yeah..there townhomes and condos and shopping malls. i'm sure the super bowl crowd can't wait to get there!!! hey, maybe they'll have THE EXACT SAME CLOTHES AT THE GAP THAT THEY HAVE AT THE GAP CLOSER TO THEIR HOMES!!! that would be fun to check out!!!
First of all, I never said there's NOTHING around Arlington... I said Arlington is about 20 minutes away from large metropolitan areas (the type of area where they originally wanted to build this stadium). Do you think that's a big plus in this stadium's favor? I don't... even if Arlington is a top 50 city in urban population size alone (behind Colorado Springs... lets build an NFL stadium there too!). Second of all, my original arguments (which MM has reiterated) have yet to be proven wrong (simply because there's no way to prove it... they are legitimate questions)... there is a concern whether or not the development around the area is sustainable, the fact that the ballpark didn't do as much as expected for the area over 13 years is a concern, and the BOTTOM LINE is that football stadiums don't have the magic wand of spurring development more than basketball arenas or baseball stadiums because of the fewer number of events held there each year. Ryan said this stadium is different because "its the cowboys..." I'm not buying that. The area around Texas Stadium wasn't all that impressive the last time I went there, and they've been playing there for 30 years. Max brought up Reliant... which actually holds the 2 week long rodeo, which is a BIG deal for that area (and is the reason Reliant will be in use more than the Cowboys stadium). And yet, much of the development there consists of apartments or condos (astroworld) which are more a function of that area being in close proximity to the medical center/rice/museum district than it is because of the stadium.
I can't believe they're even considering leaving Irving based on all the development that's gone up around Texas Stadium in the last 30 years. I mean, they are the Cowboys.
the biggest problem with their ballpark is it's like a football stadium in terms of where it's situated. it's in the middle of nowhere. and it's surrounded by parking. there is no walking to surrounding restaurants or bars. oh, and it needs a roof.
The talk before the Super Bowl was awarded was that Indy (which also has a new stadium that would go on-line one year before Jerry World) would get to host because of the lower revenue teams voting against Jerry, a large revenue owner. The fact that they had a new stadium wasn't the deciding factor. Capacity, maybe, but not the newness of the stadium. I can't wait for the Texans to represent Houston and the AFC in Super Bowl XLV. That would make this Houstonian very, very happy!
the cowboys paid cash to get the super bowl. omg, i didn't even think of that. i can imagine nothing better than the Texans winning the Super Bowl in Arlington....wait, it would be hella better if they could win it in Dallas!
I didn't assume that. It's already started to happen. Townhomes are being built now. Glorypark also is another phase which will have resturants, shops, etc...
Nick, what you're not understanding is that in this area, a 20-minute drive is NOTHING. People around here average 30 mins - 1 hr driving to work alone. Houston has the strip malls everywhere, but in the DFW area, there are shopping centers, and those shopping centers are often 20 mins - 1 hr away and people make those trips every week. Making a weekend trip to Arlington is no big deal especially when you consider it's the Cowpies playing there - they'll travel from Oklahoma if they have to. And the difference between Colorado Springs and Arlington is that Arlington is in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation - between Dallas and Fort Worth. Colorado Springs is about 70 miles away from Denver, and that's it.
I have no doubt the place will be packed when the Cowboys play... I never contended that. (its the December - August period where I have my questions). And yes... the stadium can be gotten to from Dallas... and people are willing to travel out there for games. I never contended that. (and please spare me the Houston = strip malls, while Dallas = world class shopping centers argument... Dallas has PLENTY of the strip malls, while Houston's shopping is just as comparable... if not exceeding). The argument is based on guaranteeing sustained development because of a FOOTBALL stadium, given that the baseball stadium (which causes more traffic, and has more home dates) hasn't been able to spur that sort of development for 13 years. And, do you honestly think the stadium is better off in Arlington? Or Dallas? Because, all I was reading about was how pissed Jerry Jones was that the mayor of Dallas refused to give him the land to build it where he wanted to (in Dallas).
