Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Rangers Ballpark in F.W. ideas.

Ballpark2024 Texas Rangers

  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#1 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 07 October 2014 - 10:48 PM

In light of recent talks of the Rangers possibly leaving Arlington in the not-too-distant future, I decided to do something I did with a soccer specific stadium in mind and make a thread for the slight chance of the Rangers playing deeper into Tarrant County when the lease is up 10 years from now.

I had 10 (actually, about 14) sites for the soccer stadium, but I think I'll cut it down to around 5 or 6 for the Ballpark. 

 

And just a note, I didn't make the model for the ballpark used in the examples. Someone else made it and I simply just downloaded it as a place holder.

 

10710517_10203929370228074_8396929581289

 

 

 

Basic Info:
- It's LaGrave Field. In its current state, it's a serviceable minor league ballpark. I don't think there's too much you would have to do with the current structure of the park outside of expanding the field, replacing the current outfield seats, and of course, remodeling the facade. Obviously, everything else would have to be built up to reach MLB standards.

Pros:
- Would be in an urban area
- Would be part of the TRV, and with pretty much everything around it being new, would help create a landmark neighborhood in the city and within good walking distance of several new attractions and downtown.
- Good view of the skyline for fans and visitors.

Cons:
- Based on the latest renderings for Panther Island, there would have to be a lot of reconfiguration with the streets and canals. 
- I would have this as a "Toss-up", but after thinking about it, maybe having a ballpark this size THAT far away from a major highway might not be good. Now, if we had the urban transit for it, I wouldn't have much problem. It may be a long shot, but 10 years is a long enough time... 
- Would take out some mixed-use, low rise buildings originally planed for the TRV.

Toss-ups:
- Parking... Pretty sure if the Rangers built a ballpark anywhere in the Core Hoods, there would be plenty of garage parking, but you know how people feel about garage parking here. 

 

 

1904136_10203929358307776_42509225663000

 

10653846_10203929357867765_5273301681619

 

10420138_10203929357787763_1155775301198

 

(from I-35)

 

10665769_10203929356547732_8185846095354


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#2 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 07 October 2014 - 11:23 PM

Same problem as discussed for your arena, very poor transportation into and out of the area. A regional draw in this area has to be easily available from freeways.



#3 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 08 October 2014 - 07:56 AM

Same problem as discussed for your arena, very poor transportation into and out of the area. A regional draw in this area has to be easily available from freeways.

 

I already addressed that and mentioned having better public transportation options. Like I said before, there are plenty of arenas (and a few ballparks) that don't have direct access to a major highway or not even that close.

It just depends on how the city plans and builds for something like this to happen.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#4 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 08 October 2014 - 08:36 AM

I just don't know why we bother with this when the chances of getting the Rangers close to downtown Fort Worth are exactly zero.

 

If you look at the demographic center of the metroplex (the point at which you are closest to the largest number of people), that would probably be somewhere around 183 and 161 in Irving.  Check it out on a map, and then see how close that point is, in miles, to downtown Fort Worth.  You think the Rangers owners would even consider that?  I certainly wouldn't if I was them. 



#5 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,981 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 08 October 2014 - 08:45 AM

Similar to the Braves moving out of downtown. They are headed for the richest part of town where most of there season tickets originate, far into the suburbs.

 

 

Regardless though, I love the speculation and vision, even if it's potential is doubtful. 



#6 Jimmy

Jimmy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76116

Posted 08 October 2014 - 09:35 AM

Love the thought process here, even if I do have the same concerns raised above about this particular site.  



#7 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 08 October 2014 - 09:52 AM

I just don't know why we bother with this when the chances of getting the Rangers close to downtown Fort Worth are exactly zero.

 

If you look at the demographic center of the metroplex (the point at which you are closest to the largest number of people), that would probably be somewhere around 183 and 161 in Irving.  Check it out on a map, and then see how close that point is, in miles, to downtown Fort Worth.  You think the Rangers owners would even consider that?  I certainly wouldn't if I was them. 

 

Nothing is "exactly zero" when it comes to pro sports teams moving their facilities. 15 years ago, who would have thought the Cowboys would be playing in OUR county...?

After all, having baseball parks out in the 'burbs aren't as appealing as having them in or at least closer to the center of the city. And there's also the chance of the Rangers playing in Dallas in the future. I'm just looking at it as if Fort Worth would be the city the Rangers move to, IF they ever did...


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#8 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,324 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 08 October 2014 - 12:23 PM

It's LaGrave Field. In its current state, it's a serviceable minor league ballpark. I don't think there's too much you would have to do with the current structure of the park outside of expanding the field, replacing the current outfield seats, and of course, remodeling the facade.

 
I hate to beat a dead horse, but if you believe this, you either haven't been to LaGrave or you haven't been to an MLB ballpark. Look at the model you're using versus the current LaGrave. You're kidding yourself if you think there's even a remote chance that you could do anything short of level the park and start fresh.
 

Similar to the Braves moving out of downtown. They are headed for the richest part of town where most of there season tickets originate, far into the suburbs.

 
Just splitting hairs, but while the Braves are moving to the 'burbs, they are not currently downtown. Inner city, yes, but not downtown.
 

15 years ago, who would have thought the Cowboys would be playing in OUR county...?


Given that Arlington was already home to one pro team and they were big players in the sweepstakes for the Stars/Mavericks arena, I don't think it was much of a reach to think they had a good chance at landing the Cowboys.

#9 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 08 October 2014 - 01:01 PM

 

 
I hate to beat a dead horse, but if you believe this, you either haven't been to LaGrave or you haven't been to an MLB ballpark. Look at the model you're using versus the current LaGrave. You're kidding yourself if you think there's even a remote chance that you could do anything short of level the park and start fresh.
  
Given that Arlington was already home to one pro team and they were big players in the sweepstakes for the Stars/Mavericks arena, I don't think it was much of a reach to think they had a good chance at landing the Cowboys.

 

 

Minor league ballparks have been upgraded to major league for years, like former Turnpike/Arlington Stadium. There are stadiums all over the world that start small and expand over the years, so I don't really see the issue with taking down about half the park (the conessions, restrooms, corridor would have to expand and obviously the roof would have to be taken down) and expanding it.

The model that I'm using isn't specifically fit to anything... it's just a place holder. I just don't see the problem.

Is it the location? The field? ....like, what is it about LaGrave that you don't find worth expanding?


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#10 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,981 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 08 October 2014 - 01:18 PM

 


 

 

 (the conessions, restrooms, corridor would have to expand and obviously the roof would have to be taken down)

 

 

So basically just leaving the field, dugout and first 5 rows of seating? Cause thats all that you could leave really. 



#11 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,324 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 08 October 2014 - 01:19 PM

The example you use is a minor league stadium built 49 years ago, renovated for an MLB franchise 42 years ago (and I feel confident in stating that was the last minor league park renovated for MLB use, or at the least, there are none currently in use), and replaced and demolished 20 years ago. I don't see that as relevant support that there's not much you would have to do with LaGrave to make it pro-ready.

My problem isn't the location or the field. You just can't simply expand it and make it pro-ready. The amenities and the construction of the areas behind the infield are high-end little league quality at best. The playing surface itself is fine, but I doubt it's built with the drainage specifications necessary for 80 games in 6 months of the year. The lower seating bowl may be fine to use, but it is still woefully undersized. As I stated in the other thread, there are multiple stories of support space and infrastructure below the street level at the current ballpark in Arlington. That would have to go somewhere, thus drastically increasing the footprint needed.

#12 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,324 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 08 October 2014 - 01:21 PM

 
 (the conessions, restrooms, corridor would have to expand and obviously the roof would have to be taken down)

 
 
So basically just leaving the field, dugout and first 5 rows of seating? Cause thats all that you could leave really.


What he said. And I doubt the dugouts and field would be major league ready without major modifications that would make starting over from scratch more reasonable.

#13 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 08 October 2014 - 01:47 PM

Well of course the footprint would have to be bigger. Pretty much everything would have to be bigger, which is my point.

 

There was mentioning of having to basically just replace the whole thing... well, in a way, that's basically what I'd propose with LaGrave. And yes, it is the current rows of seating and dugouts... although they would have to expand as well.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#14 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 08 October 2014 - 11:34 PM

For my second site, it's one that I've been eyeing for a few months, now. 

 

10670258_10203937222544377_2928674507749

 

Basic Info:
- Cornered in the southwestern edge of downtown, this site is part of the SERIOUSLY under developed Upper Westside. It's bounded by 2 major streets and an Interstate highway, so there should be no issues at all with cars getting there. 

Pros:
- This spot is in an area where you're within at least 1/2 of a mile of any major urban neighborhood in any direction.
- Considering the lack of development in this area (especially since this is generally seen as part of downtown), the ballpark alone would improve that side of downtown.

- Easier access to stadium, via automobile. Again, would be even better with some form of rail. I personally envision a line going down Lancaster.

Cons:
- There are buildings on this site that would have to be demolished, and two of them are historic homes from what looks like the late 19th/early 20th century
- Because there's no adequate public transit and this place isn't all that walkable, getting here outside of a car might not be as fun. 
- Parking.... Garages would have to be built, most likely across Lancaster and maybe even have open lots & garages south of I-30. 

Toss-ups:
The on-ramps would make for a tight fit around (what I have pictured) the 3rd base section. 

- Other than the two old houses I mentioned that would have to be demolished, the rest of the buildings are much less historically (and architecturally) significant. I also believe that medical building on the corner is abandoned, right? 

 

 

Side note: when I think it over, I don't believe it matters THAT much if an arena, stadium, or ballpark is that close to a major highway, like I-30. Even the Ballpark in Arlington and Cowboys Stadium are both really not that close to I-30. You'd still have to drive some blocks to get to either stadium...

 

From I-30

10698458_10203937223184393_7011180624821

 

From West 7th

10696362_10203937224344422_3672513330100

 

 

10516642_10203937224024414_415905885683010154569_10203937224984438_2063461194123


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#15 claxton

claxton

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76117

Posted 09 October 2014 - 08:47 AM

Looking at areas just around Downtown, I keep going back to the South Side in the area bounded by Vickery on the north, Main on the west, Hattie on the south and the train tracks/35 on the east. Close to 30 and 35, walking distance from TRE.



#16 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 09 October 2014 - 09:25 AM

The second site; naw. I'll look for your third idea. Why tear out existing functioning properties with mixed-use and rehab potential when there are so many sites that are empty, contain decrepit or outdated structures, are next to train tracks, etc.



#17 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 09 October 2014 - 10:19 AM

Looking at areas just around Downtown, I keep going back to the South Side in the area bounded by Vickery on the north, Main on the west, Hattie on the south and the train tracks/35 on the east. Close to 30 and 35, walking distance from TRE.

 

That was going to be my 2nd site, but I don't know... I'm looking at the Southside as a whole, first.

 

The second site; naw. I'll look for your third idea. Why tear out existing functioning properties with mixed-use and rehab potential when there are so many sites that are empty, contain decrepit or outdated structures, are next to train tracks, etc.

 

Because, while this may be my personal view of each site, I'm also thinking of what team owners and real estate people would think. Tearing out existing buildings with that same potential has been replaced by major and even minor pro sports stadiums all over the country. It's nothing new.

 

The way I see it, there's as much potential for a sports facility as there is for anythinge else in that spot.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#18 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 09 October 2014 - 10:30 AM

I think team owners would be interested in low prices for acreage (and massive public handouts as well). The second option would be very expensive to obtain, even with "market value" eminent domain behind the effort.



#19 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 09 October 2014 - 12:11 PM

I think team owners would be interested in low prices for acreage (and massive public handouts as well). The second option would be very expensive to obtain, even with "market value" eminent domain behind the effort.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

Either way, SOMETHING needs to be done with that area.

(^^^ and yeah, I realize you could say that about all of downtown outside of Sundance)


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#20 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 10 October 2014 - 12:02 AM

*NOTE*: I JUST saw the gas well that's right where 1st base would be, so let's just rotate it a little, counter-clockwise, and move it to the east a little...

 

 

10377611_10203946922266864_7501187985555

 

 

Basic Info:
- Just south of the water treatment facility, east of the Trinity,, north of I-30, and (south)west of downtown, this site is definitely accessible and open enough for another Jerryworld, even. 

Pros:
- Like the Summit & Lancaster site, any major urban neighborhood is in close enough distance and any direction of this site.
- There is PLENTY of room for parking lots and/or garages within close range of where the actual ballpark would be.

- Close proximity to both I-30 and CTP. 

Cons:
- Gotta admit, even now, this little area feels kind of secluded. 
- Area's walkability is non-existent outside of the pathway along the river.  

- May have some issues with a few of the homeowners Wenneca Ave.

Toss-ups:
- Right next to a water treatment facility. 

- No current development around it.

 

10370361_10203946881465844_3207443350781

 

1622150_10203946881145836_41911971805112

 

(again, I hate that I can't delete buildings with the new Google Earth set up... but I like having ALL buildings rendered, so oh well)

10351598_10203946880865829_2136724656021

 

1385424_10203946880665824_18863664948382


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#21 Jimmy

Jimmy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76116

Posted 10 October 2014 - 10:50 AM

#3 makes the most sense so far.  Really enjoying this.



#22 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 10 October 2014 - 11:26 AM

Not bad... but:

 

Remember the discussions about freeway access when the tollway was being put in? Has that been resolved. Would a ballpark here result in miles of traffic stacked up along the east-bound service road looking to get on the freeway to go to home to Eastside, Northside, Arlington, Alliance, Dallas... any place but Westside or Southwest/Cleburne?

 

There would likely be additional expense stabilizing the ground in this area for a large structure like a stadium; wasn't this once the city dump, and wasn't there a lot of fill placed in when the river's meanders were straightened and the banks "channelized"?

 

I bet the neighbors south of the freeway/tollway (very influential in the city) would raise a stink! That would probably be enough to keep a stadium from happening at this location. 

 

Plenty of parking around the gas wellheads. Fort Worth needs to get used to this, there is likely to be a lot of "rotate it a little, counter-clockwise, and move it to the east a little..."  for potential future developers as the long-term effects of the short-sighted drilling boom become more apparent.



#23 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 10 October 2014 - 12:59 PM

Not bad... but:

 

Remember the discussions about freeway access when the tollway was being put in? Has that been resolved. Would a ballpark here result in miles of traffic stacked up along the east-bound service road looking to get on the freeway to go to home to Eastside, Northside, Arlington, Alliance, Dallas... any place but Westside or Southwest/Cleburne?

 

There would likely be additional expense stabilizing the ground in this area for a large structure like a stadium; wasn't his once the city dump, and wasn't there a lot of fill placed in when the river's meanders were straightened and the banks "channelized"?

 

I bet the neighbors south of the freeway/tollway (very influential in the city) would raise a stink! That would probably be enough to keep a stadium from happening at this location. 

 

Plenty of parking around the gas wellheads. Fort Worth needs to get used to this, there is likely to be a lot of "rotate it a little, counter-clockwise, and move it to the east a little..."  for potential future developers as the long-term effects of the short-sighted drilling boom become more apparent.

 

Not too sure about the history with this area. If there was a dump there, then yeah, that would be a problem.

 

As for the traffic... that's going to happen regardless where it would be placed. It's kind of why I haven't mentioned it as a "Con" in any of the discriptions. But like I said, we need better public transportation options. I believe the TEXRail would have a stop somewhere just south of Vickery, but God knows when that will ever happen.

 

 

And I know it's big business, but I really hate the gas wells. Just makes certain places in the city ugly. Some uglier than others.

 

Next site will either be eastside or southside.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#24 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 12 October 2014 - 11:15 PM

1966917_10203972888235997_92185529484731

 

Basic Info:
- I believe that this is a junk yard (?) across the street from Gateway Park, touching the Trinity, this area has "development opportunity" written all over it. 

Pros:
- Mostly open, current site is taken up by junk (or car?) yard 

- The location and surroundings itself, throw in the fact that Gateway Park is supposed to see improvements with Panther Island

- VERY easy access from the highway

 

 

Cons:
- further from Downtown 

- Is in the East side.... not exactly safest part of Ft. Worth

 

Toss-ups:

- No current development around it

 

10294464_10203972890036042_2062790735221

 

1898061_10203972891916089_80171723839254

 

1959874_10203972890516054_29054421919657


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#25 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,324 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 13 October 2014 - 01:08 AM

Gateway Park isn't across the street from this site, at least not in its current configuration. This is at Riverside. Gateway is on the east side of Beach.

Edit: took me forever to find it, but the master plan does have Gateway extending that far west.

#26 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 13 October 2014 - 06:09 AM

Gateway Park isn't across the street from this site, at least not in its current configuration. This is at Riverside. Gateway is on the east side of Beach.

Edit: took me forever to find it, but the master plan does have Gateway extending that far west.

The extreme west edge of Gateway Park is east of Riverside Drive, as shown in the master plan below.  Jeriat's proposal is to build the stadium on the west side of Riverside.  Might conflict with TRV plans.

 

http://www.trinityri...master-plan.pdf



#27 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 13 October 2014 - 07:21 AM

The extreme west edge of Gateway Park is east of Riverside Drive, as shown in the master plan below.  Jeriat's proposal is to build the stadium on the west side of Riverside.  Might conflict with TRV plans.

http://www.trinityri...master-plan.pdf

 

 

I'm sure (seems like I'm getting more issues with this than I had with the soccer stadium ideas), but I had no problem putting one on LaGrave's current site, which is ON Panther Island, so I'll just keep throwing darts. See what sticks.


There's another project further north up the road that's being proposed, right? Is it the Scenic Oakhurst project?


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#28 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,324 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 13 October 2014 - 07:25 AM


Gateway Park isn't across the street from this site, at least not in its current configuration. This is at Riverside. Gateway is on the east side of Beach.

Edit: took me forever to find it, but the master plan does have Gateway extending that far west.

The extreme west edge of Gateway Park is east of Riverside Drive, as shown in the master plan below.  

Yes, it's almost like I said that exact same thing. Oh wait. I did.

#29 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,180 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 13 October 2014 - 08:14 AM

The Oakhurst Scenic project begins at the corner of OS and Belknap and extends north.



#30 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 13 October 2014 - 08:33 AM

The Oakhurst Scenic project begins at the corner of OS and Belknap and extends north.

 

Ah.

Yeah, that's a lot further from this than I thought.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#31 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 13 October 2014 - 08:42 AM

Why not build a stadium in far southwest Fort Worth?  Plenty of available land, I believe, and parking would certainly not be a problem.  Also, freeway access possible in light of CTP in the vicinity.  Market?  Well, I've read that a preponderance of sports fans attending Arlington facilities are from Tarrant County, not Dallas County (arguable point, I guess).  BUT I would surmise similar market concerns, as well as infrastructure-related obstacles, were voiced about locating TMS in far north Fort Worth.  That hasn't stopped the crowds at NASCAR races.



#32 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 13 October 2014 - 09:32 AM

Why not build a stadium in far southwest Fort Worth?  Plenty of available land, I believe, and parking would certainly not be a problem.  Also, freeway access possible in light of CTP in the vicinity.  Market?  Well, I've read that a preponderance of sports fans attending Arlington facilities are from Tarrant County, not Dallas County (arguable point, I guess).  BUT I would surmise similar market concerns, as well as infrastructure-related obstacles, were voiced about locating TMS in far north Fort Worth.  That hasn't stopped the crowds at NASCAR races.

