Yeah, that's why I like what Missouri's done. In KC, Kauffman and Arrowhead got some upgrades, but they're the same stadiums we've had since 1973. In STL, the Cardinals got a new stadium in 2006, replacing a really crappy 40-year-old stadium that never was any good. In exchange, we got a beautiful venue that pays homage to the golden age of baseball while also providing modern conveniences that people have come to expect. But when the Rams said they wanted a new place, when we had just given them one 20 years ago that's still perfectly fine, we said L.A. looks good.
The feeling really was mutual. We made a good faith effort to draw up some plans for a new stadium, but the Rams were a huge flop from the city's perspective. The reason cities subsidize stadiums is that they attract visitors to the city who then stay in hotels and eat at restaurants (read: pay taxes to the city). The Rams never were a huge draw for visitors, so the city lost millions on the TransWorld Dome. The convention centre makes a fair profit, but the stadium never did. Hence why the offering from St. Louis was pretty weak--so much so that L.A. already began construction on the new stadium even before the Rams officially turned down St. Louis' offer. They were going to California and everyone knew it.
^Construction actually just started last week because they needed FAA approval for the cranes since the site is so close to LAX. The construction prior to that was demolishing the horse racing track and rebuilding the casino. The city/state were ready to offer up $400 million for a new stadium in St. Louis.
^ Okay, I guess I confused the demolition as part of the construction. But yeah, they asked for a stadium only as an excuse to get out of St. Louis. And we drew up plans only to give a show of effort. Neither side wanted to continue having the team in St. Louis. The stadium plans are still alive for the riverfront, just for a different kind of football. Honestly I think attendance would be better for an MLS franchise than for an NFL team. St. Louis is just that sort of town.
MLS will be forgotten in 20 years. They are diluting the league by adding so many teams and not doing relegation. There's only so many hipsters in each market who think it's cool going to soccer matches...
MLS is definitely no great shakes, but it's also managed to survive for 23 years and easily beat the best days of the NASL. Unless interest in soccer completely goes away, the league isn't going anywhere.
^I'm certainly no expert, but I think the future of the league will be decided between 2019 and 2022 when the current CBA is up and their TV deal is up. Right now it's hot and the owners are probably making money from it being trendy and getting new teams to pay expansion fees, but I think the REAL test will be how big of a TV deal they get and if they can keep wages down.
coasterbill wrote:The fact that the Rangers (and Braves) are getting new stadiums is ridiculous. Great photos of that perfectly good, relatively modern ballpark.
Yes the park is pretty new, (Rangers) however with the brutal summers we have it should have been built with a roof in first place. 105 to 110 in the summer with field temps higher. It will make a for a better fan experience and I imagine would bring in other players such as pitchers who don't want to pitch for the Rangers in the brutal heat. The old stadium is staying put, it will be used as venue for entertainment and such.
These pages are in no way affiliated with nor endorsed by SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Cedar Fair, Legoland, Merlin Entertainment, Blackstone, Tussaud's Group, Six Flags, Universal Theme Parks, the Walt Disney Company or any other theme park company.
photos and videos on this website were taken with the permission of the park by
a professional ride photographer.
For yours and others safety, please do not attempt to take photos or videos at
parks without proper permission.
You need a sense of humor to view our site,
if you don't have a sense of humor, or are easily offended, please turn back
Most of the content on this forum is suitable for all ages. HOWEVER! There may be some content that would be considered rated "PG-13." Theme Park Review is NOT recommended for ages under 13 years of age.