Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Rangers, Arlington and the Ballpark


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#51 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 19 May 2016 - 10:52 PM

I'm curious how this will affect the whole Texas Live development to, by the time that is done the current stadium will be on the way out. Surely the new stadium will be built with good development nearby as well.



#52 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 19 May 2016 - 11:02 PM

My money is on directly across Randol Mill from the current stadium. That's the largest open plot that's adjacent to the Texas Live plot.

#53 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 19 May 2016 - 11:07 PM

Thats certainly sensible. I really like the stadium setup now, even though it's not in an urban context the stadium itself is pretty urban in nature. The way it address and comes up to the streets is really nice. 



#54 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 20 May 2016 - 01:00 PM

qQBv61j.jpg

 

https://twitter.com/...727047646748672



#55 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 20 May 2016 - 03:00 PM

This is NOT good news. The new stadium would take sales tax money that could go towards mass transit instead.

 

Here's a quote from the DMN article posted earlier in this thread:

 

"WFAA-TV (Channel 8) reported that an election would be held in November to dedicate Arlington's half-cent sales tax currently paying off the Cowboys AT&T Stadium to the new Rangers ballpark." LINK


- Dylan


#56 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 20 May 2016 - 03:34 PM

This is NOT good news. The new stadium would take sales tax money that could go towards mass transit instead.

 

Here's a quote from the DMN article posted earlier in this thread:

 

"WFAA-TV (Channel 8) reported that an election would be held in November to dedicate Arlington's half-cent sales tax currently paying off the Cowboys AT&T Stadium to the new Rangers ballpark." LINK

Well it still Arlington... 

HOWEVER, we do have the Union Pacific Mainline on the drawing board. 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#57 BlueMound

BlueMound

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 891 posts

Posted 21 May 2016 - 06:44 PM

Is David Schwarz going to design the new stadium ?

#58 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,534 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 22 May 2016 - 09:04 AM

I am in agreement with Mac Engel on many of his points:

 

http://www.star-tele...le79077327.html

 

There needs to be a movement to stem the flow of municipal (public) funds to millionaire/billionaire (private) owners of sports teams. It has to be across the board, all states included. It probably needs to be an ethics-based law; i.e. it is WRONG to use taxpayer's money to support the building programs of the various sports franchises who engage in an ongoing, long-term game of keep-away with the various burgs wanting to play the franchise game for "public image" even in the face of overwhelming data-based evidence it is not the best use of that money from the view point of the average citizen. The opportunity costs are overwhelming and the owners are enriched at the public teat.



#59 jefffwd

jefffwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 22 May 2016 - 11:55 AM

Arlington peeps like their cars.  Mass transit will never work.  Build the damn stadium before Dallas sucks the Rangers away... Not that Dallas has excess cash lying around or the would be able to retain their police officers by paying them a competitive salary.  I read an article not too long ago that said a lot of Dallas PD was bolting to Plano, Fort Worth & Austin.



#60 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 22 May 2016 - 03:34 PM

"Mass transit will never work" - That's BS.

 

Many people ride DART in its suburban member cities, and I'm sure many people would take transit to the games in Arlington if it were an option.

 

-----------------------

 

As for the ballpark, there's some hope that Arlington will reject the sales tax and save the current ballpark.

 

On Twitter, there seems to be more negative reaction to the new ballpark than positive reaction.


- Dylan


#61 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 22 May 2016 - 04:34 PM

I am in agreement with Mac Engel on many of his points:... The opportunity costs are overwhelming and the owners are enriched at the public teat.

 

 

"Mass transit will never work" - That's BS.....Many people ride DART in its suburban member cities, and I'm sure many people would take transit to the games in Arlington if it were an option....As for the ballpark, there's some hope that Arlington will reject the sales tax and save the current ballpark....On Twitter, there seems to be more negative reaction to the new ballpark than positive reaction.

 

 

This is NOT good news. The new stadium would take sales tax money that could go towards mass transit instead.....Here's a quote from the DMN article posted earlier in this thread:..."WFAA-TV (Channel 8) reported that an election would be held in November to dedicate Arlington's half-cent sales tax currently paying off the Cowboys AT&T Stadium to the new Rangers ballpark." LINK

 

To Engel and to you guys, I will be in disagreement.

 

Only to a minimal degree of agreement, but a fundamental one, will you find me agreeing with the comments of Mac Engel - that the Rangers belong in Arlington.

