Downtown Stadium a dream?

HibaIssa · 07-02-2005, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerick

I'd MUCH rather have that spot than the fairpark spot. Heck, it's only a few blocks from where I work, has excellent freeway access, and is near TRAX as well.

I've always thought that the Gateway would make an excellent location. I hope they really consider this.

Section 37 · 07-02-2005, 11:51 AM

I think the team should hold out for a real downtown spot. Right in the middle of it all.
I understand the sentiment of wanting a stadium no matter what but we should remember the long term impact of it. This will be a permanent home and it's worth waiting an extra couple of years to do it right.

Here's the breakdown:

Faripark= bad idea
Murray= worse idea
Sandy= horrifying idea

utah_heretic · 07-02-2005, 12:06 PM

I'd like to see maybe the block West of the Gateway, or even down by "In the Venue." It's at least visually connected to downtown. The 4th-5th North block is wierd because you need to walk there under the North Temple bridge. That Structure currently acts as a barrier defining downtown. All of the business is South of it, and North of it is largely industrial. It has most of the same problems that the Fairpark has, without the benefit of being free land. I still think the Fairpark would be a viable option if they would incorporate the Trax stop into the deal.

Thatsportsfan · 07-02-2005, 12:29 PM

From what I got out of the article, it is going to a long time before we get a stadium which is really sad. 👎 I understand that they want to make sure the excitement for RSL continues. But I have a feeling they are going to be making that excuse for a long time. :signfutil

Rocky J Squirrel · 07-02-2005, 12:51 PM

Let's see, a few weeks ago I suggested West High as a Stadium site. With a two fold purpose: 1) Replace a aged and non expandable school. 2) A downtown site with (future) TRAX and Commuter Rail access.

The site at 400 North and 200 North is just across the street to the West from the High School. There is considerable vacant former rail yard land extending for a block North and South that has been considered for a commuter rail station. If the commuter rail part of the Inter-Modal center is as far South as 600 South this site might make sense for a Commuter Rail stop if the stadium in built here. A rebuild of West High, elsewhere, would add 20 to 40 acres for sports/training fields, parking (rentable for workers and TRAX commuters), infrastructure, commercial and retail development just 2 to 4 blocks North of the Gateway and 7 blocks from the Downtown Malls.

Access from the Freeway is via surface streets from at least 4 to 8 blocks away (Southbound: 900 West or 600 North exits. Northbound: 400 South and North past the Delta Center or 600 North Exit and come back South). The North Temple overpass is a problem! It creates instant slum. Major work is needed.

The whole area North of N. Temple East of the Tracks is in bad need of gentrification brought about by new delopment. Otherwise Downtown's nearest growth opportunity (unbuilt-up without high-rise and having cheap land) will be in West Valley or Murray or Draper or... This is where new property taxes have to come from.

Good site, but a lot of creative utilization will be needed. But on a total cost basis to Real and goverment it will probably be more than Sandy or Murray but may give a bigger pay-back to the host government.
Note: Tom Love is from Love Communications who is the Stadium Consultant/Logo designer/PR representative for Real. He was at both the Murray and SLC hearings.

Aerick · 07-02-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section 37

I think the team should hold out for a real downtown spot. Right in the middle of it all.
I understand the sentiment of wanting a stadium no matter what but we should remember the long term impact of it. This will be a permanent home and it's worth waiting an extra couple of years to do it right.

Here's the breakdown:

Faripark= bad idea
Murray= worse idea
Sandy= horrifying idea

Here's MY breakdown:

Sandy= not a bad idea
Murray= not a bad idea
Fairpark= horrifying idea

We all have different ideas of where acceptable locations are, so what we SHOULD unite under is the banner of actually acheiving a SSS within an acceptable time frame. Personally, I'm not willing to wait until 2010 for a stadium if it means we have a greater chance of getting it downtown. For me, the sooner the better, for the team, for the fans, for MLS. I have a feeling that once a SSS is built, that will send a message to Utah, and the sports world that soccer is here to stay. Without it, and/or with significant delays, we would be sending a message that is exactly the opposite and more like "can soccer survive in Utah?" That's bad.

montgjules · 07-02-2005, 12:57 PM

I'd rather have a stadium somewhere decent right away so the team is profitable, than stay in RES until the team goes bankrupt and the issue is no longer an issue.

Put your energy into talking your fellow SL county taxpayers into paying for it, rather than giving the FO a hard time about the exact location. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth and all that...

PeopleWhoDontLikeMe = PeopleWhoDontLikeMe + 1

Aerick · 07-02-2005, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by montgjules

PeopleWhoDontLikeMe = PeopleWhoDontLikeMe + 1

Shouldn't it be more like this?

'Posting Program
Post = Post + 1
If Post > 1
Call Reputation
End If
End

'Reputation Procedure
Reputation
PeopleWhoDontLikeMe = PeopleWhoDontLikeMe + 1
End

:D :D

the cup · 07-02-2005, 03:49 PM

I drove by this new proposed site today after work and it seemed like an ok spot.

The only draw back (until TRAX is expanded) would be its a two block walk from the Delta Center Trax stop and you have to walk under that overpass that heads out west.

I wouldn't care but you know who paranoid some people are. They might think there are homeless trolls living under that overpass and that could scare them away.

The following quote from the article is interesting too.

"Besides, he said, the team is looking at land near the city's transit hub at 600 West and 300 South, and has found some willing sellers.

Lucky13 · 07-02-2005, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerick

Here's MY breakdown:

Sandy= not a bad idea
Murray= not a bad idea
Fairpark= horrifying idea

We all have different ideas of where acceptable locations are, so what we SHOULD unite under is the banner of actually acheiving a SSS within an acceptable time frame. Personally, I'm not willing to wait until 2010 for a stadium if it means we have a greater chance of getting it downtown. For me, the sooner the better, for the team, for the fans, for MLS. I have a feeling that once a SSS is built, that will send a message to Utah, and the sports world that soccer is here to stay. Without it, and/or with significant delays, we would be sending a message that is exactly the opposite and more like "can soccer survive in Utah?" That's bad.

I agree wholeheartedly. Point by point.
I do prefer Murray over Sandy as it is more centrally located and accessable. Particullarly via Trax, where Sandy would require shuttles to/from the venue.
Fairpark is unacceptable! Absolutely unacceptable! :signgross :badair: