# Do you have stadiums located in the suburbs?



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

In the US, lots of sports stadiums are located in the burbs instead of central city. So what's the situation like in you country?


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Lots, but maybe not the majority. 

When they have surface parking for 20,000+ cars (rather than sharing city parking and using transit, or at least using garages), that's an astonishing amount of wasted land...figure 150 acres minimum for the NFL including the stadium, or 100-120 maybe for MLB. I don't know the true parking ratios per seat. Parking is about 150 spaces per acre.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

"Edge of town" stadiums are becoming more common in England, but it's not a popular move. Such places tend to be described as soulless due to the surroundings (and often the building style).

Traditionally grounds were always pretty near the centre of towns, perhaps a couple of miles out at most. They would be surrounded by the social infrastructure of pubs, restaurants, houses etc, making them lively parts of the community.

Of course it's overlooked that when they were built, they were often edge of town sites themselves, and the houses etc came afterwards.


I'd love it if stadiums in the UK could be built near city centres like some new stadiums in the USA are, but cost makes that impossible. If a few acres of land did come up for sale, a mall, office or housing development would be able to bid more for the site.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Yes, there is about 3 in Sheffield, 2 of them are in the suburbs...


----------



## Zach759 (May 20, 2010)

I can think of four that we have in the suburbs, but its not necessarily a bad thing to have a couple in the center and the rest spread out in other places. I'd hate to have all of them in on area.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

poshbakerloo said:


> Yes, there is about 3 in Sheffield, 2 of them are in the suburbs...


I think by "suburbs" the suggestion is in the American sense, that they are miles outside the centre, in the land of leafy new housing developments and strip malls, rather than just being in areas surrounding by residential streets.

I could be wrong though.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Canadian stadiums tend to be neither in the city core or out is suburbia. They're usually between the 2: residential areas just outside the core. These areas tend to be devoid of large tracts of cheap land for huge parking lots due to their proximity to downtown.

Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Ottawa, and Montreal all fit this pattern (although Winnipeg's did have substantial surface parking). The exceptions are Toronto and Vancouver which have downtown stadia. Winnipeg's new stadium opens this year and will be the first major stadium in the country that's located out in true suburbia. It's not completely in the middle of nowhere as it's located on the campus of a major university.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Stadiums, very big concert arenas and the likes do not belong within residential areas or even commercial ones. The events hold on them cause massive influx and outflux of people and vehicles, sometimes presenting security concerns.

A "middle of nowhere" stadium is much better for crowd control, parking, secondary use (as venues for massive music concerts) etc. They can even have some rail or tram station near them, if that is the case.

Stadiums in middle of low-rise residential areas with houses and pubs next door are hideous and should be eradicated and converted into other uses. Stadium crowds are naturally problematic, and they can cause trouble for the normal life of a neighborhood for their sheer size only, even without accounting for hooliganism etc. 

Also, it is bad to have a stadium within a residential area because it usually foster gangs, violent or just sport-related, that treat the stadium as some sort of 'their' ground, even if they are hopeless chavs who can't even afford season tickets.


----------



## julesstoop (Sep 11, 2002)

I agree with you on this one. To me it seems best to have a more or less dedicated area/center for large venues, outside the city and not too close to residential areas. Amsterdam's Arena Boulevard is a reasonable example. It's close to motorways and has an OV-hub, so everyone can get there reasonably easy. But it's located in an office and business district. So workers and businessmen own the quarter during daytime and fans do so in the evenings and weekends.

But let's not forget that most european cities are relatively small and dense by US standards, so - whilst being on the outskirts - the distance from the city centre by train is just some 10-15 minutes.

Personally I'd like to see football stadiums even further away from populated areas, but that's probably because of the perceived nuisance of drunk and too sometimes violent supporters. The PSV arena in Eindhoven is just a 10 minute walk from the central station and city center (although it has a dedicated and well separated - by impressive fences - train stop for supporters of visiting teams). We would have to ask the Eindhovians if they perceive a match as a real problem with this setup.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> Stadiums, very big concert arenas and the likes do not belong within residential areas or even commercial ones. The events hold on them cause massive influx and outflux of people and vehicles, sometimes presenting security concerns.
> 
> A "middle of nowhere" stadium is much better for crowd control, parking, secondary use (as venues for massive music concerts) etc. They can even have some rail or tram station near them, if that is the case.
> 
> ...


A stadium in a residential area creates a far better match-day experience than a stadium stuck miles out on some retail park.

In fact being stuck in the middle of nowhere is one of the most common complaints from fans. People love the traditional venues in a traditional setting. Out of town stadiums are just sterile. There's no sense of life in an industrial estate, particularly on a Saturday when all everything is shut.

It means when you go to the game you usually have to drive, because public transport is either poor or inconvenient.

It means when you go you have no alternative but to go to the stadium for anything to eat or drink, where you get charged rip-off prices for sub-standard fare, in an unwelcoming environment. The lack of bars and cafes decorated with breeze blocks and bare strip-lighting rather indicates it's not an ambience people actively seek out.


I've also never known any stadium foster gang behaviour. Street gangs are not drawn to stadiums.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Not in Stockholm, actually. Nearly all of our stations are in moderately built up areas, or planned to be in built up areas with apartments near or directly around them. 

Globen, Hovet, Soderstadion, Annexet and Stockholmsarenan.

All of these venues are located in the same part of Stockholm at Stockholm Globe City. It has three metro stations, two light rail stations and a major bus depot serving the location. 











Råsunda Stadium

This stadium is being replaced by Swedbank Arena, however, for now it's located in Solna next to the Tunnelbana station Solna. The light rail is also being built in the area. 











Swedbank Arena, Solna

This stadium is under construction (and the google earth pictures are well out of date). This stadium is served by rail and the light rail is under construction to here.










Stockholm Olympic Stadium

This stadium is right in the centre of Stockholm. It is served by two tunnelbana stations and the entire Roslagsbanan.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Sports teams want to be accessible to their fans, as well as hotels. In some cities, they specifically prefer to be in the middle of town, near transit. Some city governments (and electorates) also prefer the central location, which is key since in the US, teams usually pressure the public to pay a large part of the construction costs under threat of losing the team. The exception is the densest cities where there isn't land for a stadium, and any open land is desired for housing/office/etc., which are higher-grade uses. 

City centers, particularly in the US, have lots of road capacity designed to address employee rush hours. Since events are usually not during rush hours, the events can move people at a decent speed. Likewise, transit is a big factor at urban locations. Vertical parking is more expensive, but you can offset that by reducing the parking to a minimum, augmented by neighboring garages. An urban district with commuter parking for 30,000 vehicles should be plenty, if just half of those spaces (mostly in commercial garages) are opened to the 45,000-person baseball game where a lot of fans use transit (say 2/3 drive, with 2 per vehicle). 

PS, is there a single topic where suburbanist's answer isn't based on fear?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Rev Stickleback said:


> A stadium in a residential area creates a far better match-day experience than a stadium stuck miles out on some retail park.
> 
> In fact being stuck in the middle of nowhere is one of the most common complaints from fans. People love the traditional venues in a traditional setting. Out of town stadiums are just sterile. There's no sense of life in an industrial estate, particularly on a Saturday when all everything is shut.


I am thinking about people that live 365 days a year in that place, and have to put up with trash, large crowds that essentially "lock" their street every other Sat/Sunday or so, occasional violence and vandalism etc. It means every other weekend (the period in which most dwellers can enjoy their home anyway), they have to take precautions like not letting children go outside, take off anything "attractive" from their lawns, close curtains and plan their outings with the football schedule in mind. 

In some countries, living in close proximity to a stadium can make your car our house insurance premiums skyrocket.

Moreover, residential areas creates additional hazard for the situations in which police has to be involved. It is far easier to contain and put fences or what else in an industrial area than in the middle of hundreds of homes. 

Because of all this nuisance, stadiums located in residential areas are less likely to get big concerts and other events, out of concerns with causing even more disturbance to the population.



> It means when you go to the game you usually have to drive, because public transport is either poor or inconvenient.


Not necessarily. Netherlands has a handful of stadiums located in industrial areas with good transit-dedicated schemes.



> It means when you go you have no alternative but to go to the stadium for anything to eat or drink, where you get charged rip-off prices for sub-standard fare, in an unwelcoming environment. The lack of bars and cafes decorated with breeze blocks and bare strip-lighting rather indicates it's not an ambience people actively seek out.


Crows emotionally charged after a match, be them winners or losers, are a danger when that is mixed with post-match alcohol. Many young fans adopt "herd behavior" and make neighborhoods even more dangerous during matches. That puts the residents under a de-facto curfew if they don't want to risk some confrontation or cursing or provocation from the rowdy fans. And it trashes the commercial offers of the area because it will make pubs and bars cater more for the chav who can't pay for the 'overpriced beer' than for the skybox suite patron.



> I've also never known any stadium foster gang behaviour. Street gangs are not drawn to stadiums.


I'm talking about ultras and all the likes. In some cities where they are more active, particularly in Eastern Europe, they treat the areas close to "their" stadium as if it were their playground. Which means in some cases vandalism against anything that replaces "their" bars, or threats if someone who doesn't support a given team decides to live in the area and display an occasional t-shirt of their fiercest rivals.

===============

In any case, modern arenas have the focus of providing the "total experience" for the fan, and include museums, fanshops, restaurant (usually 2 with one being a cheaper fast-food), the suites and skyboxes for those willing to pay a lot, all-seater stadium, bathrooms that are more decent than 20 years ago etc.


