AUSTIN | Moody Center (U.T. Basketball Arena) | Complete [Archive]

Syndic

Feb 9, 2015, 2:36 AM

I saw someone talking about this on Horns247 and, admittedly, this is what caused me to sign up for a Statesman subscription. I'm really interested in this project. Replacing the Erwin Center will be one of the biggest things to ever happen to Austin. The question is: what will the city of Austin do when UT doesn't need a big arena that doubles as a premier entertainment venue? The answer seems to be that they'll have to build their own, which is the best thing for Austin in the long run, IMO.

Here's the article:

Will parking lot become home to a new Texas basketball arena?

Posted: 12:00 a.m. Saturday, Feb. 7, 2015

By Brian Davis, Ralph K.M. Haurwitz and Lilly Rockwell - American-Statesman Staff

University of Texas officials have discussed building the new basketball arena on the parking lot immediately south of the Mike A. Myers Stadium and Soccer Field, multiple school officials said.

It’s premature to say that location is the front-runner, Texas Men’s Athletic Director Steve Patterson said. Still, it is one of a half-dozen that are getting serious consideration from an initial list of 20 possible spots.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/sports/college-basketball/will-parking-lot-become-home-to-a-new-texas-basket/nj6NM/#00daa657.3419960.735637

Summary for those who can't read it:

Anonymous inside sources suggest that this is the location that's generating the most interest inside the athletic department. But there's all kinds of issues to be worked out such as turnover with the city government and at UT. Also, the site could be needed for future Dell Medical School expansion. So it's too early to (publicly, at least) name this site the leader. The South Shore is also mentioned as a possible site for a multipurpose arena but that's more speculation on the Stateman's part than anything coming from the city or from UT.

brando

Feb 9, 2015, 7:47 AM

lzppjb

Feb 9, 2015, 12:30 PM

Looking at the lot south of Myers Stadium, I think Red River would have to be re-routed to make room for an arena.

I'm split on this issue. It'd be a smart idea for CoA to team with UT to build an arena. It'd save them money in the long run. But as an avid UT fan, I just don't want my team playing in a 20,000-seat half-empty cavern for half their games. That ruins the atmosphere.

Syndic

Feb 9, 2015, 4:00 PM

It's possible it's an intentional leak to scare the council and the city that UT is willing to just build their own small arena.

That's a good point. It very well could be. And it should scare city officials. Because without UT as a partner, the city will have to fund an arena all by themselves and that's no easy task considering all of the things the city has on its wish list to pay for.

But I'm with lzppjb. I'm tired of the cavernous arena for UT basketball games. I would like to see something more intimate. And this spot is perfect. It's right there by the soccer stadium, baseball stadium, and football stadium. And students could get there more easily. They wouldn't have to cross MLK Blvd.

On the other hand, I don't want to see Austin not have a legitimate multipurpose arena and them paying for one on their own seems very difficult to imagine. Maybe they can pair with a sponsor and give them naming rights in exchange for them paying for part of the cost?

lzppjb

Feb 9, 2015, 4:40 PM

How about pairing with MLS and getting an indoor soccer arena? :D

hereinaustin

Feb 9, 2015, 5:12 PM

But I'm with lzppjb. I'm tired of the cavernous arena for UT basketball games. I would like to see something more intimate. And this spot is perfect. It's right there by the soccer stadium, baseball stadium, and football stadium. And students could get there more easily. They wouldn't have to cross MLK Blvd.

I'd still rather see Gregory gym renovated. Sure, it won't ever fit 20k people, but it could probably be expanded to fit ~10k (it currently supports 4k). That would be the *best* spot to get students to come to the games.

The COA needs to find a way to build it's own venue.

IluvATX

Feb 9, 2015, 5:39 PM

I think the best approach would be for UT to build its own, smaller arena on UT property and let COA build its own arena elsewhere. I like the site east of the swim center. It complicates things way too much for UT and COA to collaborate on something that would either be too large or too small. There will have to be 2 separate arenas.

Austin1971

Feb 9, 2015, 6:11 PM

StoOgE

Feb 9, 2015, 6:46 PM

It's possible it's an intentional leak to scare the council and the city that UT is willing to just build their own small arena. Austin would not only lose out on a way to build a modern arena but it would lose the one they have now which is way to small for a city as large and with the same profile as Austin.

That's a lot of concerts, ACC graduations and misc events the city would lose.

It seems fair that the city and UT split the cost of an area given the civic value it serves. I'm betting Zimmerman is going to vote against with the impression that no one in his district goes to concerts.

From what I've been told by family members who are reasonably big money donors.. this is not a scare tactic.

The University is planning on building an on-campus arena of a size that is reasonable for use as a basketball facility for the University with a large chunk of funding being re-routed towards the South-end zone expansion of the football stadium.

They aren't going to increase the size of the stadium so much as build more box seats and several more club level seats that bring in real money for the University and Longhorn foundation.

I think any chance of partnering with UT for an arena may have sailed for the city... the question then becomes does it make sense to build a giant concert venue in Austin without a major sports team tied to it?

oberthewhat

Feb 10, 2015, 1:18 AM

Yes lets get a NHL team and an NBA team. :cheers:

The ATX

Feb 10, 2015, 4:14 AM

Yes lets get a NHL team and an NBA team. :cheers:

We won't get an NBA team with the Spurs so close. Hockey is a tough sell in Texas, but the Stars seem to be doing well in Cedar Park.

oberthewhat

Feb 10, 2015, 1:42 PM

My wife and I go to the Texas Stars games often. They tend to almost sell out for every game. Its an AHL club that is owned by the Dallas stars. It'd be unlikely to get an NHL team. Although, Texas could use another.

Austin1971

Feb 17, 2015, 7:15 AM

StoOgE

Feb 17, 2015, 4:33 PM

By Wescott Eberts@SBN_Wescott on Feb 16, 2015, 5:06p

How Steve Patterson navigates the funding and construction of the next Horns hoops facility will help define his legacy.

http://www.burntorangenation.com/2015/2/16/8047843/texas-could-still-partner-with-city-of-austin-on-new-basketball-venue

Patterson's legacy is already defined.

Rocket Pack guy at football games, DJ's at Basketball games. Consultant speak everywhere, Disney consulting group telling a bunch of long-time fans and alums what it is they really want at a football game. Going so far as to say publicly that winning isn't what people will remember, it's if someone was nice to them. Or they saw an idiot in a jetpack evidently.

This clown is turning UT sports into everything wrong with the NBA and stripping any character that college athletics has away.

Hopefully he isn't long for this job, but I worry that the football team turning things around will give him job security, and revenue will likely increase on his watch.

Syndic

Feb 17, 2015, 5:49 PM

Oh, I thought you were joking.

