Subdude Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Either a picnic area, a place for moon walks etc. Minor league baseball is not about baseball, at least for most teams.I'd be looking forward to the food they'd conjure up though. But not sure if I would actually eat it. EDIT: here is the thread talking about minor league baseball in SugarLand http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...showtopic=17158 What are moon walks? Actually minor league games I have been to seem to be more about baseball than major league games sometimes seem to be. Big league games have a bit too much focus on programmed between-inning entertainment than the game itself (says cranky old man! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxDave Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Why does Dallas keep doing the same thing with regard to sports facilities downtown and apparently each time thinks it will turn out differently. Like American Airlines Center/Victory Park and the Reunion Arena/Reunion development before it, while this is a nice development, it will do almost nothing for downtown Dallas.The difference is that, unlike the AAC or Reunion, there are (currently) no taxpayer subsidies for this project. If developed with private funds, any activity at this ballpark will be a positive generator for downtown.Also, I believe the AAC has had a positive effect overall for downtown Dallas. Arguments for or againt the Victory development aside, having the arena downtown has been better than along some freeway in a suburb like Plano or Irving (the likely alternative). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Also, I believe the AAC has had a positive effect overall for downtown Dallas. Arguments for or againt the Victory development aside, having the arena downtown has been better than along some freeway in a suburb like Plano or Irving (the likely alternative).Yes, having the arena in Victory is marginally better for downtown Dallas than having it along some freeway in a suburb. But having the arena IN downtown Dallas would have been immeasurably better for downtown Dallas than having it at the far end of Victory, across a freeway from downtown Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanbentrup Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Speak of the Devil, IIRC isnt this the area where the Cowboys were first looking at building a new stadium in Downtown Dallas, well until Laura Miller screwed the whole thing up. I know the site was on Industrial Blvd near Downtown. If this is THAT site, what a HUGE missed opportunity this has turned out to be. From a preimer venue Downtown hosting the Cowboys, the Super Bowl, the Final Four, the Cotton Bowl, etc to .......a just minor league ballpark. MASSIVE FAIL. Considering the results, I wonder how some Dallas residents an business owners feel about Miller now?The Cowboys were mainly looking at two sites in Dallas, either just west of downtown (Industrial) and Fair Park. This site is just south of downtown, in the Cedars.Also, I would suggest that Laura Miller had less to do with killing the Cowboys deal, and that county government was a bigger culprit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NThomas Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Yes, having the arena in Victory is marginally better for downtown Dallas than having it along some freeway in a suburb. But having the arena IN downtown Dallas would have been immeasurably better for downtown Dallas than having it at the far end of Victory, across a freeway from downtown Dallas.The same could be said about Reunion Arena. It was choked off from the rest of DTD by the rail lines and only having DART light-rail access for 4 years didnt really do much to boost Reunion's ease of access. Victory Park on the other hand has (and still is) pledged with urban planning problems. Even the original Palladium Co. plans showed the AAC in the same location. A Victory Park with the AAC closer to the West End Historical district (and Woodall Rodgers Frwy) maybe across from the Newport's Seafood Restaurant. I can understand the idea of drawing people in from the West End to the AAC and have them walk past all the shops, but again, poor urban planning left no "grand entry" to VP from that direction.Having an arena or stadium in an easily accessible area (the former proposal in near the Dallas Farmer's Market) is critical to the surrounding businesses. That's where VP went wrong. If this new stadium can create a viable plan for a pedestrian bridge to the stadium from DART's Red and Blue line's Ceader's station, then I don't see why this project won't attract visitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 The same could be said about Reunion Arena. It was choked off from the rest of DTD by the rail lines and only having DART light-rail access for 4 years didnt really do much to boost Reunion's ease of access. Victory Park on the other hand has (and still is) pledged with urban planning problems. Even the original Palladium Co. plans showed the AAC in the same location. A Victory Park with the AAC closer to the West End Historical district (and Woodall Rodgers Frwy) maybe across from the Newport's Seafood Restaurant. I can understand the idea of drawing people in from the West End to the AAC and have them walk past all the shops, but again, poor urban planning left no "grand entry" to VP from that direction.Having an arena or stadium in an easily accessible area (the former proposal in near the Dallas Farmer's Market) is critical to the surrounding businesses. That's where VP went wrong. If this new stadium can create a viable plan for a pedestrian bridge to the stadium from DART's Red and Blue line's Ceader's station, then I don't see why this project won't attract visitors.It can and no doubt will attract visitors, just as AAC attracts visitors. The point is, those visitors will do nothing for downtown Dallas. They will come and go from the ballpark, just as they do from AAC and just as they did from Reunion, without any interaction with downtown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 The difference is that, unlike the AAC or Reunion, there are (currently) no taxpayer subsidies for this project. If developed with private funds, any activity at this ballpark will be a positive generator for downtown.I cannot for the life of me see why public subsidy would have any effect...positive or negative...on downtown. Sports patrons, or anyone else, do not look at the financing scheme when deciding whether to attend a baseball game. And, considering the amount of public money Dallas has poured into downtown apartment conversions, basketball arenas and deck parks...and the constant crowing of Dallas boosters on how great these amenities are...I cannot believe you are even suggesting that a non-subsidized project is better.Since no one else will say it, I guess I have to. A minor league park on the edge of downtown will have virtually no effect on downtown, positive or negative. I suppose it is all they have left to cheer about, though. Nothing else has worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 I cannot for the life of me see why public subsidy would have any effect...positive or negative...on downtown. Sports patrons, or anyone else, do not look at the financing scheme when deciding whether to attend a baseball game. And, considering the amount of public money Dallas has poured into downtown apartment conversions, basketball arenas and deck parks...and the constant crowing of Dallas boosters on how great these amenities are...I cannot believe you are even suggesting that a non-subsidized project is better.Since no one else will say it, I guess I have to. A minor league park on the edge of downtown will have virtually no effect on downtown, positive or negative. I suppose it is all they have left to cheer about, though. Nothing else has worked.What do you mean "no one else will say it"? ;-) I said it... twice. But thanks anyway, for agreeing with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NThomas Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 What do you mean "no one else will say it"? ;-) I said it... twice. But thanks anyway, for agreeing with me. I agree too, it a minor league ballpark won't have any effect for DTD. The Ceders neighborhood and the development surrounding the ballpark will be effected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxDave Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 While this discussion continues to split hairs as to whether or not these projects are "downtown" or just "downtown adjacent", the fact remains that any project in Central Dallas (downtown or neighboring districts) is good for the city overall. Regardless of any individual's specific definition of "downtown", these projects generate activity in the central city overall. And, as previously stated, these projects (perfect or not) are better for the city than some development in the middle of parking lots along a freeway in one of Dallas' aggressive suburbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.