mood a bit.

In all the years since AT&T Park has been in existence, has no one in San Francisco ever noticed this?

Flux, who is a well known Giants fan, thinks it's intentional. I'm inclined to agree with him...

 

[Timby]

Okay, time to lighten the mood a bit.

In all the years since AT&T Park has been in existence, has no one in San Francisco ever noticed this?

You've brought this up already.

 

[SmoothieX]

It's an ad on a wall next to a distance marker. I'm sure a few computer geeks get their jollies over it, but 99% of the people could care less.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm watching the Mets/Cubs game right now...and I got to thinking.

Wrigley Field looks like a fine place, and I'd love to see it in person (next year I plan to). And of course there's not a chance in hell that the Cubs would ever get away with replacing it - Cubs fans would never allow it, not even if the team comes up with every red cent themselves. I'm just curious as to whether Cubs fans would at least put up with the team putting in a Jumbotron or some other similar kind of display. Is there some reason this hasn't happened yet? Would it block the view of all those fan made rooftop bleachers?

AFAIK, Wrigley is a registered landmark, so that may be the reason they haven't added a jumbotron - no alterations to the stadium structure can be made anymore? (Would the landmark status also prohibit the Cubs from building a new stadium?)

I mean, it's no big deal really, just curious. You Cubs fans here, do you think they *should* put in a normal sized display? Are they working on one?

 

[Timby]

The landmark status wouldn't prohibit the team from building a new stadium. It only prevents them from bulldozing Wrigley and building a new stadium on the old land.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Ah. I see.

So, as a Cubs fan, what's your thoughts on the whole jumbotron thing? Do you think they need one?

 

[the 4th hanson bro]

I think there's a certain value and charm to being able to go to a stadium and enjoy the game and location without feeling like you're inside a damn pinball machine.

There's nothing wrong with just going to the game and watching it on the field with your warm beer and cold hot dog in your lap. What does a jumbotron add to the experience anyway?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Yeah, thought so.

(Don't mistake me bringing up this question for saying that Wrigley is too old and/or needs to be replaced. I don't think that. As I said, I've never been there, but even I can tell it's a fine place to play, despite my well known obsession with new stadiums!)

Okay, then, if not a jumbotron, how about *any* kind of video display board? Even Fenway, which is older than Wrigley, has one.

 

[Starbreaker]

The charm in Wrigley is that's it's different. Most people are just there to eat a hot dog and drink a beer anyway.