----------



## SydneyCity (Nov 14, 2010)

The majority of stadiums in Australia are. In fact, the only stadium in Sydney that is near the city centre is the SCG (Sydney Cricket Ground). The other large here stadiums include Acer Arena and Telstra Stadium, both of which are at Olympic Park, quite a distance from the city.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> I am thinking about people that live 365 days a year in that place, and have to put up with trash, large crowds that essentially "lock" their street every other Sat/Sunday or so, occasional violence and vandalism etc. It means every other weekend (the period in which most dwellers can enjoy their home anyway), they have to take precautions like not letting children go outside, take off anything "attractive" from their lawns, close curtains and plan their outings with the football schedule in mind.


The football ground has always been there first. That's like people who buy a house at the end of an airport runway, and then complain about the noise.

The reality is that it isn't that bad. People don't have to keep children indoors or close the curtains.



> In some countries, living in close proximity to a stadium can make your car our house insurance premiums skyrocket.


then don't move there.

In some cities a new stadium is seen as a factor in urban regeneration. Admittedly that's more with baseball stadiums that are used 80+ times a year, but the people from a stadium can bring new life to a neighbourhood.



> Moreover, residential areas creates additional hazard for the situations in which police has to be involved. It is far easier to contain and put fences or what else in an industrial area than in the middle of hundreds of homes.


It depends on the streets. Terraced streets are very easy to block off.



> Because of all this nuisance, stadiums located in residential areas are less likely to get big concerts and other events, out of concerns with causing even more disturbance to the population.


Stadium concerts are typically only held in very large stadiums.



> Not necessarily. Netherlands has a handful of stadiums located in industrial areas with good transit-dedicated schemes.


Have you ever been to a game on such transit modes? They are generally great if you love being crammed in to the point of suffocation, but most would rather avoid that.



> Crows emotionally charged after a match, be them winners or losers, are a danger when that is mixed with post-match alcohol. Many young fans adopt "herd behavior" and make neighborhoods even more dangerous during matches. That puts the residents under a de-facto curfew if they don't want to risk some confrontation or cursing or provocation from the rowdy fans. And it trashes the commercial offers of the area because it will make pubs and bars cater more for the chav who can't pay for the 'overpriced beer' than for the skybox suite patron.


hardly any trouble is caused by people drinking after the game. Very few fans do. Certainly hardly any away fans do.

I know you'd love sporting events to be the sole preserve of people in sky boxes, but currently they make up about 1% of the crowd.

And it's not about not being able to afford a beer. Heck, if you can afford to go to a premier league game, you can afford to pay £4.50 for a pint of beer. You'd just rather not pay that amount, especially when it's served badly in a flimsy plastic glass in a breeze block bunker.



> I'm talking about ultras and all the likes. In some cities where they are more active, particularly in Eastern Europe, they treat the areas close to "their" stadium as if it were their playground. Which means in some cases vandalism against anything that replaces "their" bars


That's crap. Fans don't go round smashing up their own town.



> , or threats if someone who doesn't support a given team decides to live in the area and display an occasional t-shirt of their fiercest rivals.


...you are talking extremes. It hardly makes it common.



> In any case, modern arenas have the focus of providing the "total experience" for the fan


...they do it very badly.



> , and include museums, fanshops


Great for kids or people who go once ever, but if you have a season ticket, you won't be visiting a museum and shop every week. Very few stadiums have a museum anyway.



> , restaurant (usually 2 with one being a cheaper fast-food),


...which will be far more expensive than it's be normally. Who'd pay £4 for a cheap cheeseburger anywhere other than at a sports ground?



> the suites and skyboxes for those willing to pay a lot,


which is hardly anyone, other than companies and the very rich.



> all-seater stadium, bathrooms that are more decent than 20 years ago etc.


and those are impossible in grounds in residential areas?


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

LtBk said:


> In the US, lots of sports stadiums are located in the burbs instead of central city. So what's the situation like in you country?


I would disagree that lots of US stadium are in burbs if talking about the pro leagues.

MLB/NBA/NHL are about 80% downtown/urban venues, and around 50% of NFL teams play in downtown stadiums.

Look at cities like Seattle, Cincy, Cleveland, St.Louis, Denver, Charlotte, etc. where they have every pro team playing downtown. Teams like Detroit Loins, Houston Astros, San Fran Giants, etc have been moving into downtown stadiums from their former more suburban settings so the trend is only getting more urban in the US. The minor league baseball stadiums seem to be getting more urban as well in midsize cities.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

SydneyCity said:


> The majority of stadiums in Australia are. In fact, the only stadium in Sydney that is near the city centre is the SCG (Sydney Cricket Ground). The other large here stadiums include Acer Arena and Telstra Stadium, both of which are at Olympic Park, quite a distance from the city.