I'm not seeing how rocket pack guys at football games, DJs at basketball games, or getting Disney consulting group to tell long-time fans and alums what they want at a football game are bad things. For one thing, everybody does the rocket pack guy or parachute guy thing. It's commonplace in college football. It absolutely does not diminish Texas football culture in any way. Second, UT basketball games have been dead, boring events for years because DeLoss catered to blue-haired retirees who just want to have a nice calm evening and not make any noise rather than instilling an atmosphere of youth, fun, and noise. What Patterson really could do to cement his reputation as a positive, culture-changing figure is increase the size of the student section and drive some old the old fogies higher in the stands where they belong. Thirdly, same goes for football. Most long-time football fans and alumni are terrible fans. They're snotty and entitled. They don't think anything is required of them. When I go to games, I don't sit down or shut up for the entire game, no matter who is around me. These assholes leave shortly after half-time, are detached from the team, don't know any of the players' names, and don't think fans impact the game. They need to be told what to do, if not kicked out of the stadium completely. I blame DeLoss Dodds for being too old, soft, arrogant, and clueless. Just having the name "Texas" isn't going to be enough. Other programs are raising their profiles and to keep up we need to make some changes. If older folks can't cope with that change, they can keep their butts in Houston or wherever they live. We don't need them.

lzppjb

Feb 17, 2015, 6:25 PM

Jetpack guy is not done everywhere. It's stupid and gimmicky. I hated it the first time I saw it. I'm surprised they rolled him out there for every damn home game.

I feel less strongly about the DJ. It's stupid, but whatever. Basketball needs a lot of work, so the DJ does not rank too highly on my list of hatred currently.

Syndic

Feb 17, 2015, 7:03 PM

Jetpack guy is not done everywhere. It's stupid and gimmicky. I hated it the first time I saw it. I'm surprised they rolled him out there for every damn home game.

It has been done by Michigan (http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2013/8/31/4681490/michigan-wolverines-jet-pack-college-fooball), the winningest and most historic football program in the country. And I don't see how it's any different than parachute guy, which everyone does.

Anyway, kids like stupid gimmicks. Maybe we did it too much but that's no serious knock on Patterson. And, let's be honest, we needed as many attractions to get people out to the ballpark as possible last year because the team sucked.

lzppjb

Feb 17, 2015, 7:18 PM

And Michigan sucked last year. I don't care if they did it. Did they do it every dang game?

And you answered the issue with your last statement. Win. That's all we need. Win and stick with traditions. I hope to God they nix the jetpack BS next season. Every fan I know agrees. Only kids and their moms (not even all moms) enjoy that.

I go to a game to watch good football. I want to hear the band and I want to yell my head off. I want to see Bevo, Smokey, Big Bertha and the Pom Squad. I don't pay money to see Jetpack guy or hear Taco Bell gongs from a giant, deafening jumbotron.

Move the band back to a prominent location. Destroy Godzillatron. Until that can be done, at least turn the damn thing down and don't play crappy music over our band and fans. Move Bevo to where he can be seen.

Fans are not encouraged to make noise because they are constantly drowned out by the advertisements blaring out all the time. Jetpack guy is an advertisement for Mighty Fine, btw.

I used to go to every home game, some road games and the bowl game. I go to maybe 1 or 2 games a year now. Them sucking has had a part to play in that. But so does the atmosphere. It sucks.

LiveattheOasis

Feb 19, 2015, 8:39 PM

How about pairing with MLS and getting an indoor soccer arena? :D

I don't know if it would be indoor, but you have to think an MLS size venue at the Statesman HQ spot for big shows and soccer matches would be incredible.

That location would probably win Austin the 24th team, if only we get Michael Dell involved ...

dphogan

Feb 19, 2015, 8:56 PM

lzppjb

Feb 20, 2015, 7:40 AM

The only thing keeping that spot from handling an arena/stadium is the traffic. Entrance and exit would all be right on Congress. It'd be a bit of a nightmare. They'd have to build that bridge to connect Trinity to the east side of the lot.

KevinFromTexas

Feb 20, 2015, 9:18 AM

Traffic can be pretty bad on Congress already, particularly heading south in the afternoon. That could pose some problems for downtown-bound traffic. The bridge across the river would pretty much be a must to help out.

Jdawgboy

Feb 20, 2015, 9:10 PM

It wouldn't be a bad idea to have one more road crossing the river Like Trinity. For a city as large as Austin is there's only 5 crossings through the central core. That's counting 35 and MoPac. That leaves just 3 street crossings Congress, South 1st and Lamar. Lamar is a congested mess since the city will not widen it so that leaves South 1st and Congress, both of which are fast becoming heavy congested crossings even after peak traffic.

We do need a rail crossing there's no doubt about that but it may be in the interest of the city to consider one more road bridge especially if an arena is built on the American Statesman site and even if one is not built, a bridge would still be needed.

This post has touched on transportation moreso than the arena specifically though I mention it because while I love the idea of an arena OR an MLS stadium where the Statesman is now, I do agree about the logistics of traffic hence why I feel that another road bridge is inevitable in any event.

Tech House

Feb 21, 2015, 4:29 AM

The Statesman plot is the perfect spot for an arena and MLS type venue. It needs to be a join effort between the City of Austin, Travis County, and UT.

Both venues could be used for concerts/trade shows/conventions and would be a great move for Rodeo Austin in my opinion.

:yuck: If a "D.P. Hogan" ever runs for city council I will not vote for him/her! It would be a tragic waste of an incredible location with epic views if that spot were paved over with parking and a massive sports venue. And this isn't NIMBY-speak, I live north of 183. There is so much potential for that land, I just can't see putting anything monolithic on it. Of course if you're a sports enthusiast then the concept is appealing but the majority of people don't care about UT basketball, soccer, or rodeos. OMG, rodeo in downtown Austin, what a nightmare! I think you're confusing Austin with Fort Worth.

lzppjb

Feb 21, 2015, 5:10 AM

Ok...

In addition to the standard competitive events, the Star of Texas Fair and Rodeo has pig races, a youth art show and a barbecue cook-off. Education is a key part of the rodeo's overall mission. The organization has provided more than $5 million in scholarships since 1981. In keeping with its community-minded focus, the rodeo started "going green" in 2010. About 120,000 pounds of livestock waste was recycled into an all-natural fertilizer. Musical acts range from Clay Walker to Rick Springfield.
http://gotexas.about.com/od/stockshowsfairs/tp/Texas-Rodeos.htm

Rodeo Austin hosts over 130 live music performances during the fifteen-day Fair and Rodeo, and is proud to bring a concert series to the Live Music Capital of the World that truly has something for everybody. From Texas country to punk rock, Rodeo Austin boasts a tremendous lineup featuring a variety of world class concerts that every fairgoer and rodeo fan can enjoy!

