In the last few decades, local tax dollars have built stadiums for the Cardinals, Suns, Coyotes, and Diamondbacks. Until someone tells them no, why not ask for a new stadium every 20 years? Gila River Arena was opened in 2003, but that's not stopping the Coyotes from building a new arena in Tempe.
which I think is a big part of why there are more teams in AZ now than in Florida. When I went on Spring Break in college 25 years ago there were something like 8 teams there. And Gary Scott was the big attraction because he was the phenom 3rd baseman who would someday lead the Cubs to the World Series. Except he didn't.
I bet that makes the most financial sense. For one, the stadiums in question cost a fraction of traditional professional facilities to build and operate. Secondly, the return for the communities is probably magnified as well - while professional cities may see incremental upticks in tourism(-like) activity from visiting fans, their bases are likely to be spending their dollars within the same economy one way or another (some notable exceptions like New Orleans come to mind). Conversely, the Cactus League draws almost exclusively from outside the area, generating much more significant marginal increases.
I don't know from my uninformed outsider's perspective. But I always start from a stance of skepticism, assuming that folks are just putting bargaining chips on the table for leverage in negotiations. Sure, sometimes they are very real... but usually it seems not at all. Remember when the Cubs were talking about moving to the suburbs not too long ago (was it Rosemont?)... sure thing! All while negotiating a plan for upgrades for Wrigley.
Harold Washington was the mayor. The Cubs were threatening to move to Schaumburg. Harold Washington told them to make sure they left the Chicago name behind when they left, iirc.
There was discussion of building a Wrigley replica in the northwest suburbs. Of course, the dynamics there were quite different than in Arizona. The Cubs are in a 100-year-old park in a cramped residential neighborhood. They obviously needed to either upgrade Wrigley substantially -- a very difficult project given its age and location -- or build a new home. Chase Field isn't even 20 years old yet. At most, it needs a modest boob job.
That was a media creation in almost every way.
They knew negotiating with a city with such idiotic politicians as Chicago has would be difficult, but moving was never presented as an option.
"The fact is that if we don't have the ability to generate revenue in our own outfield, we'll have to take a look at moving — no question," Ricketts told reporters after outlining renovation plans to Chicago business leaders.
Did anyone take it as a serious threat or did he really intend it so? No. Not for one fraction of a nanosecond did the thought run through my mind that... Oh dear goodness me, the Cubs may move from Wrigley out to the suburbs! That was my point in the original reply... in this case we knew what was going on, so we could discern that it was pure negotiation and not pay it any mind beyond the desired outcome of the negotiation. And I start with that as my base assumption with other cities where negotiating chips are played, until I learn otherwise that a threat is real and should be taken seriously. In the Phoenix case, I'll assume that they are trying to negotiate better terms for their lease. Or a better slide for the pool. Or something.
By the way, with Ricketts, what he said needed to be said (just so you know we have other options), it was smart business, and I'm glad he said it. I assume when you talk about media creation you are referring to concocted stories about potential suitors and the media overplaying the seriousness of the so-called threat.
38 days until pitchers and catchers report. Can't come soon enough!
Notre Dame stadium needs one too - is that part of the Crossroads plan?
When Stein threatened to move them to the Meadowlands.
Chase isn't the best park in baseball, but unlike Texas and Atlanta there's no clear cut need to do this only to stay in phoenix.
The city of Dallas was likely going to make a play for the Rangers when their lease was up and they want a retractable roof in the worst way.
While looking at the renderings.
It appears the new park will face NE instead of SEvwhich will help. But the LF concourse looks wide open. Will the stadium only have a roof but be open on the sides? If so thats a huge design flaw. The main complaints have always been impressive heat and rain, in that order, dating back to Arlington stadium. I would think they would want to enclose the stadium to run this shit out of an air conditioner in there.
Am I mistaken?
Right now people are complaining that it looks too much like Minute Maid Park. It is supposed to be fully enclosed. The heat has always been the complaint, so the open portion like they have at Safeco wouldn't work here. I'm guessing that's just an initial draft and things will get changed later on. One of the biggest will be the seating reduction to about 41,000. 49,000 which is what the current park is, is just too big for baseball these days. Even if you get a good weeknight crowd it looks half empty.
Had the city worked with the Braves in the past to develop the area like they originally discussed, I'm pretty sure the Braves would be staying put. I don't know if that would've helped the attendance issue, but it would've definitely weakened the Braves' argument.
No such argument exists in Phoenix, unless they're looking to change metros.