HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > San Antonio


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2007, 1:23 AM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,381
It is still 20 million. That 12 million you gave out does not include Riverside-San Bernardino. That area alone can support its own NFL team (according to a news report published a while back). The whole Los Angeles area (income and population wise) can support seven.

You are also exaggerating a bit on the hundreds of miles. The counties may be large, but the LA area does not skip over land (unless a mountain range is in the way), like SA does (and really any southern city).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2007, 1:27 AM
NBTX11 NBTX11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Posts: 299
^^OK, I won't argue that point, I'll admit LA is absolutely huge, and can support more than one team obviously. I just get upset to those who say SA CAN'T do it, when I know that is not true.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2007, 1:34 AM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,381
San Antonio can definitely do it (especially with support from the Austin metro), but Los Angeles can really do it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2007, 9:00 AM
bresilhac's Avatar
bresilhac bresilhac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 39
Los Angeles has had its chances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae View Post
San Antonio can definitely do it (especially with support from the Austin metro), but Los Angeles can really do it.
If Los Angeles can "really" do it why did two franchises vacate that city for other locations in your opinion?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2007, 12:29 PM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
If Los Angeles can "really" do it why did two franchises vacate that city for other locations in your opinion?
We have been back and forth on this. Just read pages six-seven.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2007, 10:59 PM
NCB's Avatar
NCB NCB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
If Los Angeles can "really" do it why did two franchises vacate that city for other locations in your opinion?
Old stadium. That, however, isn't a problem for L.A. because the NFL will simply build one themselves in order to get a team there. It's pitiful for that to have to happen in a metro that rich and that large, but it looks like that will be the case. The City of Los Angeles doesn't really care about having an NFL team, the people of Los Angeles don't really care about having an NFL team, it's the NFL that wants Los Angeles to have a team. That's proven by the fact that the NFL is willing to pretty much compeltely fund a new state of the art stadium themselves. Again, it's sad, but it's the truth.
__________________
There is only one New Orleans!

Last edited by NCB; Feb 27, 2007 at 11:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2007, 4:01 AM
bresilhac's Avatar
bresilhac bresilhac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 39
Los Angeles lacks enthusiasm for the NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae View Post
We have been back and forth on this. Just read pages six-seven.
I've read pages six and seven and you're still off the mark on Los Angeles. You and others who think that LA is the default relocation spot for the Saints should they move seem to be unaware that the Los Anegeles citizenry is almost if not totally apathetic when it comes to NFL football. The question I posed was a rhetorical one more than anything else. Of course LA is a huge market. Would they support yet another team in their midst? Probably so, if only marginally. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they have not built any new stadiums in decades and have no group ready to finance a team should one choose to relocate there. San Antonio has all of the above and except for being only a fraction of the size of LA has everything else necessary to succeed as an NFL city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2007, 12:30 PM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,381
How old is the Alamodome, and when was it last renovated? Looks like when SA built a new stadium, the NFL turned away, still.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2007, 3:37 PM
sakyle04's Avatar
sakyle04 sakyle04 is offline
COGSADCAJA, VP and CGO
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 78201
Posts: 1,369
Quote:
How old is the Alamodome, and when was it last renovated? Looks like when SA built a new stadium, the NFL turned away, still.
The Alamodome is a spry teenager at 14 years old.
It has been consistently kept up, but I don't think I'd say it has been renovated. Little improvements are made from time to time to keep it as current as possible (video boards, paint).

Honestly, it's like having a well kept up 1993 Toyota Corolla. With tune-ups, paint jobs, replacement parts, etc. the car can be kept running and quite useful. But put up against a 2007 Corolla, it would look like a piece of junk no matter how well it was kept up.

The average NFL stadium lasts about 30 years, so the Alamodome has reached it's half-life. Texas Stadium, Astrodome, Silverdome, Giants Stadium, Veterans Stadium, and on and on... All of these were once state of the art and are now relics, either replaced are being replaced.

The NFL rejected (rightly) SA in '94 because we weren't an NFL city. We resembled Austin of today - vibrant and dynamic, but not quite to NFL standards. Certainly there were some politics involved as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2007, 3:41 PM
bresilhac's Avatar
bresilhac bresilhac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 39
Alamodome information

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae View Post
How old is the Alamodome, and when was it last renovated? Looks like when SA built a new stadium, the NFL turned away, still.
The Alamodome was completed in 1993. Various renovations have been done including the adding of some 13 luxury boxes to the original 39 and a new paint job begun last year. The Alamodome is a beautiful structure that should be the home of an NFL team. Imo this will happen within five years. Maybe sooner if Benson opts out of the current contract he has with Louisiana.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2007, 3:46 PM
bresilhac's Avatar
bresilhac bresilhac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 39
Alamodome information

I'm a real believer when it comes to NFL in San Antonio. Passed over numerous times in the past decades San Antonio has now what it takes to be a viable NFL city. More than what is necessary actually. The key is convincing the league and other owners what we already know to be true down here.

Last edited by bresilhac; Feb 28, 2007 at 3:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2007, 9:14 PM
NBTX11 NBTX11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
The Alamodome was completed in 1993. Various renovations have been done including the adding of some 13 luxury boxes to the original 39 and a new paint job begun last year. The Alamodome is a beautiful structure that should be the home of an NFL team. Imo this will happen within five years. Maybe sooner if Benson opts out of the current contract he has with Louisiana.

I agree. The Alamodome gets knocked by those in other cities who have never set foot in it. It is actually a VERY nice facility, but just lacks the luxury boxes NFL teams are looking for. Other than that, it is a very nice stadium, and not a thing wrong with it. Although certainly not on par with stadiums being built now like Jerry Jones' 1 billion dollar stadium. I think it cost about 186M back in 93 when built, whatever that equates to in today's standards.

Last edited by NBTX11; Feb 28, 2007 at 10:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2007, 10:03 PM
LouisianaRush's Avatar
LouisianaRush LouisianaRush is offline
Baltimore
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 2,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBTX11 View Post
I think it cost about 186K back in 93 when built, whatever that equates to in today's standards.
There is no way the Alamodome cost 186k in 1993.
__________________
Geaux Tigers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2007, 10:13 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
friends don't lie
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the upside down
Posts: 49,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisianaRush View Post
There is no way the Alamodome cost 186k in 1993.
I believe he meant $186 million. I've seen that price listed before at Wikipedia.
__________________
In America, today, it's not that truth has lost, it's that political bias has been accepted as a legitimate answer to every issue one struggles with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2007, 10:20 PM
NBTX11 NBTX11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Posts: 299
Yes, sorry. 186 MILLION not thousand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > San Antonio
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 PM.

     

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