Award-winning recording artists take the stage each night following the ProRodeo performance in the Luedecke Arena. Past musical performances include Willie Nelson, Blake Shelton, Maroon 5, Lady Antebellum, and Nelly.
http://www.rodeoaustin.com/events/live-music/

And this year they include the Beach Boys, Boyz II Men, Panic! At The Disco, and Sublime With Rome. It's not just kickers and country, although that's obviously the majority.

deerhoof

Feb 21, 2015, 4:01 PM

Read on twitter that building the arena on the statesman site is "a done deal" but not yet confirmed by other sources.

https://twitter.com/michaelcorcoran/status/569021502785396737

https://twitter.com/evanasmith/status/569154474507444225

austin242

Feb 21, 2015, 4:38 PM

Tech House

Feb 21, 2015, 5:55 PM

I really hope the statesman is not the site of a stupid f'in arena. It would ruin this area of town more than the statesman does. As the closest neighbor to the statesman i for one will fight tooth and nail so it doesn't get built here. The only reason anybody would want a stadium built here is so they can go visit dt after the game. if you need the arena to be dt for that then i hope its not built dt because you dont belong dt with your kids who only wanna eat at some chain food joint anyways. What this neghborhood needs is a mixed use neighborhood with real character. What this city needs is the same exact thing. Build the stadium at the holly st power plant site. Better yet build it right where all the stadiums already are. Build it on ut campus, or where burger center is, or connect it to barton creek mall and then you have a mall and a stadium.

i agree, but not with Holly or Barton Creek Mall. A large public facility like this needs to be kept out of neighborhoods, which is one of many reasons I oppose the Statesman location. Most of the time it will be nothing but a hulking, hideous dead space. It's an all-or-nothing proposition, where the area is flooded with activity when there's an event, and dead when there isn't. We might as well add another convention center, except arenas are even worse. Does anyone really get anything out of the existence of the Erwin Center when they aren't attending an event there? No, it's just a waste of space. I endorse putting it right around the I-35/45 interchange in beautiful West Creeedmore, or at Loop 1 and 45 in the no-man's land of Southwest Round Rock.

SMC

Feb 21, 2015, 7:29 PM

i agree, but not with Holly or Barton Creek Mall. A large public facility like this needs to be kept out of neighborhoods, which is one of many reasons I oppose the Statesman location. Most of the time it will be nothing but a hulking, hideous dead space. It's an all-or-nothing proposition, where the area is flooded with activity when there's an event, and dead when there isn't. We might as well add another convention center, except arenas are even worse. Does anyone really get anything out of the existence of the Erwin Center when they aren't attending an event there? No, it's just a waste of space. I endorse putting it right around the I-35/45 interchange in beautiful West Creeedmore, or at Loop 1 and 45 in the no-man's land of Southwest Round Rock.

Understand where you're coming from - there are a lot of poorly designed arenas that are dead most of the time just like you say (Erwin Center is a great example). But with the right approach, an arena certainly does not have to be as dead as you describe. Finding a way to integrate some mixed uses, offices, retail, residential at the street edges would make for a much better project. A new arena needs to be very public transit accessible, too, unless creating more auto traffic is the goal. Putting something like this anywhere but downtown or downtown/adjacent would be a mistake.

KevinFromTexas

Feb 21, 2015, 8:58 PM

My biggest worry would be the traffic since Austin is so well known for not planning for effective transportation infrastructure. Other than that, I would worry about it being too suburban in character. I'd like to see it wrapped with retail, and something more than just sports jerseys and hats. I think the transportation infrastructure would have to come first for me to be ok with it, otherwise it would be a deal breaker.

Jdawgboy

Feb 22, 2015, 1:21 AM

For Austin to be a true big city, there needs to be an arena not just for sporting events but concerts and other events as well. The problem is there's not a lot of places near DT that can fit an arena. Building it away from DT is not desirable for a host of reasons and yes people who go to the arena should be able to get into DT easily if they choose what is so wrong with that?

The biggest problem as Kevin mentioned would be traffic and transportation. I'm sure there will be people against it. There's always people against everything that is proposed in this city. I also agree that the arena could be built with complementing uses so that it would be visited and used daily becoming an vibrant part of the surrounding area.

On a side note the Rodeo is one of Austin's largest events in terms of attendance up there with SXSW and ACL. I would definitely go if it was at a new arena since the Travis County Expo Center is kinda far and a hassle to get to. Heck an arena on the southside of the river would be awesome IMO.

airwx

Feb 22, 2015, 1:32 AM

I won't really have an opinion on this other than the traffic issues already mentioned until I see more detailed information. However, I'd like to see examples of stadiums that have incorporated retail or office space in the design.

Also, UT is denying they are buying the Statesman site: https://twitter.com/ralphhaurwitz/status/569228999756394496

Austin1971

Feb 22, 2015, 7:03 AM

LoneStarMike

Feb 22, 2015, 9:05 AM

A large public facility like this needs to be kept out of neighborhoods, which is one of many reasons I oppose the Statesman location.

I agree. I oppose it being built there for three reasons.

1. Traffic. It would be a nightmare.

2. It flies in the face of what the City is trying to do with the South Shore Central Vision (http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199758). At 19 acres, it's about 20% of the 97-acre South Shore Central District. I've seen conceptual plans for the area and it always showed the American-Statesman site as kind of broken up with pedestrian passageways and paseos leading to and opening up to the lake.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff158/LoneStarMike/SCWD.jpg

They're trying to provide more direct access to the lake and to make that whole 97-acre South Shore Central District more pedestrian friendly. Putting a big arena/parking lot at the AAS site is not going to achieve that.

3. It's prime real estate. I'd much rather see the area developed as hotels, condos, apartments, affordable housing, retail and parkland because those things (except for public parkland) would generate all kinds of property tax revenues for the City. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if UT buys the land and builds an arena, the City won't get any property tax revenue since the UT System is exempt from paying property taxes.

I just think it's a horrible choice of location.

Austin1971

Feb 22, 2015, 6:24 PM

Tech House

Feb 22, 2015, 6:45 PM

From the Burnt Orange Nation article:

"However, the Statesman site would be expensive, which could explain why Patterson quoted a figure of $500 million when asked about the cost of a new arena. Patterson also wants city funding and the new mayor is at least amenable to having that discussion."

Taxpayer-funded sports arenas almost always end up being a net economic drain for cities. Where they have been most successful is in those places where they're used as a catalyst for redevelopment, and this only works if there is enough momentum and potential for redevelopment to accelerate, AND the facility is designed intelligently such that it is well integrated with its context.

South Shore will redevelop in a very attractive and economically beneficial way without needing any public funds to spur it on. It's an exceptional location that should feature the view of downtown and provide many uses for as many people as possible.

It sounds like some people would like to see it become a theme park, and that's a direction it could go, but it would change the character of the city in a fairly significant way. But I can see where it could have an arena, small amphitheater, rodeo, and even theme park type features such as a ferris wheel. If you're someone who supports moving the Travis County Fair to South Shore then why not just go all the way and install the rides and a hipster version of Big Tex holding a mug of local craft IPA?

LoneStarMike

Feb 22, 2015, 7:24 PM

The Brackenridge Hospital site is 14 acres. Isn't it going to be torn down when the new medical center is finished? Put the arena/concert venue there. It'd be close IH-35 and it's not that much further from UT as the Erwin Center is now.

