Urban football stadiums in the US: The bad

Development

Urban football stadiums in the US: The bad

by Erik Weber • December 21, 2010 1:52 pm

Yesterday, several GGW contributors debated whether DC could accommodate a new home for the Washington Redskins inside the District.

Photo by JFeister on Flickr.

We asked some of our urbanist friends around the country to weigh in on the experience with urban arenas in their cities.

Today we'll look at two cases that depict the problems with massive stadiums dropped into the urban fabric without sufficient care. Tomorrow we'll have a few cases that show more promise.

Indianapolis
Greg Meckstroth is an urban planner living in Indianapolis. He writes at the collaborative urbanism blog UrbanIndy, as well as his own site UrbanOut.

The Indianapolis Colts have played in an urban football stadium since the team's founding in 1984 when the Hoosier Dome (later the RCA Dome) was built in the heart of downtown. The stadium sat next to the Indianapolis Convention Center, creating a superblock in downtown Indianapolis that encouraged monotonous urban forms and destroyed vitality in the surrounding area. Yet, the RCA Dome could be considered a decent urban football stadium because the structure was built to the street right-of-way, featured large entryways off the sidewalk, and was decently integrated into the urban fabric with no surrounding parking.

In late 2008 the Dome, seen as a relic of a past era, was abandoned for the sparkling new Lucas Oil Stadium a few blocks south. Lucas Oil Stadium is a true mega-structure. The hulking arena is roughly the size of two large downtown blocks, with its surrounding landscaping, parking, and entryway features taking up an additional four to five blocks.

Needless to say, Lucas Oil Stadium is now a prominent fixture in the Indianapolis skyline, often dwarfing the neighboring buildings and harkening back to the field house structures with which Indianapolis has long had a love affair. From this standpoint, Lucas Oil is a small success, providing the urban environment a beautiful building that represents the city's sports venue value system.

In terms of accessibility, the stadium does well in some points and fails in others. From the south, the area's walkability is poor, covered in a swath of parking, but is much better from other directions, with small to medium setbacks and large sidewalks for often heavy pedestrian traffic. Numerous IndyGo bus lines run along South Street and surrounding downtown streets, allowing for easy transit access.

By 2012, the Indianapolis Cultural Trail will link Lucas Oil Stadium directly to downtown's main bike and pedestrian system, providing an important link to downtown's vibrant entertainment districts. This improvement, along with the new Georgia Street reconfiguration that will provide a pedestrian-oriented, entertainment corridor, is proof positive that Indianapolis is attempting to incorporate Lucas Oil Stadium into downtown's pedestrian experience and make the area more walkable.

Still, if the City ever wants to be truly integrate the stadium into the urban environment, they need to do more. The stadium site sits on a mega block, offering poor street and pedestrian connectivity to the surrounding street grid and neighborhood. Plus, the stadium is placed at an angle to the street grid, creating odd open spaces around the stadium.

Photo by FWnetz on Flickr.

The building's sheer size and failure to incorporate any ground floor retail or other use hampers active street life, especially unfortunate given the few times the stadium is actually used throughout the year. The result is a relative dead zone in an area of Indy that is in desperate need of good urban form to reactivate the area and connect it with the vibrant Meridian Street and Illinois Street to the north.

Looking towards the future, integrating a large, out-of-context, football stadium like Lucas Oil into an urban environment like downtown Indianapolis's southern edge will prove to be difficult. Still though, improvements can be made that can create a more vibrant, sustainable district and interesting street life. Connecting the Cultural Trail to the stadium is an important first step. From there, the street grid needs to be reinforced to the stadium's south end and transportation circulation needs to be improved, urban forms need to be constructed to the north and east edge, and urban infill needs to occur to the west.

If plans such as these are put forward and actually implemented, Lucas Oil Stadium could quickly become a poster child for successful urban football stadiums in the United States. But the stadium is still in its infancy and full plans for the area have yet to be developed, so only time will tell if such ambitions will be achieved.

St. Louis
Alex Ihnen is the Editor of Urban STL. He currently serves as chair of the advocacy group City to River and runs the blog stayinginstl.com.

Each of the three St. Louis National Football League stadiums has been located in an urban setting. Sportsman's Park was truly a neighborhood stadium, sharing an incredible likeness to Chicago's Wrigley Field. A football field was shoe horned into Sportsman's for six years.

