I will quibble that I like the location of Ford Field (unless the entire city of Detroit is a disqualifier), but in large part you're correct about the horrible locations of NFL stadiums sapping the life out of the experience they're supposed to create. There are the NFL die-hards that will sit all day outside waiting for a game to start, but normal (casual) people have no interest in going to a big ugly building surrounded by bigger, uglier, parking lots. Generally, if a stadium does not have a parking lot of significant size anywhere in its vicinity, that means it's been placed well.
The NFL teams will probably be fine, because the stadium experience is not what that league is really about anymore, but looking at smaller leagues like the NHL and MLS, poorly placed stadiums are literally killing teams (just for example, the Ottawa Senators stand a serious chance of moving for this exact reason, and the Phoenix Coyotes just did move for this reason). These soulless suburban buildings create soulless suburban environments, and who would want any part of that? In smaller leagues where gate revenue is still a bigger part of the equation, this will seriously hurt the bottom line.
Teams should make attempts to work a little harder with the cities they represent to put their buildings in better locations, because regular humans don't want to drive 40+ mins out of the city to some big parking lot somewhere. Allowing people to simply walk (or take a train, or anything that isn't driving) to the games will bring the identity of the city back into their teams, by allowing locals to actually see these games, which is why I brought up Ford Field earlier. It's a very easy place to get to, which I think is an underrated reason why that team actually feels like it represents Detroit. Again, to the money hungry corporate NFL owner types, they probably don't care about this, but if you're an owner in a smaller league, it can be (and just was in Phoenix) the difference between life and death.
From about 2004-2010 many new MLS stadiums were placed in suburbs to mixed results, but the Chicago Fire's move out to Bridgeview, Illinois in 2006 turned disastrous over the course of the 2010s. It's basically been mandated since around 2012 that new stadiums end up in within city limits in MLS.
I went to the Columbus Crew/FC Cincinnati match in Columbus last year and was amazed at how easy it was for attendees to basically spend an entire day downtown anchored by the match. Those matches feel like big events, even if it's the middle of the season.
That's exactly the point. Sports teams and buildings can be friends and valued parts of the cities they represent. It's only the money hungry nature of owners that so often turns teams and cities into sworn enemies.
Sports teams don't bring any money to the locals (it's pretty much been proven that they simply move money from other parts of the city into the stadium district), but what they do is create events that the locals can be happy about in the way that you said. Downtown atmosphere means something, and it can really be bolstered by a downtown sports arena.
This is why I brought up Ford Field above. It's right beside the interstate, which is eh, but it's also right downtown, which is fantastic. Downtown Detroit is not fun most of the time, but it can feel a lot less dreary when there's a Lions game going. Just imagine what that atmosphere would be on those days if the stadium was 40 minutes worth of drive away. Not quite the same.
My local MLS stadium (Toronto) is a hybrid of this. It's not particularly well located, sandwiched in between two vital roads to the city transport network, making walking a non-option, but at least it's in the city limits, and Toronto has spent 50 years (back to when the baseball team was still playing in the location) trying to make up for the poor location by giving the place its own above ground train station, plus a streetcar stop, making it very easy to get to, even if it's in quite the poor place. This is not as good as actually being downtown like the hockey, basketball, and baseball teams are, but at least it shows that the city is trying to work with the soccer people.
There's no point to that story other than to show that even if the worst happens and you end up with a very poorly located building because that's the only place that could take it, if you don't burn your bridges with your city they can still work with you to try to make your situation easier as a sports team or fan. It's only when you rake the city over the coals, only to end up moving to the suburbs anyway, when life sucks for everybody.
I'm not up to date with MLS stadium controversies, but I suspect Chicago did nothing to help the Fire soccer team, for reasons that maybe you know. Maybe you can tell me some more, but there's a reason Phoenix was not willing to lift one finger to help the Coyotes. There's a reason Ottawa is not helping the Senators, and do you think Calgary is going to help the Flames after everything they've put their city through? Burning bridges as a sports team hurts more than these owners think it does. There's a reason all these NFL stadiums stink so much, because the city isn't willing to lift so much as their pinky finger to help, because the bridge is burned.
In sum, things can be easy, or they can be very very hard. Sports owners seem to like the hard way, which is why these stadiums are often terrible, lifeless, asphalt savannahs that are hard to get to and hard to leave. Cities like Toronto or Chicago, which have train stations in the literal stadium for maximum ease of access (and therefore maximum integration between team and city), show what can be done if teams just work together with their cities, but alas, it seems as if the cycle of teams burning bridges and cities punishing them the best they can will continue forever.
Yeah, I was gonna ask if there was serious discussion about building on the old Candlestick site. As an outsider, I don't recall hearing anything. Although windy, it did seem geographically to suit the residents of San Fran well.