And yes, I know the city has plans to turn that area into an "Innovation District." Let 'em find someplace else for people to "innovate."

urbancore

Feb 22, 2015, 9:52 PM

KevinFromTexas

Feb 22, 2015, 10:13 PM

Do you really think traffic will be that much worse for an arena, than if it is developed as South Shore?.....seems to me, no matter what is developed in this spot, it will bring significant traffic with it.

I say, bring it on......just do it well.

Yes, because right now in all of downtown, the residential population is only about 10,000 or so. Any new arena would have seating somewhere on the order of 20,000 to 25,000 people. 10,000 people living downtown come and go at all hours of the day, but an arena would be a one two punch of 20,000 to 25,000 arriving and leaving at once.

I'm rarely around the DKR Stadium to know what the traffic is like there, let alone when games are happening, but the stadium has the added benefit of not really being in a neighborhood. It also has I-35 pretty close by to help with the traffic flow and "escape routes". South Congress on the other hand is nothing like I-35. Even with a bridge across the river, you'd still be funneling traffic onto Cesar Chavez and then onto I-35.

I also cringe a little about sports venues since they're expensive and become quickly outdated and never seem to be planned very well. They're almost always built on a bet that you'll see any sort of return on them. They really are a "build it and they will come" type of development. Plus, sports franchises hold cities hostage for a ransom on funding their next stadium or upgrade to their existing one. I suppose they're a necessary evil, but I've never been a fan (literally).

The ATX

Feb 22, 2015, 10:15 PM

I'm against putting the arena on the Statesman site because the South Shore Vision will make that area more vibrant than an arena/special events center. But I think arenas in general belong Downtown. With that said there are not a lot of sites left Downtown for large projects.

IluvATX

Feb 22, 2015, 10:22 PM

Yes, because right now in all of downtown, the residential population is only about 10,000 or so. Any new arena would have seating somewhere on the order of 20,000 to 25,000 people. 10,000 people living downtown come and go at all hours of the day, but an arena would be a one two punch of 20,000 to 25,000 arriving and leaving at once.

I wonder how many people commute downtown for work.

Edit: looks to be around 100,000, though I can't find a good source. This makes me think that traffic wouldn't be a huge issue since most events are outside of regular working hours.

Tech House

Feb 23, 2015, 6:38 PM

dphogan

Feb 23, 2015, 7:26 PM

The Statesman site fits perfectly. Look what Detroit is doing with their new arena. They are building it as a part of retail and office space.

http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C4&Date=20140720&Category=BUSINESS06&ArtNo=307200105&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Red-Wings-arena-project-would-add-hundreds-new-market-rate-apartments-downtown

Memphis built their arena right off Beale St and it works great for shows and sporting events.

I'm not sure why everyone is worried about it becoming a parking lot. This isn't the Astrodome. Parking garages would be build and are needed anyway. The city needs a downtown venue to keep large shows and conventions from going to San Antonio/Houston/DFW. We already have the Cedar Park Center but I'm sure no one from Buda makes the drive for a Stars game. Make it central. Build it right. It will work best for all.

Mopacs

Feb 23, 2015, 7:52 PM

lzppjb

Feb 23, 2015, 7:56 PM

If it's a joint venture, the City could put the priority on developing the surrounding area as mixed use.

I do think a downtown arena would help us land more big conventions and concerts. Would be much easier to get a DNC or RNC here with an arena in that location.

If we had an MLB team, I'd prefer a baseball stadium there. I love stadiums with downtown views, and many are going that direction.

dphogan

Feb 23, 2015, 8:12 PM

If we had an MLB team, I'd prefer a baseball stadium there. I love stadiums with downtown views, and many are going that direction.

Thank your late 90's city council for f'ing that up. Nolan Ryan and the Express wanted to put the Dell Diamond downtown, but the city didn't want the development or to give the tax breaks to make it happen. If I remember correctly, UT was ready to go in on a joint venture on that to replace the Disch as well. Baseball in downtown Austin, I can see it now and it would have been spectacular.

Mopacs

Feb 23, 2015, 8:36 PM

If it's a joint venture, the City could put the priority on developing the surrounding area as mixed use.

I do think a downtown arena would help us land more big conventions and concerts. Would be much easier to get a DNC or RNC here with an arena in that location.

That's a good point. That type of land use would be consistent with the city's vision for this district...or as close as they could get with an arena.

http://www.austintexas.gov/waterfront
ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/npzd/South_Central_Waterfront_36x48.pdf

smith_atx

Feb 23, 2015, 10:39 PM

I'd definitely be against a half-assed effort. But, if they went all out and surrounded it with mixed use development and made sure it was a dynamic inviting design, I could see it being a positive for the city.

Syndic

Feb 23, 2015, 11:24 PM

Thank your late 90's city council for f'ing that up. Nolan Ryan and the Express wanted to put the Dell Diamond downtown, but the city didn't want the development or to give the tax breaks to make it happen. If I remember correctly, UT was ready to go in on a joint venture on that to replace the Disch as well. Baseball in downtown Austin, I can see it now and it would have been spectacular.

Minor league baseball doesn't belong in downtown. Only major league.

Tech House

Feb 24, 2015, 2:29 AM

Minor league baseball doesn't belong in downtown. Only major league.

For real. A minor league ball club just screams "Austin: The Fresno of Texas!"

Most of what Austin offers is already minor league, at best. Save the energy and funds to do something right for once.

The ATX

Feb 24, 2015, 3:24 AM

For real. A minor league ball club just screams "Austin: The Fresno of Texas!"

Most of what Austin offers is already minor league, at best. Save the energy and funds to do something right for once.

Exactly. We're not trying to be like El Paso.

paul78701

Feb 24, 2015, 4:03 AM

Minor league baseball doesn't belong in downtown. Only major league.

A minor league team downtown would have been awesome. If that would have come to fruition, I'd be at the games all the time. I'd probably have season tickets. I go to one or two Express games a year. That's about it. That is mostly because I have no desire to drive all the way the hell up to Round Rock all the time.

A minor league team downtown would have been appropriate IMHO. Austin is a long, long way from being able to land/support a MLB franchise. The requirements to support MLB are probably much higher than any other professional sport. Getting enough fans to go to (and/or watch on TV) 81 homes games a year is a large task for even the biggest markets. You might be able to get some buy in from San Antonio fans, but it still would be a tough task.

I would think a NFL team would have the most chance of success. We're in football crazy Texas, there are less games, and it would likely bring fans from San Antonio. Austin-San Antonio combined could definitely support the NFL. The NFL would probably put the team in San Antonio before Austin though.

An NHL team in Austin *might* work. I'm not sure. That might require getting fan buy in from San Antonio. I doubt that would happen like it would with a NFL team.

So that leaves us with the MLS. It really is Austin's only chance at a professional sports team in the foreseeable future.

paul78701

Feb 24, 2015, 4:09 AM

Oh.. And the NBA might work?? But I highly doubt the NBA would put a franchise in Austin being that every major city surrounding us already has a franchise.

drummer

Feb 24, 2015, 7:00 AM

I'd be happy to see MLS come in. It's up and coming around the country and central Texas certainly has the market for it. I think San Antonio will probably get that first, too, however, with the Scorpions.

That said - I love the Detroit example. That's ideal for the Statesman property, but transportation infrastructure is still lacking as everyone would still need to drive their own vehicles.

Austin1971

Feb 24, 2015, 5:00 PM

[

Mopacs

Feb 24, 2015, 5:25 PM

With regards to traffic, I think this would definitely necessitate another river crossing in the vicinity (Trinity, etc.), as has been discussed and proposed. At the very least, a wide pedestrian bridge that can eventually accommodate rail. If I were there for an event, my preference would be to park on the other side of the river near the convention center and walk across. The Congress bridge alone won't suffice.

Syndic

Feb 24, 2015, 5:27 PM

I do think Austin needs to have a team with just the nickname "Bats". It just occurred to me how perfect it would be as a name/mascot in baseball. It would be a double entendre. It's original in sports. No one has the name/mascot "Bats". Just think of the uniforms. Make the colors blueish-purple, black, and white. They would be awesome. The logo practically draws itself. And we could all show up to the games in Batman outfits. As a baseball lover, I would love nothing more than to see an MLB team build a stadium on the Statesman site, with a view of downtown from the stands like other Major League cities do. For example, Pittsburgh:

http://i.imgur.com/DibXhcfh.jpg

And San Diego:

http://i.imgur.com/sX3tL8th.jpg

It's just such a patently American thing. Using ballparks to frame our skylines is one of the greatest American traditions. It would be amazing for it to happen in Austin. As a lifelong diehard Astros fan, it would be hard for me, but I would cope.

dphogan

Feb 24, 2015, 6:39 PM

Lets be real.

MLB is not expanding. Only shot is to get a team relocated and the only team that might move is Tampa Bay. MLB not happening.

NBA is not coming to Austin. Austin lies within the Spurs territorial rights so they would block anything from happening.

NHL would go to Houston first. Rockets owner Les Alexander has been looking for a team for years and if the NHL isn't in a hurry to go to the 4th largest city in the country, we ain't gettin one.

NFL won't come to Austin proper. UT holds a lot of pull and so do Jerry Jones and Bob McNair. If a team were to come relocate, it would be to New Braunfels/North San Antonio.

Minor League Baseball is great. A downtown staduim that could seat 25k would be perfect. Not happening anytime soon with the Dell only being 10 yrs old. And plenty of large cities have minor league baseball including Columbus, OKC, and even Houston.

MLS is our best bet for a Pro sports team. Build a soccer stadium with a view like Pittsburgh or San Diego did with a city view and it will work out great. An area next door for the Horns and concerts and whatnot draw the rodeo and other large events and its a win win.

Traffic is a disaster until we get real about building a highway and I-35 has at least 5 lanes going in each direction so adding an arena or MLS stadium can only help to make that happen.

smith_atx

Feb 24, 2015, 7:49 PM

Las Vegas is trying right now to get an NHL team so they're probably next.

Syndic

Feb 24, 2015, 8:36 PM

MLS is our best bet for a Pro sports team. Build a soccer stadium with a view like Pittsburgh or San Diego did with a city view and it will work out great. An area next door for the Horns and concerts and whatnot draw the rodeo and other large events and its a win win.

Obviously, we know that MLS is the best bet. I wasn't attempting even remotely to appeal to peoples' rational side, but more-so their romantic, idealistic side. Great things don't start out practically. Also, rodeos? In downtown Austin? Are you kidding me? No thanks. Doesn't really fit with our culture or urban landscape.

Traffic is a disaster until we get real about building a highway and I-35 has at least 5 lanes going in each direction so adding an arena or MLS stadium can only help to make that happen.

No offense, but you might not belong in Austin if you think turning I-35 into a 5-lane highway in each direction is a good idea (also, you're acting like we don't have a highway?). Pretty much every rational person in Austin believes that's a horrible idea. Expanding highways just makes traffic worse, in the long run. We have to get people out of their cars. Cities are for people, not cars. You're advocating ideas straight out of the 1950's.

dphogan

Feb 24, 2015, 8:56 PM

Obviously, we know that MLS is the best bet. I wasn't attempting even remotely to appeal to peoples' rational side, but more-so their romantic, idealistic side. Great things don't start out practically. Also, rodeos? In downtown Austin? Are you kidding me? No thanks. Doesn't really fit with our culture or urban landscape.

Have you been to the rodeo? Houston has the largest rodeo in the world and it raises hundreds of millions of dollars and takes over NRG Park and they fill the 70,000 seat NRG Stadium for 3 weeks straight. Rodeo's aren't some cows and horses. They are great entertainment and I suggest you check one out.

No offense, but you might not belong in Austin if you think turning I-35 into a 5-lane highway in each direction is a good idea (also, you're acting like we don't have a highway?). Pretty much every rational person in Austin believes that's a horrible idea. Expanding highways just makes traffic worse, in the long run. We have to get people out of their cars. Cities are for people, not cars. You're advocating ideas straight out of the 1950's.

I've been living in Austin for the past 15+ years and I grew up in Houston. You can have both. 35 is the main artery from Mexico to Canada. You have tremendous amounts of cargo and people passing through each day. You need the highway to support that. I realize no one wants the Katy Freeway in Austin, but we have to be realistic about what cuts through our lovely little city and build the infrastructure to support it. And you're not going to get enough people out of their cars to ever make Austin like NYC or Chicago where you can take the train or subway or other mass transit. Build a highway and complement it with mass transit. Relieve some traffic with options but enough sticking our head in the sand because we don't want 35 to be what it needs to be.

SMC

Feb 24, 2015, 9:39 PM

I've been living in Austin for the past 15+ years and I grew up in Houston. You can have both. 35 is the main artery from Mexico to Canada. You have tremendous amounts of cargo and people passing through each day. You need the highway to support that. I realize no one wants the Katy Freeway in Austin, but we have to be realistic about what cuts through our lovely little city and build the infrastructure to support it. And you're not going to get enough people out of their cars to ever make Austin like NYC or Chicago where you can take the train or subway or other mass transit. Build a highway and complement it with mass transit. Relieve some traffic with options but enough sticking our head in the sand because we don't want 35 to be what it needs to be.

We also have to be realistic and realize there is nowhere to put 5 lanes each way on I-35 throughout central Austin. Having freeways like Houston is not something Austin should aspire to.