no offense, but this isn't what we're talking about at all. we're talking about development being spurred by a football stadium. my contention is a facility that hosts 12 football games a year and is surrounded by a parking lot isn't the kind of facility that has significant impact on development...and i'll use Reliant Stadium as Exhibit "A" of that.
and you think without a football stadium, Glorypark doesn't get built??? there is development in Arlington independent of the football stadium. the idea that developers said..."hey!! they're building a football stadium that will host about 12 games a year for the Cowboys!! let's build a residential/retail/office multi-purpose development to capture all the momentum that comes from a facility that sits empty about 80% of the year!!!!" is beyond silly. and it's not those sorts of facilities that super bowl planners are looking for. they're looking for concentrated areas where people can all party together. not where they all get in cabs after the game to drive miles away. nick -- my friends from dallas were PISSED that dallas didn't get their act together and land the cowboys stadium there. they talked about what a huge opportunity lost it was for the city. hey, maybe someday the dallas cowboys will play in dallas.
Your quote : I said Arlington is about 20 minutes away from large metropolitan areas (the type of area where they originally wanted to build this stadium). Do you think that's a big plus in this stadium's favor? I don't... All I said is that won't matter. Do you think it mattered when the stadium was in Irving? Irving was 10 minutes from Dallas but even further from Ft. Worth. Wow, you're being waaaaay too defensive about that, lol. Maybe I shouldn't have said "strip malls" - that tends to get some Houstonians in an uproar. I live in the Dallas area and lived in the Houston area. Transportation to shopping areas is not the same simply because the Dallas metroplex is suburbs. Houston is not - it's basically one giant mass with shopping every step of the way. The best shopping centers and malls in the DFW area are in the suburbs. I dunno. I didn't really follow the dealings closely. But I can tell you that with a 100,000 seat stadium, you'll get Super Bowls, College Bowls, Olympic consideration, etc. A lot of people in Dallas were ticked off at that. But at this point I don't know what you're arguing? Are you saying it was stupid for Jones to put the stadium there? Are you saying it was stupid for Dallas to pass up on the stadium being built within Dallas? Are you saying Arlington sucks? What?
You'll get all of that with a nice stadium anywhere. Houston already has all of that, and then some (final fours, rodeo). But, those dates still make that place in use only 16-18 times a year, max. (including 8 Cowboys games). The argument is that even with all those events, a football stadium... by itself... doesn't spur as much growth as basketball/baseball stadiums. MadMax's original argument stated that they've got a ton of work to do to make that area interesting for more than just the ticket holders. Ryan responded with they've got 4 years. I responded with "what have they been doing the 13 years since they first built the ballpark..." and away we went. My bottom line is the same as it always was... sustained development is no guarantee simply because of a football stadium. They can master-plan it like they have been doing with glorypark or whatever else Ryan posted... but sustaining that growth has zero guarantees. And there are even less guarantees in Arlington... and seeing how Victory Park has worked out (and how the ballpark in Arlington has not for the exact same area we're talking about), my standpoint is that it may have been more likely to succeed in Dallas. The Irving scenario only helps my argument... as nothing has been developed there for 30 years, despite it being "the Cowboys."
Gotcha. I must've missed the point in the thread. I can't debate that because I don't know what all is going on there in the Arlington area. I know, for example, Jerry Jones is opening up a big shopping center in far North Dallas (north Frisco/Celina/Prosper area). If he has any such plans down there, I'm not aware of it. I agree that that the limited engagements of a football stadium cause problems when it comes to revenue, but then the city is getting revenue simply by the stadium being there. If you're arguing just city development in the form of restaurants, bars, employers, hotels, etc., like I said, I'm unsure what's going on.
Yeah, I misunderstood what you guys were trying to say. I won't argue that - at least not in the immediate future, because I have no knowledge of what may be going on in that area. Sorry for the confusion.
But... Arlington is a top 50 city! And its the Cowboys! God's team! Seriously... this thread has taken up way too much time than its worth. But, I guess that's how much Dallas news items interest me. I honestly think that stadium in Dallas would have been other-worldly... and would have given them every edge on every future event ever. The fact that its going to be in Arlington may still give them that edge... but its less likely than if it was in Dallas... much less likely.