 

While it would be one of the sites I'm looking at and will post later... I just don't like the idea of baseball stadiums in the suburbs. Football stadiums in the suburbs are more understandable because they are used less, but not with baseball parks. Especially seeing how beneficial they are with downtown parks around the country, the closest example being in Houston.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#33 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,180 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 13 October 2014 - 09:55 AM

WRT #4, I would suggest moving it slightly to the northwest of the proposed position. This area is complete industrial wasteland right now- used for nothing. I was just running along the trail there this morning and thinking about your proposal. The slight bend in the river there gives better views I think.

 

Of course, an even more obvious position for a stadium is just across the river, in that triangle of land currently occupied by the projects. Talk about some great views!



#34 claxton

claxton

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76117

Posted 13 October 2014 - 12:28 PM

Biggest issues I see with site #4:

 

1) Too far from the current mass trans infrastructure in place. I still think a South Side location will give you what you're looking for...a location very close to Downtown with access via car (close to 35/30/CTP) and rail (walking distance from TRE stop).

 

2) Home plate on site #4 is in the NE corner. That would be pure hell for a batter with the sun going down. 



#35 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 13 October 2014 - 12:29 PM

This is actually a very workable location for a professional sports facility, soccer or baseball, etc. The cost of land here is probably far below that in the Southwest quadrant, there is adjoining parkland and alternate transportation for fans (Trinity Trails bikeway) with potential for more. The location is about equidistant from the center of downtown as West 7th/Museum is, so might make a logical stop on an eastern extension of a future streetcar system, beginning at the  ITC /9th Street Station with connections to the TRE and later the TexRail and even later HSR. Other stops could be an "urban village" built into the existing street grid to the north with room for speculative development by team owners (hotels, bars, restaurants) with residential above, and the terminus at an expanded Gateway Park with additional amenities like an outdoor concert venue. Alternate forms of transportation would keep down the need for the sea of concrete that typically rings stadiums, and parking for those unable to use transit could be close-in with overflow on permeable pavement adjoining the greenbelt. There is existing freeway access with potential for more and better; Riverside from I-30, Riverside and Sylvania from SH-121, and Riverside from US-287/MLK. (Hmmm, might have to expand and "boulevardize" Riverside from 287 to 121 for this to work smoothly) East 4th Street could provide access from downtown and East 1st from the Randol Mill Eastside. The big gap would seem to be from I-35W, but that could be addressed when the by expanding the small intersection where IM Terrell and Pine Streets cross 287/280, and an extension with bridge could be built across the Trinity to connect into Sylvania. 

 

On the downside, that close to the channelized river there may be ground stability problems resulting from old landfill operations and abandoned riverbeds subsequently filled. Might take some major piers to bedrock to have a stable foundation for a large structure in that area.



#36 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 13 October 2014 - 01:23 PM

Yeah, that sunset would be killer... maybe I should rotate it.

 

 

As for the Southside, I don't know... I'm looking at developments that are happeing and have happened and it seems like you'd have to replace very important buildings to that side of town.
And let's not forget the HUGE powerlines overhead. Kinda wish they were all underground so you wouldn't have to worry about that.

 

I'll still do a southside site, but it may not be the same as it was with the soccer thread.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#37 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 14 October 2014 - 07:53 AM

Alright, I think I found a spot in the Southside that DOESN'T sit on top of any current redeveloped buildings. I know there are a few, but can't think of the names at the moment. It would be closer to the railroad tracks, but not too close.

 

The idea I had was to integrate some of the buildings fronting Bryan Ave into the ballpark as concessions, restrooms,  and other services.  


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#38 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 975 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 14 October 2014 - 11:02 AM

First I am focusing on bring the franchise too Fort Worth. As to where the stadium will be built. All I can say. In 2004 when Arlington voted to bring in the Cowboys. No one knew for sure where the stadium would be built. And the 50 yard line at Jerry's world. Was once somebody's living room a few short years ago.



#39 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 14 October 2014 - 06:25 PM

OK... first thing's, first, this was the BEST site I could find in the Near Southside without plopping it on some brand new or just renovated building. There were also no large power lines in the way, BUT I do realize that there's some kind of little communication tower in this area. That being said... 