It is frustrating to hear the "public transit/walking/getting out of cars will never happen in Texas" argument. There is no everlasting rule that says Texas, and particularly Austin, can't make better decisions for the future. Populations change, and I think with Austin's traffic situation, it is hard to see how Austin is successful over the next 50 years without serious changes in transportation behavior.

dphogan

Feb 24, 2015, 9:48 PM

We also have to be realistic and realize there is nowhere to put 5 lanes each way on I-35 throughout central Austin. Having freeways like Houston is not something Austin should aspire to.

It is frustrating to hear the "public transit/walking/getting out of cars will never happen in Texas" argument. There is no everlasting rule that says Texas, and particularly Austin, can't make better decisions for the future. Populations change, and I think with Austin's traffic situation, it is hard to see how Austin is successful over the next 50 years without serious changes in transportation behavior.

I understand that a 10 lane freeway is not possible with the current landscape, but it is what is needed so whether we bury it, double deck, whatever the option, I'm just saying we need 5 lanes or more in each direction from Georgetown to Buda to handle what we have.

And yes, we can become less vehicle dependent, but we need the roads to accommodate what we have and what's coming. The car isn't going away or this town isn't getting any smaller so lets address all fronts.

Syndic

Feb 25, 2015, 12:57 AM

Have you been to the rodeo? Houston has the largest rodeo in the world and it raises hundreds of millions of dollars and takes over NRG Park and they fill the 70,000 seat NRG Stadium for 3 weeks straight. Rodeo's aren't some cows and horses. They are great entertainment and I suggest you check one out.

Yes, I have, way out at the Travis County Expo Center where it belongs, and thought it was lame. Not really my scene. Not really for city folk.

I grew up in Houston.

You didn't even have to tell us this. It was obvious. Don't Houston my Austin, bro.

You can have both. 35 is the main artery from Mexico to Canada. You have tremendous amounts of cargo and people passing through each day.

Right, but we shouldn't. These people should be going around Austin, not through it. We need to make passing through Austin harder, not easier. I know they're in a hurry, but there's a city here; where people live. We don't want all that crap coming through our city.

you're not going to get enough people out of their cars to ever make Austin like NYC or Chicago where you can take the train or subway or other mass transit.

Yes we are. There's no other option. You can't build highways through cities. That's a dumb, outdated idea. We have to make Austin urban, not suburban, as you'd like.

lzppjb

Feb 25, 2015, 5:18 AM

Yes, I have, way out at the Travis County Expo Center where it belongs, and thought it was lame. Not really my scene. Not really for city folk.

That's just opinion. It doesn't make it so for other people in this city.

I agree we need I-35 expanded. It'd be better if it were underground through DT, but it needs to happen. It's a federal highway and handles the most Mexican truck traffic in the U.S. Would it be better if they took 130 around Austin? Of course! But the reality is they aren't doing it. I'd love to ban truck traffic through town and relegate it to 130, but I haven't seen any traction in that direction.

I think we should get better mass transit to give people options. I think businesses should offer more work-from-home opportunities. But I don't see the automobile going anywhere.

dphogan

Feb 25, 2015, 6:25 PM

Yes, I have, way out at the Travis County Expo Center where it belongs, and thought it was lame. Not really my scene. Not really for city folk.

That's just about the most ignorant statement I've ever read.

SMC

Feb 25, 2015, 9:38 PM

I understand that a 10 lane freeway is not possible with the current landscape, but it is what is needed so whether we bury it, double deck, whatever the option, I'm just saying we need 5 lanes or more in each direction from Georgetown to Buda to handle what we have.

And yes, we can become less vehicle dependent, but we need the roads to accommodate what we have and what's coming. The car isn't going away or this town isn't getting any smaller so lets address all fronts.

How do you know that adding a couple lanes to I35 in each direction will handle what we have? Let alone what we will have in 10-15 years when there are another 800,000-1,000,000 people in the area? How do you know they wouldn't fill up immediately, encouraging more people to live farther out?

Nevermind that we just built a superhighway (with the highest speed limit in the country) connecting Buda to Georgetown that's only an extra 10 miles out of the way and takes the same amt of travel time during rush hour...

I'd rather spend the boatload of $$$ it would cost to do this on more efficient modes of transportation that move more people. I'm okay with improving I-35 as much as we can (there's a lot of ways it could work better without adding lanes, like fewer exits). I think the idea to bury it downtown, add a lane with variable pricing (central Austin only), and sell the vacated land to pay for it is a great idea. But somehow doing two new (free?) lanes from GTown to Buda? It would be a waste of a LOT of $, in my opinion.

And by the way, I'm a city guy and I've been out to the Austin Rodeo twice and had a great time! However, it sure feels more appropriate to me to have the rodeo out there than in an city arena parking lot like San Antonio does it. Feels more authentic to have it outside the city.

paul78701

Feb 26, 2015, 5:54 PM

Speaking of professional sports stadiums. (Not a future UT basketball arena. I think it should stay on campus if at all possible.)

I believe another good location for something like the Detroit example above would be on East Riverside somewhere between IH-35 and 71. There is plenty of land that could be easily developed/redeveloped with much less opposition and trouble (I'd hope) than any downtown location. It is an up and coming area that will eventually become somewhat of an extension of downtown as it urbanizes. Building an arena with a bunch of mixed use development around it would serve to further accelerate that urbanization. (I would think MLS would like that.)

Accessibility shouldn't be a problem. A locale in that vicinity provides good public transportation options. Cap Metro buses serve it fairly well from what I can tell. Eventually, based on the light rail plans voted down, I would expect rail/gandola/whatever to go from downtown to the airport through Riverside Dr. For those who aren't on board with public transport, it would be easily accessible by car from either IH-35 or Highway 71.

I see little downside to it, but I have not seen anyone ever suggest that area. Maybe there's something wrong with it that I'm not seeing..

Jdawgboy

Feb 26, 2015, 7:54 PM

Whoa, this convo has really blown up since last I checked. A few musings and thoughts after reading...

First off we can all agree that the transportation situation is less than perfect and while I did mention the city should look into building one more road crossing the river such as Trinity, I only added it with direct relation to a possible new arena on the Statesman site. While I-35 would obviously play a part, so would every other roadway leading to the arena and lest we forget that the current arena is right up along I-35. This topic has really split into two with one branching into transportation which we have a thread for.

I really like what Detroit is doing regarding their arena. I would not only hope the city moves in that direction I would actually send that rendering to the mayor and my district councilwoman as an example of what could be done.

I keep seeing the word "little" used with Austin and while we are not big with regards to metropolitan population, we are far from being a little city. Going by what Angelo Angelou stated last month during the yearly economic summit, Austin itself is well into the 900,000 range stating we are about 40,000 below San Jose's population.
It may not be official census estimates but I doubt his numbers are far off from reality.. We are on the verge of becoming a 1 million pop city. As for the Metro, we are basically in the same catagory as San Antonio.

As for major leagues, MLS is our best chance. NFL is unlikely and reality is it's going to be difficult for San Antonio to land an NFL team. Their recent attempt in trying to get the Raiders showed that even the owner of the Raiders wanted a new stadium built closer to Austin. For an NFL franchise to work, both metros would have to evenly be tapped into. Combined that makes a market of nearly 4.5 million which is still smaller than Houston's metro and the DFW metroplex.

