I just read about the Braves moving to "commemorating" (after 20 years) their last season at Turner before moving to Cobb County. Which do you prefer? I prefer the city, especially the interior of the city (not synonymous with the inner-city however) so that everyone on all sides of a metro area, in general, has access to it. Exceptions may be if a city is coastal and far away from most of its metro population and disposable income or if the entire inner city more or less is deplorable.

There are some cities with rough inner cities but they have solid pockets for their teams to play in with no issue (Detroit, St. Louis, New Orleans) while there are others with suburbs, while not dangerous, that are places fans would rather not have to spend their game night in compared to a central core (East Rutherford, Nassau, Foxborough, Arlington, etc...).

When I was younger, I would say the city. Now that I am older, I would prefer the suburbs.

When I was younger, you are thinking about what bar or tourist area you want to visit after the game. When you are older, you think about how quickly you can get in and get out and how easy is the parking.

The wrong suburbs can be brutal when it comes to traffic and in some cases worse.

And I don't think I clarified. You probably got it but I mean suburb in the sense of a place created more or less as a commuter suburb, not a place like Cambridge, Beverly Hills, Inglewood, Carson, Daly City, Evanston, Yonkers, etc... that's basically just an extension of the cityscape.

I do like centralized locations, which is why I love the Rangers and Cowboys being in Arlington instead of downtown Dallas. I do wish there was more a bar scene close to the stadiums though. If they could ever create a real bar district like 6th street in Austin or New Orleans' French Quarter it would be perfect. (Well, and finish the highway construction, and maybe add some sort of public transportation)

Agreed that close-in suburbs are part of the "city center" for purposes of this discussion. The Phoenix area is a good example. Tempe is a good central location for a stadium or arena. Glendale is not.

The NFL is different because so many NFL fans never have attended and never will attend even one game in person. All those 49ers fans who never went to a game at Candlestick may not care that they now play in a Santa Clara stadium that they will also never visit. But even for an NFL team, it has limits. If the 49ers' new stadium were in Sacramento or Fresno, they would no longer be thought of as a "San Francisco" team.

(02-29-2016 12:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The wrong suburbs can be brutal when it comes to traffic and in some cases worse.

And I don't think I clarified. You probably got it but I mean suburb in the sense of a place created more or less as a commuter suburb, not a place like Cambridge, Beverly Hills, Inglewood, Carson, Daly City, Evanston, Yonkers, etc... that's basically just an extension of the cityscape.

Dodgers (Downtown Los Angeles) vs Angels (Orange County). I love Dodger Stadium and its location but I hate ingress/egress - it's a disaster. Angel Stadium is corporate and lacks character but it's a piece of cake to get in and out of games.

It's hard to state a preference in a vacuum though. Chavez Ravine is a nightmare to navigate but I can't imagine going to see the Dodgers anywhere else.

I can't speak for any other region, but when it comes to city association, the only people who think of the Angels as a Los Angeles team are nowhere near Los Angeles (new name notwithstanding).

It's news to me that Foxborough is "rough" and a place to avoid.

You clearly misread the last paragraph of the OP then. Reread it.

Depends on the sport. For football, I think wherever you can find a spot that is inexpensive, and traffic can handle it, is fine, since it is only a few times per year, nearly all on weekends. For the other sports, where people are often coming in after work or school, I think the population center is best, which is typically going to be downtown. However there are two important factors to consider: is the city part of a megalopolis? Is it cost prohibitive to build in the middle of the city. For example, a place like Dallas, the Bay Area, or Los Angeles, the downtown city center, may not be the population center. Or a place like New York or Washington DC, it is impractical to build a large venue in the middle of the city in many cases.

(03-01-2016 01:09 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  You clearly misread the last paragraph of the OP then. Reread it.

You're half right. You didn't call Foxborough "rough" but DID say you wouldn't want to spend time there.

If you meant,"PITA to get to", I certainly concur.

That's precisely what I meant.

(03-01-2016 02:43 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 01:09 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  You clearly misread the last paragraph of the OP then. Reread it.

You're half right. You didn't call Foxborough "rough" but DID say you wouldn't want to spend time there.

If you meant,"PITA to get to", I certainly concur.

And please note, I actually have been to a game at Gillette Stadium and it did make me question why a major sporting facility is in a village like that (as we noted, it's hard to get to). I much rather would have wanted to go to a game in Cambridge, Boston or even Providence. I still have never been to Boston to date.

(02-29-2016 01:05 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I just read about the Braves moving to "commemorating" (after 20 years) their last season at Turner before moving to Cobb County. Which do you prefer? I prefer the city, especially the interior of the city (not synonymous with the inner-city however) so that everyone on all sides of a metro area, in general, has access to it. Exceptions may be if a city is coastal and far away from most of its metro population and disposable income or if the entire inner city more or less is deplorable.

There are some cities with rough inner cities but they have solid pockets for their teams to play in with no issue (Detroit, St. Louis, New Orleans) while there are others with suburbs, while not dangerous, that are places fans would rather not have to spend their game night in compared to a central core (East Rutherford, Nassau, Foxborough, Arlington, etc...).

There were several issues that led to the Braves moving to Cobb County:

• Neighborhood around Turner Field failed to gentrify
• Terrible TV deal requiring alternate revenue streams
• City favored building a new Dome over Braves
• Cobb County giving free money for new facility
  

The good the about the current location is the it was a reverse commute during gametime, meaning that you could drive to the stadium. No who know anything about Atlanta afternoon rush hour believes that getting to Sun Trust Field will be an easy endeavor.

As for locations in general I really believe its dependant on the sport and the city. One of the reasons the Thrashers left is that the team simply couldn't generate the interest downtown. But I think the team could have thrived if it was located in the same place the Braves are heading.

On the flip side, most of the Braves fans are already in the suburbs, so it helps, though not for those on the opposite side of the metro from Cobb.