 

1536682_10203982008784005_34144264319930

 

 

Basic Info:
- Sandwiched in between historic buildings on a narrow Main Street and railroad tracks, the land around here is very limited, but still manageable. 

Pros:
- Would be in an urban area on the rise, becoming more dense and walkable.
- Integrating older buildings with the ballpark (while not unique) would add charm and reserve history. 
- Would be a few blocks away from Commuter Rail (maybe in the future, streetcars right on Main) and isn't too far from major interstate exists.

 

Cons:
- WIth Main Street being only 2 lanes, there may have to be another, larger road built connecting Pennsylvania to Vickery, passing the east side of the stadium. 
- Though the TRE stop is close, public transportation options are still pretty limited... but then again, that's a general issue for the entire city.
- Again... there's a communication tower and I think XTO owns that. Don't know what that's all about, but I'm positive that it would be a negative.

Toss-ups:
- Parking. Yeah, there's still plenty of open land, but a lot of it is either planned or is being built or used for something. With all the older buildings and warehouses, it could make for some interesting garages, though...

- Outside of Mag Av., there's no major corridor with places for restaurants, retail, and etc. But like I said and as you all know, it's an up and coming area, so that may change within the next decade.

 

Main Street

 

1795704_10203982011664077_30105950349760

 

10629608_10203982011624076_5003525794099 

 

10686657_10203982010144039_4126064532407

 

10698492_10203982009544024_3737574752379'

 

 

 

As for my idea of integrating some of those older buildings with the ballpark, here's a few examples: 

Oriole Park 

Petco Park

Minute Maid Park (old train station)

 

There's a few more, but can't think of them at the moment. 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#40 claxton

claxton

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76117

Posted 15 October 2014 - 06:33 AM

This is the location I love. I know a big part of having the stadium downtown would be the view, but you'd still probably need to rotate it to where home plate was in either the NW corner (like the current ballpark is) or SW corner. 



#41 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 15 October 2014 - 07:35 AM

Call me overly cautious, but I have a problem locating facilities meant to contain large numbers of people (neighborhoods, schools, churches, theaters, auditoriums, and stadiums) adjacent to freight railroad tracks. These facilities are absolutely vital infrastructure, but are not without risk of accidents (or attacks) that could result in injury or death for anyone in the immediate vicinity. Explosions, chemical spills, etc. are risks that can be controlled to some extent by separating the public from the rail lines by greenbelt setbacks. The Southside tract identified above is a little closer to tracks than might be recommended from a public safety standpoint. 

 

That said, the sprawl in the north of Fort Worth consists of some neighborhoods backing right up to the railroad right of way, and there are dense residential neighborhoods less than a block away from very busy tracks downtown. This sort of thing will continue to be allowed until a deadly event occurs, and even after that, greed and poor judgement by developers will likely result in more of the same.



#42 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 15 October 2014 - 07:46 AM

Call me overly cautious, but I have a problem locating facilities meant to contain large numbers of people (neighborhoods, schools, churches, theaters, auditoriums, and stadiums) adjacent to freight railroad tracks. These facilities are absolutely vital infrastructure, but are not without risk of accidents (or attacks) that could result in injury or death for anyone in the immediate vicinity. Explosions, chemical spills, etc. are risks that can be controlled to some extent by separating the public from the rail lines by greenbelt setbacks. The Southside tract identified above is a little closer to tracks than might be recommended from a public safety standpoint. 

 

That said, the sprawl in the north of Fort Worth consists of some neighborhoods backing right up to the railroad right of way, and there are dense residential neighborhoods less than a block away from very busy tracks downtown. This sort of thing will continue to be allowed until a deadly event occurs, and even after that, greed and poor judgement by developers will likely result in more of the same.

 

All good points, but the way I see it, no matter where you place a building, it will never be 100% safe.