As for arena placement, the closer to DT the better. I've never been to either the Dell Diamond or the Cedar Park Center. They are way too far for it to be worth going. Those may be okay in terms of serving Williamson County and the northern part of Austin but they don't serve the entire metropolitan area, definitely not south of the river. Austin is the core city and the center of the metro so an arena in or next to DT would be the best choice in terms of access.

Novacek

Feb 26, 2015, 10:02 PM

Combined that makes a market of nearly 4.5 million which is still smaller than Houston's metro and the DFW metroplex.

Well, yes, but that's because those are both top-10. The hypothetical combined A/SA metro if 4.5M would be top 15.

lzppjb

Feb 27, 2015, 12:13 AM

LoneStarMike

Feb 27, 2015, 3:43 AM

Regarding the Brackenridge Hospital site:

That location would be ideal, and then the Erwin land can be converted to innovation district to make it like a swap of uses.

I don't think the Erwin Center land can be used for the Innovation District. I think the whole reason it would be torn down is because of future expansion of the teaching hospital.

And I was only partially right about the Innovation District. That will actually be built north of 15th St. and west of Trinity where some of those hideous state parking garages are now.

Parking garages to become med school's "innovation district"
Austin Business Journal
October 31, 2013 (http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/at-the-watercooler/2013/10/parking-garages-to-make-way-for-med.html)

The proposed plans for the Brackenridge Hospital site were covered in an Austin Business Journal article last fall.

Plans for Brackenridge hospital site entering second phase
October 10, 2014 (http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/real-estate/2014/10/plans-for-brackenridge-hospital-site-entering.html)

A mixed-use development is all but certain for the site, with uses that complement the new Dell Medical School and the new hospital as a priority.

I personally think UT should build their own basketball arena on camous, and the city should use the Brackenridge Hospital site to build a mixed-use concert venue/special events center surrounded by other uses that complement the Dell Medical School.

And if Detroit can build a mixed-use facility on 12.37 acres (http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20140924/NEWS/140929929/work-starts-thursday-on-red-wings-arena-details-on-funding), I don't see why Austin can't do the same thing on a 14 acre site.

Doing all that would ensure that the plans for the South Central Waterfront District remain intact.

LiveattheOasis

Feb 27, 2015, 8:21 PM

Just messing around (without Photoshop).

This is San Antonio's MLS stadium on the Statesman site. I used it just for its comparable size. The partial roof would likely be on the west side, though. I oriented it along Congress and the horseshoe on the south end so everyone gets some sort of view of DT.

The red line is a Trinity bridge. The blue line is just an extension of the road connecting Congress to the new Trinity extension through the site. The green box is a parking garage. That could be done partially undgerground with a few above ground levels. That would allow for some MU above. The orange box is for MU development.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/lzppjb/statesmanMLS.png

A spot like that on the river deserves an open air stadium with gorgeous city views. If the city council thinks smart, and encourages investment in a beautiful high tech stadium with potential investors toward MLS, retractable roof, that can hold 20-25,000 people for games and close up to hold 18-20,000 intimately for shows. With the backdrop of the city behind it, it could be one of the most iconic and intimate stadiums in the country, kind of the Austin way.

IluvATX

Feb 27, 2015, 8:45 PM

A spot like that on the river deserves an open air stadium with gorgeous city views. If the city council thinks smart, and encourages investment in a beautiful high tech stadium with potential investors toward MLS, retractable roof, that can hold 20-25,000 people for games and close up to hold 18-20,000 intimately for shows. With the backdrop of the city behind it, it could be one of the most iconic and intimate stadiums in the country, kind of the Austin way.

I agree. An outdoor stadium would be great in that location. I even like the arena in Detroit with retail, etc. though it would be a horrible idea for COA and UT to collaborate on this. UT needs their arena on campus grounds while Austin can have its own stadium/arena at South Shore. I feel strongly about separating UT and Austin and I think even small cities should never combine college and city affairs.

Syndic

Feb 27, 2015, 10:49 PM

What would be ideal is a small, intimate basketball stadium on the parking lot just south of the UT soccer field and a soccer-specific stadium on the Statesman site with a retractable roof so that it could also be used for concerts and other big events. And instead of Trinity as a bridge over the river, make it a tunnel under the water so that they don't have to demolish the boat house they just built. Also, it would be cool if there were bike lanes and sidewalks in the tunnel so that people could park on the north side of the river and walk across to the games, preferably singing and chanting like these blokes:

V2ervoEcCGM

lzppjb

Feb 27, 2015, 11:46 PM

What about a UT-only arena on Clark Field?

Syndic

Feb 28, 2015, 12:00 AM

If it's a choice between destroying a parking lot and destroying a green space to build an arena, I'm going with the parking lot practically every single time.

lzppjb

Feb 28, 2015, 12:09 AM

With each parking lot that vanishes there's fewer places for gameday tailgating, which is a great atmosphere.

Always tradeoffs either way you go.

hereinaustin

Feb 28, 2015, 3:33 AM

With each parking lot that vanishes there's fewer places for gameday tailgating, which is a great atmosphere.

Always tradeoffs either way you go.

Exactly. So let's see some plans on revamping Gregory gym.

Tech House

Feb 28, 2015, 3:34 AM

That's an excellent point about tailgating. Normally I have a knee-jerk anti-surface-parking reflex, but in this case I gotta step off. Or... do we eventually have to accept that tailgating is going to be another casualty of Austin's maturation from awkward adolescent to young adult? Not yet, but eventually...?

The idea of an intimate basketball arena seems like a good one, because it would make for a more enjoyable experience and it would look like games were better-attended than with a giant half-empty echoing building like Erwin. Also, I've been to a couple of concerts at the Erwin and the acoustics are just atrocious. A large concert hall should be built specifically for music rather than going with yet another multi-purpose cavern that fails to do justice for any one purpose it's trying to serve.

lzppjb

Feb 28, 2015, 3:40 AM

I just don't think Gregory is an option. Footprint isn't big enough. It's pretty much strictly volleyball.

A smaller arena with great acoustics for music would also be louder with fans.

wwmiv

Feb 28, 2015, 4:33 AM

Is there ever much tailgating with basketball anyway? That's more a football tradition.

lzppjb

Feb 28, 2015, 4:37 AM

I'm talking about football.

wwmiv

Feb 28, 2015, 5:11 AM

I'm talking about football.

Were you? I'm confused, genuinely.

lzppjb

Feb 28, 2015, 5:20 AM

Yep. That is a busy parking lot on Saturdays in the Fall.

Tech House

Feb 28, 2015, 7:30 AM

Were you? I'm confused, genuinely.