I will quibble that I like the location of Ford Field (unless the entire city of Detroit is a disqualifier), but in large part you're correct about the horrible locations of NFL stadiums sapping the life out of the experience they're supposed to create. There are the NFL die-hards that will sit all day outside waiting for a game to start, but normal (casual) people have no interest in going to a big ugly building surrounded by bigger, uglier, parking lots. Generally, if a stadium does not have a parking lot of significant size anywhere in its vicinity, that means it's been placed well.
The NFL teams will probably be fine, because the stadium experience is not what that league is really about anymore, but looking at smaller leagues like the NHL and MLS, poorly placed stadiums are literally killing teams (just for example, the Ottawa Senators stand a serious chance of moving for this exact reason, and the Phoenix Coyotes just did move for this reason). These soulless suburban buildings create soulless suburban environments, and who would want any part of that? In smaller leagues where gate revenue is still a bigger part of the equation, this will seriously hurt the bottom line.
Teams should make attempts to work a little harder with the cities they represent to put their buildings in better locations, because regular humans don't want to drive 40+ mins out of the city to some big parking lot somewhere. Allowing people to simply walk (or take a train, or anything that isn't driving) to the games will bring the identity of the city back into their teams, by allowing locals to actually see these games, which is why I brought up Ford Field earlier. It's a very easy place to get to, which I think is an underrated reason why that team actually feels like it represents Detroit. Again, to the money hungry corporate NFL owner types, they probably don't care about this, but if you're an owner in a smaller league, it can be (and just was in Phoenix) the difference between life and death.
From about 2004-2010 many new MLS stadiums were placed in suburbs to mixed results, but the Chicago Fire's move out to Bridgeview, Illinois in 2006 turned disastrous over the course of the 2010s. It's basically been mandated since around 2012 that new stadiums end up in within city limits in MLS.
I went to the Columbus Crew/FC Cincinnati match in Columbus last year and was amazed at how easy it was for attendees to basically spend an entire day downtown anchored by the match. Those matches feel like big events, even if it's the middle of the season.
That's exactly the point. Sports teams and buildings can be friends and valued parts of the cities they represent. It's only the money hungry nature of owners that so often turns teams and cities into sworn enemies.
Sports teams don't bring any money to the locals (it's pretty much been proven that they simply move money from other parts of the city into the stadium district), but what they do is create events that the locals can be happy about in the way that you said. Downtown atmosphere means something, and it can really be bolstered by a downtown sports arena.
This is why I brought up Ford Field above. It's right beside the interstate, which is eh, but it's also right downtown, which is fantastic. Downtown Detroit is not fun most of the time, but it can feel a lot less dreary when there's a Lions game going. Just imagine what that atmosphere would be on those days if the stadium was 40 minutes worth of drive away. Not quite the same.
My local MLS stadium (Toronto) is a hybrid of this. It's not particularly well located, sandwiched in between two vital roads to the city transport network, making walking a non-option, but at least it's in the city limits, and Toronto has spent 50 years (back to when the baseball team was still playing in the location) trying to make up for the poor location by giving the place its own above ground train station, plus a streetcar stop, making it very easy to get to, even if it's in quite the poor place. This is not as good as actually being downtown like the hockey, basketball, and baseball teams are, but at least it shows that the city is trying to work with the soccer people.
There's no point to that story other than to show that even if the worst happens and you end up with a very poorly located building because that's the only place that could take it, if you don't burn your bridges with your city they can still work with you to try to make your situation easier as a sports team or fan. It's only when you rake the city over the coals, only to end up moving to the suburbs anyway, when life sucks for everybody.
I'm not up to date with MLS stadium controversies, but I suspect Chicago did nothing to help the Fire soccer team, for reasons that maybe you know. Maybe you can tell me some more, but there's a reason Phoenix was not willing to lift one finger to help the Coyotes. There's a reason Ottawa is not helping the Senators, and do you think Calgary is going to help the Flames after everything they've put their city through? Burning bridges as a sports team hurts more than these owners think it does. There's a reason all these NFL stadiums stink so much, because the city isn't willing to lift so much as their pinky finger to help, because the bridge is burned.
In sum, things can be easy, or they can be very very hard. Sports owners seem to like the hard way, which is why these stadiums are often terrible, lifeless, asphalt savannahs that are hard to get to and hard to leave. Cities like Toronto or Chicago, which have train stations in the literal stadium for maximum ease of access (and therefore maximum integration between team and city), show what can be done if teams just work together with their cities, but alas, it seems as if the cycle of teams burning bridges and cities punishing them the best they can will continue forever.
Wasn't part of the problem that forced the 49ers into Santa Clara was that there was no viable options to build in San Francisco?
Candlestick was good enough to rebuild on for many years, until it wasn't good enough once Santa Clara came calling. https://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=2654743
Yeah, I was gonna ask if there was serious discussion about building on the old Candlestick site. As an outsider, I don't recall hearing anything. Although windy, it did seem geographically to suit the residents of San Fran well.