Any maniac with a bomb could blow this place in half, even if it was a million miles away from any railroad.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#43 claxton

claxton

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76117

Posted 15 October 2014 - 08:20 AM

Call me overly cautious, but I have a problem locating facilities meant to contain large numbers of people (neighborhoods, schools, churches, theaters, auditoriums, and stadiums) adjacent to freight railroad tracks. These facilities are absolutely vital infrastructure, but are not without risk of accidents (or attacks) that could result in injury or death for anyone in the immediate vicinity. Explosions, chemical spills, etc. are risks that can be controlled to some extent by separating the public from the rail lines by greenbelt setbacks. The Southside tract identified above is a little closer to tracks than might be recommended from a public safety standpoint. 

 

That said, the sprawl in the north of Fort Worth consists of some neighborhoods backing right up to the railroad right of way, and there are dense residential neighborhoods less than a block away from very busy tracks downtown. This sort of thing will continue to be allowed until a deadly event occurs, and even after that, greed and poor judgement by developers will likely result in more of the same.

 

 

Seattle's Safeco Field is built against BNSF rail tracks in right field. The retractable roof actually covers the tracks when open. With the importance of rail in Fort Worth's history, I think it'd be kind of cool to have the tracks be incorporated as part of the area of the ballpark. Better than being totally surrounded by parking lots.



#44 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 16 October 2014 - 07:34 PM

Doing something slightly different with this site... 

 

10645021_10203998905366409_5956271100602

 

 

 

Basic Info:
- Three sites by passing Northside Dr. and all sites are surrounded or near industrial areas and the Trinity with the Stockyards to the west and I-35 to the east.


Pros:
- Land is PLENTIFUL. (Options A & B. C, replacing the distribution center)
- Near the Trinity (Options A& B )

- Close enough to THE major freeway in the city (All options)


Cons:
- Right next to industrial (Option A.)
- Not near enough to any major developments or mixed-use neighborhoods (All Options). 
- Very close to residential neighborhood. (Option C) 

Toss-ups:
- Would have to alter a section of Trinity Trails (Option B )

- Additional parking may have to be placed on the other side of the river. This effects either site, but could spur mixed-use development down the line.

- You would HAVE to widen out Northside, again, that effects either site. 

 

10300163_10203998905606415_7974965735457

 

1621861_10203998905726418_20512863254047


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#45 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 16 October 2014 - 08:59 PM

Better scratch "C" off the list. That is the Fort Worth regional UPS facility, I don't see it going anywhere, for a stadium or whatever.



#46 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,335 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 16 October 2014 - 10:04 PM

Actually, UPS is opening a large center at Alliance and according to a UPS worker friend of mine, they plan to close Northside.

 

I like 4 and 5 the best.  With 4, you don't have the people from out east (Arlington, Dallas and beyond) clogging up the downtown freeway interchanges.  That's kind of true of 5 as well, although it will probably affect the downtown traffic more than 4 would.  With 5, I think that area is about to explode with development anyway; building a stadium there would just be fuel to that fire.


My blog: Doohickie

#47 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,981 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 16 October 2014 - 10:16 PM

^Thats hugely interesting. Could be a fantastic spot for some urban development nearby Panther Island.

Don't forget the GE images there are outdated to, B is now the site of the water skiing place.
^Thats hugely interesting. Could be a fantastic spot for some urban development nearby Panther Island.

Don't forget the GE images there are outdated to, B is now the site of the water skiing place.

#48 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,335 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 16 October 2014 - 10:24 PM

Yeah.

 

Yeah.


My blog: Doohickie

#49 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 16 October 2014 - 10:36 PM

Better scratch "C" off the list. That is the Fort Worth regional UPS facility, I don't see it going anywhere, for a stadium or whatever.

 

Since Doohickie already mentioned it, you can't have that d.c. there forever. It's in a relatively "cramped" spot, it's near what is slated to be a HUGE development, and they even got rid of the train tracks there (may have helped with shipments?) so part of me knew that it wasn't going to be there forever, anyway. 

If you ask me, I think a lot more industrial buildings and centers in the core of the city will be moving up by Alliance in the coming years. 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#50 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 17 October 2014 - 07:05 PM

Another pro: the options for #6 are adjacent to the potential TEX Rail line.


- Dylan





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users