Yes; in a perfect world,  his reasoning mattes;  but in the real world, can he and anyone else cite a city/state that do not or is not prepared to do the same; that is using taxes to support professional sporting organizations.

Suspect cities beyond Arlington sowed the seed for the need of a new stadium and were secretly planning the “heist” of the Rangers; no doubt with the aid and encouragement of media outlets to the east of the county line.  It has been predictably revelatory to follow the immediate reaction to the City of Arlington  plus (Fort Worth) step to keep the Rangers where they are and how now those who would have justified the taking of the Rangers to develop its own entertainment/CBD are suggesting taxpayer’s money being wasted.  Of course, those pursuing the Rangers had plans to do just what Arlington has accomplished. Given this circumstance, what was Arlington to do?

As for the money, Arlington appears to be an excellent financial planner.  For all the hand wringing over misplaced investments, The city retired its debt years before the final bill was due on the Ballpark in Arlington; and was able to save money to help it to repel  the eventual attempts to raid the team from Arlington by other cities.  

Even though its clear that Arlington has sealed the deal with the Rangers, the immediate reaction to the deal is that it is risky.  Well, I don’t think so at all.  Not only is there money from the current Ballpark, but money is flowing to  Arlington from AT&T Stadium faster than projected.  There will be hardly, if any, additional money needed from taxpayers as Arlington will redirect the money from AT&T to “American Airlines or BNSF Ballpark in Arlington” when the time comes.

 

How do fans have tailgate parties by using transit to a sporting event --- attending a sporting event is an entirely different thing then going to a job. Mass transit works better for commuters than for sporting events.

 

Twitter polls are not voters; and I suspect that those tweeting negatively secretly wished that the Rangers were headed to their town; and they may lack the necessary details to vote one way or another at this time. So, they are probably voting out of disappointment and or sour grapes.

 

For evidence of Arlington's strong position in this matter, a story written in Engel’s Fort Worth Star Telegram - http://www.star-tele...le10754984.html

 

A word of caution - with Mark Cuban already hinting that AA Arena is outdated, cities will be coming for them in the near future; perhaps even Arlington. :swg:



#62 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 22 May 2016 - 06:01 PM

I don't feel like jacking with quoting a bunch of posts, but some comments:

 

If Arlington voters turn this down, that will not do squat for transit in Arlington.  They will do the same with transit and the Rangers will bolt for somewhere else that will give them what they want.  That being said and anecdotal Twitter evidence aside, this will pass and it will pass easily.  

 

As for Arlington's financial planning prowess, maybe, but luck has played a big role in paying off these facilities.  Both plans came into play at the tale end of economic downturns and were paid off quickly when Arlington retail started humming along at a pretty fast pace.  

 

If we're talking about cutting off the gravy train for billionaire sports owners, why stop there?  Most of these handouts are terrible deals for taxpayers, not just stadiums.  



#63 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 22 May 2016 - 11:49 PM

Rangers%20Renovation%2011_zpscvvapl6p.jp


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#64 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,534 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 23 May 2016 - 09:38 AM

The UP mainline isn't even on the map you posted, about 3/4 mile south (bottom of map).



#65 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 23 May 2016 - 02:48 PM

Is David Schwarz going to design the new stadium ?

 

Populous are the folks behind the renderings. They have an extensive background in stadiums, and have worked on nearly all the new ones (Marlins, Nationals, PetCo, Target, Yankee)

 

http://populous.com/...ks/?sort=opened



#66 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 24 May 2016 - 10:01 AM

A good summary of national reaction to the new stadium proposal:

http://www.star-tele...le79379487.html

#67 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 24 May 2016 - 04:14 PM

A good summary of national reaction to the new stadium proposal:

 

For your information, The Star Telegram Sports Bureau is a part of the Dallas Morning News; and that should tell you much of what you need to know and why this story is being given credit.

 

As to the national reaction to the new stadium proposal, it is irrelevant and its reaction is based upon ignorance, given what little it knows about the Metroplex;  to it, everything in the Metroplex is "Dallas" - how clueless.

 

If someone is attempting to commit burglary at your home, you would be justified to use a proverbial "shotgun" to stop them.  Arlington did what it needed to do.

 

BTW,  if Dallas/Collin County want a mlb team, the Oakland A's or Tampa Bay are looking for a new stadium.



#68 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 24 May 2016 - 04:43 PM

A good summary of national reaction to the new stadium proposal:

http://www.star-tele...le79379487.html

 

I sure hope Arlington residents have these same feelings and vote to save the current ballpark.


