Lots of communities across north America have very large football stadia located in their cores with little in the way of parking close by. Urban planners argue that you do put stadia on transit corridors, but they don't have to be roads. As long as transit compensates, it is a far more palatable proposition than building in outlying areas that depend on the automobile.
Lansdowne in Ottawa is just such an example. They rejected Kanata because it's in the middle of nowhere and is really only accessible by car. It causes sprawl.
University of Alabama's football stadium is right in the heart of Tuscaloosa, population 206,765 and their stadium holds 92,012 people. There is some parking, but nowhere close to what this stadium holds. People bus in, walk, cab, etc. There are a myriad other examples across the continent. The idea that one needs big, high capacity roads is a 1960s mentality that causes sprawl. Progressive urban planning is about concentrated nodes, density, and efficiency. People need to be encouraged to congregate in the core, not sucked out to the outlying areas.
Besides, we're not proposing anything close to this size stadia. Just a puny one that will probably never grow past 30,000 in size.
This is smack in the middle of Tuscaloosa