He was pointing out that a couple of the options for locating the basketball arena would displace surface parking lots where football tailgating happens.

wwmiv

Feb 28, 2015, 9:36 AM

He was pointing out that a couple of the options for locating the basketball arena would displace surface parking lots where football tailgating happens.

Ohhhhhhh Duh. Okay. I agree, very much so

electricron

Feb 28, 2015, 3:20 PM

As for major leagues, MLS is our best chance.
As for arena placement, the closer to DT the better. I've never been to either the Dell Diamond or the Cedar Park Center. They are way too far for it to be worth going.
You're not much of a fan if you aren't willing to travel 10 to 15 miles. I know someone in Glen Rose who has tickets to UT football games and that's a distance of 161 miles, which is far in access of 10 or 15 miles.
I'm willing to suggest that even if minor league basketball, hockey, and baseball were playing in downtown Austin you wouldn't go - you'd be complaining about how much it costs. Believe it or not, attendance of both minor league teams playing in Cedar Park have risen since moving there.

And by the way, real major league soccer leagues exist only in Europe - where all the best players end up playing. MLS is considered minor league by just about every real soccer fan.

wwmiv

Feb 28, 2015, 4:04 PM

Jdawgboy

Feb 28, 2015, 5:28 PM

You're not much of a fan if you aren't willing to travel 10 to 15 miles. I know someone in Glen Rose who has tickets to UT football games and that's a distance of 161 miles, which is far in access of 10 or 15 miles.
I'm willing to suggest that even if minor league basketball, hockey, and baseball were playing in downtown Austin you wouldn't go - you'd be complaining about how much it costs. Believe it or not, attendance of both minor league teams playing in Cedar Park have risen since moving there.

Both the Cedar Park Center and Dell Diamond are more than 10 or 15 miles away from where I live. The Cedar Park Center is 27 miles away and the Dell Diamond is 29 miles from my home. Add to the fact that I would have to travel through the city and any traffic congestion I come across and it can take over an hour to get to either of them. They are not ideal for serving the entire Austin metropolitan area.

If there was an arena DT you bet I'd go see games. Even if it's more expensive it wouldn't matter cause the money in gas that I would save would balance that out.

lzppjb

Feb 28, 2015, 5:31 PM

I've never been to the Cedar Park Center. I've been to Dell Diamond twice. If I'm going to watch baseball, I'll go to Disch-Falk or all the way to Arlington to watch the Rangers.

Syndic

Feb 28, 2015, 10:44 PM

And by the way, real major league soccer leagues exist only in Europe - where all the best players end up playing. MLS is considered minor league by just about every real soccer fan.

Excuse me, why do you hate America?

http://i.imgur.com/Un3e8lw.jpg

LiveattheOasis

Mar 1, 2015, 2:30 AM

[I think MLS is making great strides. And you have a ways to go as far as class, old sport.

oberthewhat

Mar 1, 2015, 3:33 AM

We live close to slaughter and Manchaca and travel to the Cedar Park Center very often for the Texas Stars games. If you have a dedicated fan base, they'll make the drive. That being said, I can't see this thing going anywhere except for very close to downtown. I like the Idea of somewhere along East Riverside.

Tech House

Mar 1, 2015, 6:43 PM

I like the Idea of somewhere along East Riverside.

Me too. The land between 183 and Riverside near 71 seems ideal, since it's still largely undeveloped (last I checked.) Very easy access from everywhere other than far NW and far W. And there's nothing in that area that could be ruined by a stadium or arena; it would only be a catalyst for development.

KevinFromTexas

Mar 1, 2015, 7:41 PM

drummer

Mar 2, 2015, 12:31 AM

Agreed - and, as I think someone stated, that might be a catalyst for eventual rail going down Riverside also - getting people to and from a sports venue as well as eventual developments in the area. The rail might happen more readily if a venue of sorts begins the development.

electricron

Mar 2, 2015, 3:08 AM

^I've long said Riverside Drive should be lined with mid to highrises. If one corridor in Austin was best suited for it, it's Riverside. A stadium in the area could be the nudge it needs to get that started.
I strongly disagree. All one has to do is look at the results surrounding sport facilities in other Texas cities. Ballparks in Arlington, Houston, and Round Rock, no new developments. Arenas in Houston, San Antonio, and Cedar Park, no new developments, or far less than hoped for in Dallas. Football stadiums in San Antonio, Houston, and Arlington, no new developments. Why do you think Austin would get better results? Besides UT facilities, what major development exists near Royal Stadium?

Sporting facilities usually cause a death knell for any new developments around them.

the Genral

Mar 2, 2015, 4:02 AM

I agree with Kevin on building mid to highrises along Riverside Drive, maybe in the 10 to 30 story range. I'm not smart enough to intelligently debate the stadium spurring growth argument, but I imagine the priority is finding an adequate piece of land to build it on with plenty of elbow room and for as little money as possible, (land costs). I don't know that anticipating development as a direct result of building a new stadium is ever a realistic consideration being that so many stadiums are purposely built on isolated pieces of land, away from nimbys and zoning issues. As far as the Dell Diamond....there was some added growth as a direct result of the stadium being built on pasture land in the middle of nowhere off hwy 79...I don't think that the Salt Lick would be there without it, or the bank on the adjoining property to the east.

drummer

Mar 2, 2015, 4:06 AM

I strongly disagree. All one has to do is look at the results surrounding sport facilities in other Texas cities. Ballparks in Arlington, Houston, and Round Rock, no new developments. Arenas in Houston, San Antonio, and Cedar Park, no new developments, or far less than hoped for in Dallas. Football stadiums in San Antonio, Houston, and Arlington, no new developments. Why do you think Austin would get better results? Besides UT facilities, what major development exists near Royal Stadium?

Sporting facilities usually cause a death knell for any new developments around them.

It really depends on how they are done. Arlington is a horrible example because Cowboys Stadium, the Ballpark, and Six Flags were all built with Rhode Island-sized parking lots on every side. Not to mention, Arlington is largely suburban sprawl to begin with. Even on a good day, it takes a good bit to get to downtown Fort Worth and even longer to get to downtown Dallas. There's no rail link (TRE is a good bit north of there) and there's no plan for one in the immediate future. Arlington, for whatever reason, opposed the TRE going through their city at the time it was built, if I remember right. FC Dallas' choice of Frisco for their stadium is equally bad, in my opinion, though in fairness the metroplex is developing (and getting more dense) to the north...it's still sprawl for now, though, and will take years (decades) to truly densify that far north. Houston did well for the Dynamo to have their stadium right next to the CBD. It's a fantastic stadium and adds to the neighborhood.

Riverside is relatively close to downtown Austin and makes more sense for natural expansion of development into that area - and it's already begun. If large venues are done from the beginning with relating to the surrounding neighborhood(s) in mind (i.e., with ground-level retail, no acreage of surface parking lots...), then it can tie together pretty nicely and organically. The Detroit one, I think, is a great example. Public transportation, if done correctly (and if the general public sees it as advantageous to utilize it), can offset the need for so much parking to begin with.