- Dylan


#69 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 24 May 2016 - 07:01 PM


I sure hope Arlington residents have these same feelings and vote to save the current ballpark.


Yeah, you keep saying that and I'm not sure you've got a real grasp of what is happening. One of two things will happen: Arlington voters will approve the plan or the team will go to a city that will. They've tipped their hand. They want the retractable roof stadium. There is no saving the current stadium. If they do vote down the plan (they won't), it won't fulfill your transit instant gratification. Money will still be needed to "save" the stadium and Arlington will, for the upteenth time, ignore mass transit. Arlington has been turning down mass transit plans since you were a glint in your parents' eyes.

#70 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 24 May 2016 - 08:00 PM

Even if transit never happens (though it could- the last vote was 14 years ago), I still don't like the idea of tearing down the current ballpark.

 

Also, you don't know for sure that they'll move to another city.


- Dylan


#71 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 24 May 2016 - 08:11 PM

I don't want to see the old park torn down either, but I can live with it if it means staying in Arlington.

Of course I don't know that, but it's a pretty safe educated guess.

#72 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,534 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 24 May 2016 - 10:35 PM

The current ballpark is the right size and the amenities are all OK, why not just build a big barn over it with a retractable roof? The edges could be fitted so that there is a seal to keep in the AC. Solar panels on the retractable part to help defray the AC cost and shade the field at the same time?



#73 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 24 May 2016 - 11:28 PM

I can't find the article that directly addressed it, but cost was the main factor. $700 million is the figure I remember reading.  The existing structure isn't designed to support a roof and adding one would essentially involve constructing another building around it.  Doing that would require major reconfiguration of the streets around the stadium and the stadium would not be usable during construction, a big problem since there's not another stadium within reasonable distance that can be configured for baseball and can hold an average of 30,000 people per game.   By building a new stadium to the south, they can continue to play through construction and design it to directly connect to the new entertainment complex.



#74 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 25 May 2016 - 06:28 AM

The folks complaining about Arlington voters using half a cent of sales tax on stadiums would do well to consider what we in Fort Worth choose to spend our half a cent of sales tax on.



#75 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 25 May 2016 - 09:15 AM

The folks complaining about Arlington voters using half a cent of sales tax on stadiums would do well to consider what we in Fort Worth choose to spend our half a cent of sales tax on.

 

I fully suspect that most of the folks complaining about Arlington voters using half a cent of sales tax on stadiums are, by enlarge, the folks who, if given the opportunity, would vote in favor of sales tax on stadiums.

 

Last night, the Arlington City Council vote unanimously in favor of the proposed new stadium.


  • JBB likes this

#76 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 25 May 2016 - 03:13 PM

Fort Worth uses a half-cent sales tax for beefing up the police department, and another half-cent sales tax for mass transit (The T).

 

DART member cities (Dallas, Plano, Irving, etc.) pay a full cent on the dollar for mass transit, and receive superior transit service.

 

Recently, I voted against an unnecessary quarter-cent sales tax in my suburb, though it passed overwhelmingly.


- Dylan


#77 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,534 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 27 May 2016 - 10:33 AM

The architect weighs in on the fate of the Ballpark:

 

http://www.star-tele...le80298577.html

 

David Schwarz: "George (Bush) assured me it would be there for 100 years. If he had stayed owning the team it might have"



#78 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 27 May 2016 - 11:42 AM

The architect weighs in on the fate of the Ballpark:....David Schwarz: "George (Bush) assured me it would be there for 100 years. If he had stayed owning the team it might have"

 

Ask yourself, why is the Star Telegram leading the opposition to this new ballpark project?   I find it underhanded that the Dallas Morning News is using the StarTelegram in its campaign to undermine Arlington's goal of keeping the Rangers.

 

Dallas has regretted, second guessed itself and moans still to this date for not doing everything to get the Cowboys to build a stadium there.  Arlington did not make that same mistake.

 

As for the details of the 22-year old stadium, Schwarz putting the lighted baseballs on the stadium is really cheezey.  And then there is Schwarz' ripping off of the Pioneer Tower for his concert hall in Las Vegas and the new Will Rogers Arena. And then there was the vocal criticism among Dallas leaders of Schwarz' design of American Airlines Arena who felt  that the arena was not as modern enough looking and sleek for Dallas' image; should I go on?....