When Busch Stadium I opened in 1966 it was one of a wave of dual use stadiums of similar design, started by DC's own RFK stadium and followed by Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and San Francisco. The stadium was home to Major League Baseball's Cardinals and the Cardinals NFL team. Built during a period unprecedented faith in urban renewal in St. Louis, the stadium was one component of a larger effort that included the final clearing of a dozen city blocks for the Gateway Mall, the building of the Gateway Arch and construction of urban Interstates through the city.

Downtown St. Louis. Image from Google Maps.

The NFL team left St. Louis in 1987 and local civic leaders went to work immediately to lure a team back to the city. Central to their strategy was the building of a domed stadium.

Completed in 1995, the Trans World Dome, now Edward Jones Dome, was built as a multi-purpose facility, following the then trend of combing convention centers with domed stadiums. It was one of the very last traditional dome stadiums built. The Dome's utility as an expanded convention center has not lived up to initial promises for revenue generated and events held. The stadium even fails to offer a view of the Mississippi River, or the iconic Arch.

While an urban football stadium on the right site may add to and take advantage of a dramatic skyline, the stadium and convention center combination in St. Louis fails to do this. The stadium has arguably been an impediment to development. The 12 city block superblock is a defining barrier separating the near north side and the central business district to the south and last remnants of historic riverfront with the rest of the city.

The nearest commercial corner at 7th and Washington is the site of a long vacant building encompassing an entire block and failed indoor urban mall. Both structures are currently undergoing development, two of the last to do so along the historic Washington Avenue corridor, and 15 years after the completion of the Dome. However with the surface parking lots, vacant land, and empty historic buildings surrounding the site, it's a tough argument to say that things could have been worse.

At the time it was designed, the Dome was criticized by Eugene Mackey, a former president of the St. Louis Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, . St. Louis Post-Dispatch architecture critic E.F. Porter stated that such a structure at the edge of a struggling CBD would have a "pervasive and irreversible impact on the complexion of the city." He described the project as a "great protective battlement…sealing off the CBD from the neighborhoods to the north." Mackey summed it up: 'It makes north St. Louis the loading dock for downtown."

Photo by Kevin.Ward on Flickr.

Development north of the Dome has been non-existent during the past 15 years. Plans have come and gone, gleaming renderings of Daniel Libeskind towers displayed. Development prospects haven't been helped by the broken street grid I-70 has wreaked on the north side. Porter even predicted trouble when a new Mississippi River Bridge would eventually route I-70 over the river from Illinois and land north of the Dome at Cass Avenue. The bridge is under construction now and will land at Cass Avenue, but the ramps carry traffic west of the superblock.

The negative impact is more than a few vacant lots and blocks of housing, the Convention Center and Dome present a life-subduing façade, especially to the west and north. Would the Dome have been better situated on the east (or even west) riverbank with an open roof view of the St. Louis skyline? Perhaps a suburban stadium, nearer the region's population center, approximately 12 miles west of downtown would have worked.

Although served by the light rail MetroLink line and Metro bus, such service can only accommodate a fraction of 66,965 fans who can fill the stadium. Transit works better for baseball, basketball and hockey crowds of 12-40,000.

Ultimately, urban stadiums can work and we're left to wonder if the Convention Center and Dome have inflicted and maintained blight in the St. Louis CBD or whether it's successfully served as a bulwark against decay in a city where these problems are clearly bigger than a football stadium.

24 comments

Tags: Indianapolis, St. Louis, stadiums

GGW debates: Urban football stadiums in DC (Dec 20, 2010)
Urban football stadiums in the US: The good (Dec 22, 2010)
A DC United stadium is likely to be truly urban (Jan 24, 2011)
How to create a successful urban stadium (Feb 18, 2009)
"Excitement" not worth $1B stadium (Oct 14, 2008)

Erik Weber has been living car-free in the District since 2009. Hailing from the home of the nation's first Urban Growth Boundary, Erik has been interested in transit since spending summers in Germany as a kid where he rode as many buses, trains and streetcars as he could find. Views expressed here are Erik's alone.

Comments
Add a comment »

Pittsburgh has done a decent job incorporating its stadiums into the city. What used to be endless acres of parking lots around 3 Rivers Stadium is slowly being developed into a mixed use area that contains 2 stadiums.

It isn't perfect since there is basically no housing there, but that is planned for later phases i believe. The area is extremely walkable, has access to a major bike trail that runs parallel to the river and connects to downtown, and the light rail line is being extended to connect the entire North Shore area.