It depends. The MCG and Etihad Stadium are both city centre stadiums. The MCG is very close to a residential area, even if the streets are directly next door.

The Gabba is in a residential area, as is Suncorp Stadium.

Subiaco is in a residential area.

AAMI stadium, in Adelaide is much more of an "out in the sticks" stadium, and is one of the less interesting stadiums as a result. They are of course moving AFL into the cricket ground, which is just over the river from the centre of Adelaide.

Being able to walk to a ground through a lively neighbourhood makes a much better experience than having to catch a shuttle bus for a half-hour ride to AAMI.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

^^Milton (Suncorp Stadium) and Woolloongabba (the Gabba) are still in the inner city. Similar to Melbourne's Princes or Victoria Parks, though closer than the Sydney Cricket Ground of Sydney Football Stadium to Sydney CBD.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Stadiums, very big concert arenas and the likes do not belong within residential areas or even commercial ones. The events hold on them cause massive influx and outflux of people and vehicles, sometimes presenting security concerns.
> 
> A "middle of nowhere" stadium is much better for crowd control, parking, secondary use (as venues for massive music concerts) etc. They can even have some rail or tram station near them, if that is the case.
> 
> Stadiums in middle of low-rise residential areas with houses and pubs next door are hideous and should be eradicated and converted into other uses. Stadium crowds are naturally problematic, and they can cause trouble for the normal life of a neighborhood for their sheer size only, even without accounting for hooliganism etc.


I would disagree with your assumption. In Washington DC for example the construction of the Verizon Center has turned a former derelict neighborhood into a thriving entertainment and retail district with numerous entertainment venues, restaurants, and sports bars to cater to fans and passerby alike.

Same situation with Coors Field in Denver which has aided in LoDo's revitalization which turned a former rundown neighborhood into a thriving neighborhood.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> Stadiums, very big concert arenas and the likes do not belong within residential areas or even commercial ones. The events hold on them cause massive influx and outflux of people and vehicles, sometimes presenting security concerns.
> 
> A "middle of nowhere" stadium is much better for crowd control, parking, secondary use (as venues for massive music concerts) etc. They can even have some rail or tram station near them, if that is the case.
> 
> ...


Stadia in residential areas has worked quite well in Canada. If a stadium is in the suburbs, I have no way of getting there. Car ownership shouldn't be a pre-requisite for going to a game. Even if I did get there, then I'm stranded. What the hell am I supposed to do before and after the game other than stare at the highway?

Stadia close to the core is *accessible* to everyone and that's the way it should be. It also curbs sprawl and helps intensify the city.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Rev Stickleback said:


> I think by "suburbs" the suggestion is in the American sense, that they are miles outside the centre, in the land of leafy new housing developments and strip malls, rather than just being in areas surrounding by residential streets.
> 
> I could be wrong though.


Most of Sheffield is suburbs like that, just older and without motorways running thru them etc


----------



## Brummyboy92 (Aug 2, 2007)

Birmingham has 2 stadiums, 3 if you count West brom. All of which are in the suburbs however not far from the City Centre.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

isaidso said:


> Stadia close to the core is *accessible* to everyone and that's the way it should be. It also curbs sprawl and helps intensify the city.


It is morally wrong to use private stadiums to promote any social engineering goal.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Suburbanist, are you against zoning that requires separation of uses? Like stores next to housing? If not, you're a massive hypocrite about social engineering.

As for accessiblity to stadiums, you don't understand the point.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> It is morally wrong to use private stadiums to promote any social engineering goal.


What?

How can providing an asset which aids urban development be "morally wrong"?


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

...ignore this post. It was a double post and was meant to be deleted.

Ideally you'd be able to delete posts, but I can't see any way of doing it.

So whatever you do, don't waste any time at all reading this.

Ignore this line in particular. It really is unnecessary.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Rev Stickleback said:


> What?
> 
> How can providing an asset which aids urban development be "morally wrong"?


If the stadium is public, then it is fine.

If not, it is wrong to use private development resources and buildings to promote a view about how a city should be at expense of others. Especially in this day and age of urban planners that think EVERY single non-residential activity, from a funeral home to a stadium to a club to a mall, should be used to foster some hidden or not-so-hidden agenda like "densify the city", "reduce sprawl" etc.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> If the stadium is public, then it is fine.
> 
> If not, it is wrong to use private development resources and buildings to promote a view about how a city should be at expense of others.


How is improving the city "at the expense" of anyone?



> Especially in this day and age of urban planners that think EVERY single non-residential activity, from a funeral home to a stadium to a club to a mall, should be used to foster some hidden or not-so-hidden agenda like "densify the city", "reduce sprawl" etc.


...whereas measures to makes cities less dense and increase sprawl are fine with you, I take it?

Those invariably come from private development.


----------