#79 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 27 May 2016 - 01:03 PM

Not everything the S-T has put out has been against the new stadium. Rangers beat writer Jeff Wilson wrote a strong piece in favor: http://www.star-tele...le79000122.html

The editorial board's piece was largely positive while pointing out that the financial details of balancing the remaining payoff of AT&T with the initial costs of this stadium have yet to be revealed: http://www.star-tele...le78967747.html

You can't get around the fact that replacing a very functional 22 year old stadium is unusual and I don't think the paper would be doing their job if they didn't present both sides of the story. It's pushed somewhat toward the negative side due to that unusual nature of this story: replacing a young stadium that was built to last for half a century or more. If the existing stadium had been built with a roof, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

#80 fortworthhorn

fortworthhorn

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2016 - 03:30 PM

Fort Worth uses a half-cent sales tax for beefing up the police department, and another half-cent sales tax for mass transit (The T).

 

DART member cities (Dallas, Plano, Irving, etc.) pay a full cent on the dollar for mass transit, and receive superior transit service.

 

Recently, I voted against an unnecessary quarter-cent sales tax in my suburb, though it passed overwhelmingly.

Simple fact there that sums up the transit situation in Tarrant County.

 

Dallas put their money in rail.

Houston put their money in the loop.

Fort Worth put their money in crime prevention.

Austin put their money in marketing their city.

San Antonio, well, I don't know.  They made themselves more sprawled out than DFW which is hard to do.



#81 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 27 May 2016 - 03:32 PM

And the suburbs put their money into schools and corporate subsidies (We see you Plano)



#82 fortworthhorn

fortworthhorn

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2016 - 04:28 PM

And the suburbs put their money into schools and corporate subsidies (We see you Plano)

And now those suburbs (Plano, Frisco, McKinney) have a better long term employment outlook than Fort Worth while a Tarrant County suburb, Arlington, is propping up stadium boondoggles and a questionable future business model in brick & mortar retail.



#83 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 27 May 2016 - 11:14 PM

You can't get around the fact that replacing a very functional 22 year old stadium is unusual and I don't think the paper would be doing their job if they didn't present both sides of the story. It's pushed somewhat toward the negative side due to that unusual nature of this story: replacing a young stadium that was built to last for half a century or more....

 

... Or getting around the fact that plans were already underway to heist the Rangers from that same very functional 22 year old stadium as soon as the current lease had expired.  Those wanting to take the Rangers from Arlington in six years were not showing any hesitation to the notion to the Ballpark having been built to last half a century or more.



#84 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 28 May 2016 - 02:51 PM

 

And the suburbs put their money into schools and corporate subsidies (We see you Plano)

 

And now those suburbs (Plano, Frisco, McKinney) have a better long term employment outlook than Fort Worth while a Tarrant County suburb, Arlington, is propping up stadium boondoggles and a questionable future business model in brick & mortar retail.

 

Actually, Plano is a DART member city, and pays a one cent sales tax for transit.

 

Schools are funded by property taxes, not sales taxes.


- Dylan


#85 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 28 May 2016 - 04:30 PM

Ask yourself, why is the Star Telegram leading the opposition to this new ballpark project?   I find it underhanded that the Dallas Morning News is using the StarTelegram in its campaign to undermine Arlington's goal of keeping the Rangers.

 

Conspiracy,  perhaps, but Downtown Dallas, Inc.; founded after and due to the success of Downtown Fort Worth, Inc.; made no secret of its plans to have the Rangers in a new stadium in the Farmers' Market area of Dallas.  Even with the Arlington's deal, DD,Inc. is still holding out hope that the voters in Arlington might reject the plans to keep the Rangers.  There will be a campaign to hype opposition in Arlington or to at least to report of it over and over again - watch the Star Telegram/Morning News for this to take place.

 

I was able to find an archive story about the Morning News and Star Telegram sharing of resources -

 

http://archive.apspo...309dmnfwst.html



#86 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 30 May 2016 - 11:19 AM

This article appeared in yesterday's Star-Telegram about David Schwarz and the design of the current Globe Life Park in Arlington.

 

http://www.star-tele...le80298577.html



#87 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 30 May 2016 - 07:53 PM

FYI - that's the same article that RD posted on Friday.



#88 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 30 May 2016 - 07:55 PM

Sorry. 



#89 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 18 August 2016 - 09:51 PM

The existing ballpark could be saved and repurposed, which I think would be brillaint. 

 

http://www.star-tele...le96463562.html



#90 BlueMound

BlueMound

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 891 posts

Posted 19 August 2016 - 12:58 PM

Arlington may not demolish Globe Life Park after all.
http://www.star-tele.../texas-rangers/

'Several sources have told the Star-Telegram that plans are being drawn up to keep Globe Life Park standing and find new uses for the ballpark if a new stadium is built. '

#91 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 19 August 2016 - 01:43 PM

I'm having a feeling of deja vu.