In summary, the change has been slow and there is more to be done, but it is definitely an example of integrating stadiums into an urban setting. T

by Allan on Dec 21, 2010 2:20 pm • link • report

I guess the reason why I would support stadiums in cities is because of Baltimore. I think they have done a very good job. There is light rail access directly in front of both stadiums, there is good walking access. This is especially true of the baseball stadium. Also there is an exit directly from 395 which keeps many cars on the freeway and off local streets.
On top of that there are actually places to go near the stadium, the inner harbor for example.

by Matt R on Dec 21, 2010 2:21 pm • link • report

You know, GGW has coined a phrase..."Windshield View", where drivers just assume that the only valid perspective to a lot of folks is that of drivers. Bikes and pedestrians being plowed over by traffic? Stop the bikes and pedestrians. Etc...

I hereby coin the new phrase..."Sports Fan View". This can be defined as only the view that pro sports is desperately needed is good, and exemplified by debating the urbanist design of heavily city govt. subsidized sports stadiums at time when said city is talking cutting social services and raising taxes.

In a non-"Sports Fan View" environment, this discussion wouldn't happen as the idea of spending city money in that environment would preclude even bothering with design.

by John on Dec 21, 2010 3:13 pm • link • report

We need federal legislation to prevent cities paying for stadia for sports teams. Otherwise franchise owners can continue to play each city off another for who can give them the biggest corporate welfare check.

by glebb on Dec 21, 2010 4:09 pm • link • report

@John - I'm not for the football stadium but I'm not for the "Social Services fan" perspective either. They always assume the appropriate level of social services is the level above the funding we're already providing.

by Jason on Dec 21, 2010 4:10 pm • link • report

@Jason, it doesn't need to be "social services" like a basic safety net. Why not think of extra super duper services-like a kick-ass city-wide athletics program? Why should visions of greatness (in facilities, perks, coaching, equipment and expectations) just be for a pro-team that has the backing of a fabulously wealthy business enterprise? I mean, if the argument is, "take the public money that was going to be given to a rich and undeserving private enterprise and give it to pre-natal care for poor women (or whoever)", make it "take that money that was going to go for pro-athletics and put in into youth athletic programs". Lets produce some Olympians. Thats a hell of a lot more inspiring, pride inducing and good for the city than anything a pro football team can do, IMO.

by Tina on Dec 21, 2010 4:25 pm • link • report

Greg Meckstroth wrote:

The Indianapolis Colts have played in an urban football stadium since the team's founding in 1984 when the Hoosier Dome (later the RCA Dome) was built in the heart of downtown.

I must take exception to the sentence above. The team was moved to Indianapolis by then-owner Robert Irsay from Baltimore in March of 1984, a move sometimes called "Irsay's Midnight Ride," but the team was founded in 1953.

by C. P. Zilliacus on Dec 21, 2010 4:41 pm • link • report

@Jason: You can skip the social services. They are _raising_ taxes anyway.

Or, as I said back in Baseball giveaway land...why should a trivial entertainment choice get a massive public subsidy?

by John on Dec 21, 2010 4:54 pm • link • report

@John -exactly.

by Tina on Dec 21, 2010 4:57 pm • link • report

John & Tina - Hypothetically, if a stadium is built primarily or entirely with private funds, would you still be against it? There's no harm in conducting an academic debate on whether an urban stadium could be built in DC at the moment, without moving onto the related but different question whether public monies should be used to fund it.

To answer your question re: "a trivial entertainment choice" and public subsidy, the answer is discussed in Soccernomics (Simon Kuper, Stefan Szymanski). There, the authors find that happiness in a country is increased by hosting a World Cup or a European Cup tournament - up to several hundred dollars of monthly income's worth of utils. The same principle probably holds to some extent for having a major professional sports team in the US. I absolutely understand the argument for prioritizing safety net services, but there is also a potential argument for giving another great number of residents a "happiness subsidy." (We all agree that the argument that all stadiums pay for themselves in strictly dollars and cents is bunk, though.)

