  Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 495 Registered: 11-2006 |
This is an article (haven't read the entire article - busy handing out candy) that seems to make a very strong case for what is possible. It is the Verizon Center in D.C. which has been debated on this board by Dan and others. Particularly interesting is Abe Pollin's strong, very strong statement as to what effect the arena had on D.C. "As Verizon Center begins its 10th year as home of three professional sports teams, city and business leaders are quick to credit the arena for sparking a remarkable revitalization of the District's downtown corridor. The neighborhood around what now is Verizon Center was largely vacant a decade ago. The businesses that did operate there brought little in the way of life, let alone revenue, to the city. But in the decade since the arena opened, developers have invested more than $5 billion in the area. Nearly 10 million square feet of office space has appeared, along with scores of new restaurants, theaters and museums. "I knew it would be a catalyst, but I had no idea what a fantastic thing the arena would be for the city," Mr. Pollin said. "I had no idea it would be a catalyst to actually turn the city around." And as the city completes work on the Nationals' new ballpark in Southeast, Verizon Center is looked upon as a model for how sports facilities can be used to save other ailing parts of the city." The article is from the Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com /apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20 071029/METRO/110290048/1004 My take: When someone says new arena or stadia are bad deals, my answer is: "It depends". Some stadia (like the new Nationals Stadium) I knew would be a big success before they even broke ground. Others, I simply scratch my head and ask, "Why?" | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 1647 Registered: 11-2003 |
I'll agree. Though the city makes a big difference, when they opened AT&T (or Pac Bell or whatever other 12384 names it used to be) in San Francisco, there were some old empty warehouses and a bunch of open fields. That was in about 2000 I think. Walking from the train station about 4 blocks there wasn't really anything. Today the entire area is filled in with many more high-rise residental towers under construction. There are restaurants, a supermarket, I think a gym. New MUNI lines. Really a very very cool little neighborhood. The difference in just about 5-6 years was shocking. Of course it only applies in cities really. Can't say the Palace really created a great neighborhood up in AH.... It also needs to be in or adjacent to areas that people are interested in developing anyway. For instance the United Center here in Chicago is on the far fringes of a pretty solid neighborhood, but for ages was out there all alone in a rather shady spot. Even today it still isn't all that great. Going back to the Chicago Stadium days and they've had what, like 80 years in the same area. Hasn't worked so well in that instance either. Maybe because even though it is in Chicago, the neighborhood isn't that great and there isn't anything to do in the area before/after. Gotta be close to some already fun areas anyway. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3902 Registered: 02-2005 |
Has a lot to do with the product, too. A good team, in good surroundings, will create a boom. The stadium must have close-at-hand existing buildings and development parcels on which it could rub off on. If a stadium is surrounded by parking lots (and many new stadiums are, like the Cell in Chicago and Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia) or cut off from neighborhoods by freeways, the benefits will be much less. Comerica/Ford Field were close enough to established and ready to flourish downtown districts to make a big difference. On the other hand, they are hemmed in by freeways, and even the narrow cut of the Fisher Freeway kind of divides Brush Park from the Stadia. We could have also substituted surface parking for more structures and underground lots. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3646 Registered: 10-2003 |
Verizon Center doesn't explain the other non-arena-having neighborhoods in DC that have seen equally impressive development numbers. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 496 Registered: 11-2006 |
quote: "Verizon Center doesn't explain the other non-arena-having neighborhoods in DC that have seen equally impressive development numbers." Dan, I'll grant you that D.C. has shown strong development pretty well across the board in many areas. I do feel that with 'west of 14th street' in great shape that Verizon Center 'anchored' the old downtown, and that allowed the areas BETWEEN to develop faster. Now the new Nationals Stadium is like putting gasoline on a small brush fire. It took an area showing redevelopment life and it completely took off like a rocket. I won't go so far as saying that a new arena will start a 5B development boom for Detroit, but a new arena behind the Fox or Gistok's "north of 75" location will trigger a mini-boom. I've always felt one of these two locations would be a big plus for Detroit. RE: Mackinaw's post - Agree and that is why I felt a site like Tiger Stadium would not work. Baseball and football and hockey need to be downtown for maximum positive growth. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3653 Registered: 10-2003 |
I think there are other factors at work, too. One shouldn't expect to be able to plop an arena in downtown Detroit and expect magic to happen. Part of the reason that Verizon Center has been so successful is its integration into the street grid. It fronts on three city streets on three sides, and connects to an adjacent building (built post-arena) on the fourth. Hence, it's very pedestrian-oriented. The other factor, which *will* be a problem in Detroit, is parking. Surrounding a new arena with parking will help to kill off any development before it starts, as it does at Comerica Park. I'm cautiously optimistic. It would be wise to research and adopt "best practices" from other cities so as not to replicate mistakes. I also don't particularly care that a huge chunk of downtown Detroit would be largely populated only at night, due to the limited mix of uses. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 497 Registered: 11-2006 |
