A
Wonder how it will look after “The Big Shake” hits CA?
The Walmart guy who owns the Rams! Chargers pay rent....
Impressive
Though if the team stinks won't matter if it's a $20 billion stadium. Still won't draw fans.
Though if the team stinks won't matter if it's a $20 billion stadium. Still won't draw fans.
Of course it's incredible, but the public will undoubtedly fund it in what continues to be one of the great systemic heists in American history.
The high school I teach at is three blocks away from the stadium in Lennox, CA. The whole thing was funded by private money...no tax dollars at all. Trust me....Lennox/Inglewood would not survive paying for this with tax money. Also, as an economics teacher it has been very interesting in class discussing the ramifications of the stadiums' effect on the local area. Lennox/Inglewood is poor and gang infested. But after the total gentrification of this area to go along with the new stadium...this area is going to change forever. It is great for those who own property in this here as home values are rising consistently....but for those who are renting...they are very nervous about their monthly payments going through the roof and it appears that is exactly what is going to happen. It's crazy...I have been teaching in this hood for 12 years and this area is about to become a much safer place to be and already has a Superbowl and Olympics in its future and will probably host a World Cup sooner than later.....the time they are a-changin!
According to what I've read, it will be privately funded.
LINK: Forbes article on stadium
"The one piece of good news here is that the Hollywood Park venue is being privately funded. Taxpayers are not being asked to throw down on what is now going to be the most expensive project in the history of North American sports."
From other articles I've read, there will be big tax breaks too, so ...
I wonder how it will look when people stop going to the games. Not that that ever happened before..2x..
I can pretty much guarantee that, stadium or not, there will continue to be bad areas surrounding it. I have first hand knowledge of that having lived less than 2 miles from M&T Ravens Stadium, Camden Yards and the Inner Harbor.
Glad to see it is being funded privately, but there are up to $100M in incentives via tax breaks and reimbursements being made, so it's not quite "ummmm....no"
Impressive that they’re building a whole community and not just a stadium. Unfortunately, as PSUinCali pointed out, some renters will be displaced, but projects of this magnitude are never going to happen without casualties.
The best part is, it totally makes Jerry World in Dallas look like a pile of tinker toys.
The best part is, it totally makes Jerry World in Dallas look like a pile of tinker toys.
.
There's subsidies and then there's subsidies. One example. You hear all the time about how Amtrak is subsidized. What you don't hear is how Amtrak (and all rail) subsidizes trucks and cars. They pay tax on diesel--that money goes to the highway fund. Rail also pays property taxes on their lines--which is not the case for the highway system. Pretty much any business has something like that going on.
I'm always surprised when I take the light rail from Hunt Valley to Camden Yards how much the neighborhoods change on that ride--and how quickly--back and forth. One minute you are in antique alley and then next you have boarded up buildings and graffiti. And then you are back in a nice section in just a block or so.
For a little while but LA doesn’t have a history of supporting pro football teams, much less 2 at the same time.
Both USC and UCLA aren’t moving to the new stadium unless they decide to play each other there as a neutral site rather than the Coliseum and Rose Bowl.
Agree...but this isn't just the Rams and Chargers....Jerry World has gotten a ton of usage outside of the NFL. And being in SoCal, this facility will be awesome for all kinds of stuff as the original poster speculates (Olympics, World Cup, Dem/Repub conventions, Consumer Electronics Shows, NCAA football/basketball championships......).
That's what they always say and it's true to some degree. Problem is you need an awful lot of that stuff to recover a $4 billion investment.
How many concerts will they need to fill to cover the $4 billion? I’m guessing concerts and games with the Mexican soccer team will be their bread and butter after the Rams and Chargers.
It’s nice to say it can be used for olympics and World Cups but those are pretty rare. The olympics are there in 2028 (IIRC) with the time before being 1984. That’s not going to pay the bills (and it’s at a time where cities and countries are refusing to bid for the Olympics because it puts them in too much debt).
Just based on location, I don’t see too many neutral site football games being played there like Atlanta or JerryWorld. It just doesn’t have the proximity to large college football bases to make a ‘quick trip over to LA’ for neutral sure games.
It’s not in the bowl rotation for the national championship games so those won’t be played there. I don’t see the Rose Bowl moving to the new stadium like the Cotton Bowl did with JerryWorld. Maybe the Holiday Bowl skips out on San Diego and moves to LA???
It’s nice to say it can be used for olympics and World Cups but those are pretty rare. The olympics are there in 2028 (IIRC) with the time before being 1984. That’s not going to pay the bills (and it’s at a time where cities and countries are refusing to bid for the Olympics because it puts them in too much debt).
Just based on location, I don’t see too many neutral site football games being played there like Atlanta or JerryWorld. It just doesn’t have the proximity to large college football bases to make a ‘quick trip over to LA’ for neutral sure games.
It’s not in the bowl rotation for the national championship games so those won’t be played there. I don’t see the Rose Bowl moving to the new stadium like the Cotton Bowl did with JerryWorld. Maybe the Holiday Bowl skips out on San Diego and moves to LA???
These new stadiums and sports facilities in general have practically become a dick-measuring contest of one-upmanship each time a new one is built. I'm at least glad to hear the taxpayers aren't footing the bill for this one.
My neighborhood, albeit on a much smaller scale, is going through something similar right now. The owner of the Columbus Crew (MLS) wants to move the team to Austin and the site he is proposing for the stadium is publicly owned land 2 miles from my house. He at least wants to privately fund the expected ~$200M for the stadium, but many locals don't like that he wants public land even though this lot has been vacant for 20+ years. The area has a lot of industrial zoning nearby, and isn't very far from one of the largest sections of crime activity and lower income areas in Austin. The MLS owner wants to start playing in Austin in 2019 (at a temporary site) so he's pressing the city for a decision before July. Many in my neighborhood are fighting it, because an increase in property values here means big increases in property taxes (~2.4% of city appraised value). The area has seen double digit appraisal growth annually for quite some time, many long-time Austinities with no plans to sell their homes are now getting priced out just based on tax bills. Since this isn't my final home, increased values are good for me but not everyone feels that way. I'm very interested in the economics of it all to see if the stadium is worthwhile.
My neighborhood, albeit on a much smaller scale, is going through something similar right now. The owner of the Columbus Crew (MLS) wants to move the team to Austin and the site he is proposing for the stadium is publicly owned land 2 miles from my house. He at least wants to privately fund the expected ~$200M for the stadium, but many locals don't like that he wants public land even though this lot has been vacant for 20+ years. The area has a lot of industrial zoning nearby, and isn't very far from one of the largest sections of crime activity and lower income areas in Austin. The MLS owner wants to start playing in Austin in 2019 (at a temporary site) so he's pressing the city for a decision before July. Many in my neighborhood are fighting it, because an increase in property values here means big increases in property taxes (~2.4% of city appraised value). The area has seen double digit appraisal growth annually for quite some time, many long-time Austinities with no plans to sell their homes are now getting priced out just based on tax bills. Since this isn't my final home, increased values are good for me but not everyone feels that way. I'm very interested in the economics of it all to see if the stadium is worthwhile.
May I quote this on our Crew boards?? It is interesting to have the perspective of an Austin resident who is not one of PSV's shills.
The interesting thing about the current plan is that he's trying to build a 20K stadium with only 1K in parking spaces.... I'm not joking.
Yeah, Bal'more did a horrible job with the neighborhoods surrounding the sports complex, especially between the Inner Harbor and the sports complex. I think part of that is due to a certain federal property, that is rather unknown, that sits within that space. Bal'more also seems to have a rather compartmentalized thinking capacity. They only focus on one area at a time and forget the rest of the city. It took how long for them to realize you can walk from Fells Point to Federal Hill?
While it certainly may fail, right now Ill give Stan Kroenke the benefit of the doubt when it comes to moves like (regarding how it works out financially for him)
Hm. Didn't know that so I had to look it up--it's a branch office of the main bank in Richmond (one of 12 main FRBs).
I'm not tied to PSV in any way and an am not even an MLS fan but I'd love to have a team here. Given my proximity to the stadium I'd probably get season tickets. It's just a shame that Austin getting a team might have to come at the expense of the Crew and their fans, but that's outside our control. I'm one in my area that is in favor of the stadium though. One of the major benefits for me is that I like concerts and a small concert event space is included in the site plan.
As for the parking, it's a mixed bag. First, this lot isn't large enough to have parking for 100% of the cars and a stadium that size even if that's what PSV wanted. But a primary concern in the area is traffic. Austin is severely underbuilt in terms of road infrastructure all over the city and traffic is always a sensitive issue. By intentionally not putting in enough parking, PSV would force fans to seriously consider other means of commuting there. This should help greatly with traffic concerns. There are other parking options nearby too, there's a big mixed use area called the Domain across the street that has many parking garages within a 10-15 minute walk. PSV will almost certainly negotiate use of those garages during games, and the Domain will likely agree because before and after games their bars, restaurants and shops will be filled with soccer fans spending money. Also many of the businesses in the industrial area are closed on weekends, so there are some smaller surface lots nearby. The site plan also included moving the closest rail station to be adjacent to the stadium, opening up more transit options and creating a park and ride for local residents (the current rail stop is 0.5 miles away and has almost no parking). Fortunately I live close enough that I'd probably bike there so the parking isn't a big issue for me personally.
Interesting. I've been following this pretty closely and I haven't heard that yet locally. I assumed that would be the case though, but had been waiting to see confirmation. Capital Metro (runs the rail line) has publicly stated it would cost ~$13M for the new station, but those articles made no mention about who would be paying for it.
Currently opposed neighbors are going to ask or demand that PSV pay for at least a portion of infrastructure improvements (roads, bike paths, sidewalks, street lights, pedestrian bridges, rail improvements, etc.) or there is no way they will ever change their stance on the stadium. They are going to look for some community benefit that is gained and not funded by taxpayers. These neighbors do not view the availability of pro sports or an event/concert center as a benefit. Even then many will still oppose it because it uses public land. Many want the city to put a park or affordable housing in this space. While that's an admirable stance, I'm not aware of any plans by the city to actually develop this lot outside of the stadium proposal. The lot has been vacant for a long, long time and could remain vacant for the foreseeable future if the stadium isn't approved. Some neighbors have even gone as far as saying they'd rather it remain vacant than see a stadium there, largely because they are vehemently opposed to anything that could raise property taxes and increase traffic.