by The AMT on Dec 21, 2010 5:14 pm • link • report

To clarify, I meant that the principle discussed in Soccernomics probably holds when extrapolated to the presence of a major sports team in any particular US city/metro area. The relevant discussion is handily on Google Books, too - http://books.google.com/books?id=hOMMbE8xBt4C&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=soccernomics+happiness+host&source=bl&ots=fAhnGV6y5Z&sig=pPlT7o2WtXUWcpTCvQcZnmc9Lp4&hl=en&ei=bSQRTcrJGsOblgfesYjcCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

by The AMT on Dec 21, 2010 5:18 pm • link • report

@AMT- I didn't say prioritize safety net services. In fact I made tangentially the same premise as you re: increase GDH (gross domestic Happiness) by investing in top-of-the-line youth athletics programs instead of pro-football/soccer (whatever). I guess one can legitimately argue that USO athletes are not amatuer. However I recieved a fund raising letter just this week from the USO speed skating team. When was the last time any NFL team had to do that? I posited that nurturing that type of athleticism (grass roots youth programs) instead of aiding Snyder/the NFL/pro-soccer would produce greater net happiness. Because to nuture that type of athleticism there need to be wide reaching quality programs, thus more individual lives are enhanced in a more substantive and lasting way then facilitating drinking beer in a parking lot followed by sitting on your ass for several hours while someone else engages in a fun athletic activity for several weekends a year.

I'm interested in GDH and athletics. I just think there's a better, healthier, longer lasting and, IMO more valueable way to achieve it than supporting giant pro-sports enterprises.

by Tina on Dec 21, 2010 5:49 pm • link • report

@The AMT: No. That simple.

Otherwise, you may as well endorse Lance's "driving makes a lot of people happy, give us a subsidy handout" argument. If we're going to justify spending on that tenuous an argument, everything is justifiable.

by John on Dec 21, 2010 5:50 pm • link • report

A problem with St Louis is the cheapness in not depressing the stadium segment of I-70,owing to it having to dip below a rail line; hence they only consider caping the existing shiort depressed I-70 segment immediately to the south.

by Douglas A. Willinger on Dec 21, 2010 6:05 pm • link • report

It strikes me that perhaps an urban stadium's massive edifice should be located near a natural barrier - river, coastline, etc - to lessen the disruption to the city grid. It also lessens the pressure to build street-activating retail on all four sides. If effort is made to integrate the sides that are adjacent to the grid with the rest of the city, it can be a pretty decent destination.

by OctaviusIII on Dec 21, 2010 6:15 pm • link • report

@Tina, that's a fair point. Apologies for mischaracterizing your argument.

@John, we already give lots of subsidies for non-life-and-death things to increase happiness. I agree that stadiums are not a sure-fire bet to increase happiness - at least not enough to justify their cost - but I think that the notion that government doesn't already subsidize things we want to make us happier is mistaken.

by The AMT on Dec 21, 2010 6:19 pm • link • report

Philadelphia is a good example of urban sports complex location.

The Good:

Very close Subway access makes walking from the train a quicker walk then from most parking places. For those living in center city Philly, the subway is the best way to go.

All 3 sports stadiums are right next to each other, this is a good design I think, it allows the football parking lot to be relatively small as it uses the basketball and baseball lots, and they in turn use the football spaces. Also there is some commercial warehousing in the area and that is turned into football parking for games.

Built right next to Rt. 95 which allows those driving to minimize their impact on city streets. Also a lot of parking is underneath the freeways which is a great use of land that has very minimal value.

The Bad:

Only a tiny bit of retail presence in the area. One sports bar sandwiched between 2 stadiums which uses the parking to its advantage during the week, and is packed during all baseball, basketball and football games. You’d think their success would encourage more…

The massive complex does isolate Philly further from the riverfront, but really Rt. 95 already does that. 95 cuts Philly from nearly all river access which is terrible but another story.

I give it a thumbs up. All 3 stadiums were built in the parking lots of the former stadiums they replaced which I like (brownfield re-development) And I’ve been to all the prior stadiums and all the new stadiums for games, and they are all great, with the sightlines you feel like you are in Philly even though you are 4 miles away from center city. The experience is about a million times better than going to the Meadowlands in NJ which is only 5 miles from NYC, but light years away from the city.

Which brings up the Ugly:

I’ve been to Basketball Nets, Hockey Devils, NFL Giants and Jets, and Horse Racing at this location. Which is an embarrassment of the highest order. 5 miles from Manhattan, it takes a minimum of 1 hr driving time in a cab when there isn’t a game being played, and no direct mass transit from NYC. From nearly every location in NYC you’d have to navigate at least 1 subways most likely walk to Penn Station, catch a train into NJ, transfer to the Sports complex train line roughly 30 miles traveled by train and 3-4 hours one way from my former apartment on the upper East side of Manhattan. You might as well be playing in the NJ Pine Barrens because at least 95% are arriving by car and most from New Jersey. There is talk they might extend the 7 Subway from Manhattan to the Sports complex, that would change everything.

by Mike D on Dec 21, 2010 6:40 pm • link • report

I'm really hoping the U.S. examples of "the good" that are showcased tomorrow don't include ones where baseball and football stadiums sharing parking. While that can be a worthwhile approach for some cities it's off the table for the RFK site given the Nationals stadium is in the Capitol Riverfront.