two, er, three thoughts, Dan: 1). D.C. is blessed by a tremendous office market which Detroit is not. Many thousands work near Verizon and many thousand entertainment fans patronize Verizon. (e.g., I'd love to have the profits from the nearby Hooters - it has a great lunch crowd - and then has great arena crowds). 2). Det will have the synergy of a near complete entertainment/sport zone of CoPa, Ford Field, new hockey arena, etc. Complete with weekend traffic jams but not the office workers of a D.C. BUT what can Detroit do? It has to deal with the office market essentially as it is. 3). I'm not sure what 'best practices' could be learned applicable to a hockey arena, but putting it anywhere other then around CoPa and F.F. doesn't make sense to me. Without eminent domain, Ilitch has his options limited. (D.C.'s new Nationals Stadium is being built with the benefit of eminent domain). (Message edited by emu_steve on November 01, 2007) (Message edited by emu_steve on November 01, 2007) | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 392 Registered: 09-2007 |
Tiger Stadium was close enough to Downtown Detroit though. It did have a solid neighborhood and district surrounding it back in the day. Unfortunately, it was anchored by Downtown and once Downtown went down the drain, so did the surrounding areas. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 393 Registered: 09-2007 |
Besides, the difference in the Hockey Arena's case is that it will be in Downtown Detroit. It can be easily accessed from virtually every side of town and has plenty of room for more retail development and parking. You come up on Grand River from I-75 EB or Woodward WB as they will be the popular routes (I didn't forget Woodward). Will it create further impact? Of course. It will help speed up the development along Park Ave. and create a more vibrant entertainment district. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3671 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I don't buy this. Proximity does not equate with "synergy". Typically, for an arena event, i.e. Wings game, Comerica Park and Ford Field are going to be empty. Even there were both an arena event (concert) and a ball game at the same time, the aggregate of attendees is arithmetic, not geometric. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 498 Registered: 11-2006 |
Dan, maybe 'synergy' was not the best word. What I was thinking is that with an arena crowds of 20K (arena), 40K (CoPa) and 60K+ (Ford Field) that will put very significant crowds in the area for sports/entertainment probably every week of the year. That means a lot to business such as bars, eateries, parking structures, etc. which would make their business much less seasonal. I think that would encourage more such establishments, and others, to open. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1271 Registered: 11-2003 |
"Surrounding a new arena with parking will help to kill off any development before it starts, as it does at Comerica Park." Can you give an example to support this statement? Development is limited around CoPa for a couple of reasons 1) I-75 on one side 2) Ford Field on the other 3) Woodward on one side with buildings ALREADY there and the DAC/ Elwood on the other. | ||
Corktownmark Member Username: Corktownmark Post Number: 354 Registered: 12-2004 |
Viziondetroit -- that statement lacks well er vision. The ball parks have increased business to the south as far as Jefferson and across both I75 and Woodward. Actually even as far as corktown benefits from Hockey, baseball and football. BTW I have been convinced that the Hockey arena will be north of I75 for a long time. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3679 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Woodward and I-75 do not abut Comerica Park. There are surface parking lots between Woodward and Witherell, and Montcalm and I-75. This is land that screams to be developed. Instead, there is a dead zone of one-block width around 50% of the stadium's perimeter. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 499 Registered: 11-2006 |
My ?: What has been the impediment to developing those surface parking lots? Has Ilitch not got an offer he likes? Dan, based on your knowledge of development, what would fit best in those two blocks (I'd think those blocks are tricky - need to have the right development there). | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3690 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^I think anything that increases the diversity of uses in the area, as well as expands the "occupied hours", would be helpful--especially on the block between Woodward and Witherell. I know the office market is a bit weak in Detroit right now, but residential appears to be doing well. Ideally, any buildings constructed would be mixed-use, with retail at street level. It might be too soon for that location to have a Gallery Place-type building with the movie theaters, bowling alley, and whatnot. Frankly, I think anything would be an improvement over the surface parking. The trick, of course, would be making the numbers work. | ||
Lifeinmontage Member Username: Lifeinmontage Post Number: 14 Registered: 10-2007 |
I think it is important to keep whatever is built on the surface lots between CP and Woodward at a limited height. While the parking lots are a huge detriment to potential development of the (I hate saying this) "Foxtown" area, reducing the visibility of the stadiums could be counter-productive to the purpose of development. *Two things I AM NOT saying are that (a) the parking lots are fine and dandy, or (b) that if we can't see the stadiums from Woodward, attendance at sporting events will suffer. |