#92 BlueMound

BlueMound

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 891 posts

Posted 19 August 2016 - 01:49 PM

Oops, I should start reading older posts.
Thanks for spotting JBB

#93 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 20 August 2016 - 08:04 AM

The existing ballpark could be saved and repurposed, which I think would be brillaint.

 

But I think it is not a brilliant idea; instead, it would be a risky idea.

 

This same idea is currently being pursued so far without any tangible result by the City of Irving where Texas Stadium once stood; and where Irving had hoped to lure unsuccessfully, American Airlines,  to that location with incentives.  So, Arlington, in pursuing this idea,  will be doubling down on what the city will be on the hook for: new stadium and public/private partnership development that has the potential to become a tax burden.

 

Keep this as simple as can be: Re-purpose the site mainly for commuter parking and event parking for the area.



#94 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,534 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 20 August 2016 - 09:17 AM

There is already an office building built into the outfield stands and lots of plumbing and electrical facilities in place under the stands. It seems the problem would be to find a tenant or tenants interested in locating there and do a custom renovation. The list of themes that complement the existing development is pretty long, starting with sports, entertainment, hospitality, etc. If retaining part of the stands maybe activities (sports concerts, events) that are appropriate to some time "not summer" could be designed for. It would be fun to be invited to sit down and brainstorm how this structure could be re-purposed.

 

Um... note to city and interested developers: send a PM for my available schedule.



#95 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 26 August 2016 - 12:04 PM

The UP mainline isn't even on the map you posted, about 3/4 mile south (bottom of map).

 

I know it's like 3 months late, but I'm just now seeing this...

I know that. 

But my idea is to curve the line up north for both the DART and FWTA and terminate on Randol Mill, creating a sort of ITC for Arlington on Legends Way. I know it's asking A LOT, but still, my idea. 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#96 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 21 September 2016 - 08:12 PM

Quite a few developments since this thread was last updated:

 

  • The Tea Party heavy Tarrant County Republican Party came out in opposition of the stadium proposal.
  • More concrete details on the Texas Live! development set to go up in the space between the current stadium and the new one: a hotel, 3 event venues, retail, an endorsement from the MLB commissioner, and a construction start in November (or in the words of owner Ray Davis, right after the Rangers win the World Series).
  • More details on plans to keep the existing stadium as office space and an amphitheater.  Of course, the Rangers hold the upper hand as far as this goes and, according to the agreement as it stands, can demolish Globe Life when they're ready and use the space however they want.  As in parking, since all of these proposals take away the parking directly adjacent to the new stadium.
  • Brett Shipp and WFAA have taken the lead in the media as far as rooting against the stadium goes.  Last night's piece following up on the development announcement contained a pretty bold, unsubstantiated claim from an opposition group leader that this announcement was a desperate ploy reacting to polls indicating the vote won't pass.  They didn't elaborate at all on these polls and I haven't found anything else indicating that the proposal is in real trouble.


#97 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 21 September 2016 - 08:51 PM

 

Quite a few developments since this thread was last updated:

 

The Tea Party heavy Tarrant County Republican Party came out in opposition of the stadium proposal....

  • Brett Shipp and WFAA have taken the lead in the media as far as rooting against the stadium goes.....

 

  There's a split within the Tarrant GOP but aside from the extremists, the Republicans are leaning towards "approval" and the GOP is aligning itself with Greater Tarrant County (Fort Worth Chamber, Arlington, HEB probably? in giving their support for a new ball park. 

 

 As for Dallas' core media outlet, there is a whispering campaign for a "No" vote.  (post#85) .... Y'all know why?



#98 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 09 November 2016 - 12:22 AM

That being said and anecdotal Twitter evidence aside, this will pass and it will pass easily.  

 

 

See what I mean?



#99 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 09 November 2016 - 11:13 AM

Overall, I couldn't care less about professional sports, but I'm curious about just how often all of these new retractable roof stadiums are actually open.  Are they open enough to make the added expense of having the ability to open the roof worthwhile, or is it just the latest gimmick?



#100 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 09 November 2016 - 11:07 PM

 

That being said and anecdotal Twitter evidence aside, this will pass and it will pass easily.  

 

 

See what I mean?

 

 

 Great call; both you and Arlington. :swg:


  • JBB likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users