@The_AMT - I'd rather see a project at the RFK site that brings happiness to people hundreds of days a year rather than 10 days a year. So even if Snyder would pay for the construction (doubtful) I don't think it's in the cities best interest to use the land that way.

by Jason on Dec 21, 2010 7:21 pm • link • report

As a football fan, who usually attends a couple of college games a year and an NFL game every few years, I'd like to put in my 2cents on this. A stadium in and of itself is neither good nor bad. But in terms of making a place "urban" or activating street life in some way, a football stadium is probably the worst of all sports. There are fewer games per year than in any other sport, so most days/weeks/months the area around the stadium will be a dead zone. Tailgating is a big part of the experience, so one almost has to have large parking lots adjacent to the stadium. While I can't totally explain it, football attracts a different crowd--people who are there solely to see the game and really really REALLY don't care about any amenities surrounding the stadium that don't relate to the game itself. So IMHO it is ungodly difficult to create an urban experience with a football stadium.

@Zilliacus--Remember the Colts were moved in the middle of the night, in a Mayflower moving van.

by rextrex on Dec 21, 2010 10:50 pm • link • report

Since I am a Indianapolis native (now living in DC), I'm a little biased in my opinion, but I don't think the Lucas Oil Stadium (LOS) harms the feel of downtown Indianapolis.

First- yes the swaths of surface parking are bad... but I am assuming these will be consumed by development when the economy in Indy returns.

Second- to imply that this structure somehow destroys the urban fabric of downtown Indy is off base. The structure is placed at an angle over those two blocks to give a view of the downtown "skyline" through the massive windows at the end of stadium and to reduce the imposing nature of LOS. There is no doubt about it LOS is huge and slightly out of proportion to the rest of the city but by taking it back on the angle... it allows game/concert/convention attendees to take in the building and adjust before entering.

Third- There was NOTHING there before hand.... no pedestrian traffic, no industry, no commerce... NOTHING. LOS finally drove development potential to the other side of the tracks (literally a set of tracks cutting Indianapolis in half). This monolith atleast will bring people to that section and will drive a fair amount of restaurant/retail/residential in the future.

Finally- although the many cities play the convention center game... Indianapolis has built its downtown around this game, and does a good job. The LOS is just the most recent addition to its facilities. It guaranteed Indy the Final Four every 3 or 4 years (NCAA headquartered there), it brought the Super Bowl in 2012, has allowed Indy to compete for much larger conventions, and keep its status as the amatuer sports competition capital. Additionally, it has an underground link to the newly expanded Convention Center, which was built over the footings of the old RCA dome. Although many in DC won't want to admit it, the Washington Convention Center people will tell you that they actively compete with, and try to emulate, what Indy does for its convention game.

So all in all... should the parking lot issue be addressed yes. But LOS is a winner in the context of Indianapolis.

Side note- I moved from Indy to St. Louis and now here. I can tell you... the Edward Jones Dome, is ugly, hidden from downtown pedestrians, and just a poor sporting venue in general.

by Joe H. on Dec 22, 2010 8:50 am • link • report

That new stadium in Indianapolis is beautiful! It might be the Camden Yards of NFL stadiums.

by Ron on Dec 22, 2010 10:04 am • link • report

My colleagues at Good Jobs First have documented a number of economic development deals gone awry. A number of these deals are for sports stadiums.

Check out our discussion of subsidies for sports teams:
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/professional-sports

Specific case-studies:
Colts in IN: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/states/indiana
Orioles in MD: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/states/maryland
Yankees in NY: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/states/new-york
Cowboys in TX: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/states/texas
Nationals in DC: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/states/district-columbia

by Tommy on Dec 22, 2010 11:08 am • link • report

@John- wrote "I hereby coin the new phrase..."Sports Fan View"."

I agree though would modify that to read "Sky Box View" as it is the desire for the expensinve skyboxes for the elites that has lead to so many other needleess stadium projects.

by Douglas A. Willinger on Dec 22, 2010 6:50 pm • link • report

I completely disagree with the assessment of Indianapolis. The residents wanted to keep it downtown so the people paying for it could access it. No one wanted it shipped off to the suburbs. It is a good design and is opening up the south side for future development. The argument against Lucas Oil Stadium was poorly constructed.

by IndyTown on Jan 2, 2011 10:58 pm • link • report