Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Rangers Ballpark in F.W. ideas.

Ballpark2024 Texas Rangers

  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#51 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 18 October 2014 - 12:03 AM

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

 

Almost forgot about that.

Well, this will be my last of the "intended" sites. I just can't see one all the way out in Alliance and anywhere in SWFW.

 

After this, I'll get into "controversial" sites...

 

 

10432489_10204005145522409_7778472479419

 

 

Basic Info:
- Furthest from the core, this site is in Forest Hill, which has... nothing, really. It's the gateway to Arlington if you're on I-20 and that's about it. Nothing but open field here, which is (was?) supposed to be used for mixed-use development.


Pros:
- Again... LOTS of land. 
- Basically right on I-20.

- Easy come, easy go access for cars


Cons:
- Several miles away from the core of the city makes THE LEAST valuable and interesting choice.
- Surrounded by nothing but your typical 'burb stuff... (70s-90s era single fam homes, cookie cutter homes of today, strip malls, 'burbraunts, nothing...) 
- The T's service doesn't even come out this far, so NO kind of public transportation, unless you want to walk an extra 45 minutes or so from the nearest bus stop. 

Toss-ups:

- NONE. I think this one's pretty black and white.

 

 

1888632_10204005146002421_71349752045289

 

10592934_10204005145802416_7711111320791


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#52 urbancowboy

urbancowboy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Was Philly, now Houston
  • Interests:Sustainable, Livable, Urbanism

Posted 19 October 2014 - 10:37 AM

I would have never thought of this site. It could work if it were part of a larger vision.

#53 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 20 October 2014 - 10:02 AM

I would have never thought of this site. It could work if it were part of a larger vision.

 

Exactly.

Which is why I mentioned (and Happy Birthday, btw) that there were talks to build something in this area. It's been about 10 years now, so I think whatever plans made for it are long dead.

One thing mentioned was a new city hall for Forest Hill. I don't think there's a "downtown" of any kind there, so it could have worked.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#54 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 20 October 2014 - 10:07 PM

Alright, now on to the "controversial" site ideas. 

Pretty sure you already know, but these sites, I would imagine, would cause MORE arguments and debates. They would also more than likely have a slim chance of happening, if it would happen at all. 

And yeah, I know that these are ALL just suggestions, but even suggestions and visions have have a gauge on what would be most likely or least likely to happen. 

 

So, let's begin with one that was suggested earlier... 

 

10645284_10204023483380844_1471953472386

 

 

Basic Info:
- Butler Housing and I.M. Terrell Elementary School, all located within a triangle where I-35, I-30, and 287 cross each other up, just east of downtown.


Pros:
- Just right across the highway from downtown AND not that far from the Near Southside 
- You have 3 highway options to get there, a la, Texas Stadium in Irving. 

- It would do what Radio Shack did with the Arnold Projects a decade ago... get rid of a rough neighborhood... which brings me too... 

 

Why this would be "controversial":

 - The main thing is, you're kicking people out of their homes and no matter how the neighborhood is, that's ALWAYS going to anger some people. There are some investors, developers, and civic boosters who would see this as a good opportunity for something (more than just a ballpark) to fill that gap, but still, you'll have people upset about it and based on just recent history of this happening, it wouldn't just be the people losing their homes that would have a problem with it...
- Along with the obvious Eminent Domain used to get rid of Butler, more than likely I.M. Terrell would have to go as well, because who wants to have an elementary school near a pro sports facility and vice versa? There is a historical marker there, so I don't know how that would play out, but IF anyone was to replace Butler Homes with a new development (doesn't have to be sports related), then I think it would be more or less a toss-up to keep Terrell Elementary in that spot.

 

 

1656280_10204023484260866_18504288624145

 

 

10653667_10204023484740878_5797958897949

 

10616119_10204023485020885_6690822030761


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#55 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 21 October 2014 - 08:45 AM

I would have a problem with it for the same reasons that you have labeled as "Controversial".  It would be displacing many people from their homes.  I think that community would be up in arms over this.

 

As for I.M. Terrell Elementary school, it is one of the city's most historic schools, yet it only has a City Demolition Delay designation.  Being a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark does not stop demolition.  Again, I think the community here would be very opposed to the demolition.  In a related note, the Butler Place Housing Project is a National Register Historic District.  This would not stop demolition, but it does indicate that the housing project is historic.



#56 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,325 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 21 October 2014 - 09:00 AM

I'm not sure how there would be any ED issues since most of that property is government owned.

The freeway and the rail lines make that a virtual no-man's land with respect to downtown. Like Texas Stadium, the ease of access gained by being surrounded by freeways can also be a curse. And the access to Texas Stadium was all about what lot you were in. I waited 3 hours to get out of a lot at one particular game.

#57 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 21 October 2014 - 10:56 AM

The freeway and the rail lines make that a virtual no-man's land with respect to downtown. Like Texas Stadium, the ease of access gained by being surrounded by freeways can also be a curse. And the access to Texas Stadium was all about what lot you were in. I waited 3 hours to get out of a lot at one particular game.

 

It's been so long since I was there, I can just barely remember the traffic issues. I think Bush was in his 1st term.

 

Maybe having TOO MANY highway options can be a bad thing...


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#58 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

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

Posted 21 October 2014 - 10:59 AM

I believe that as long as there is no replacement housing available for the residents there, the Butler Place community should not be threatened. I am pretty sure that modern housing theory stresses that a distributed pattern of low-income housing is preferable to concentrated, and that rent-controlled housing should be developed and maintained in close proximity to employment opportunities. The Butler complex fails on both accounts, and with talk of renewal at the Hunter Plaza building, possible construction of a new residential building at South Main and Vickery, and the recent sale of Hillside Apartments, all involving the Fort Worth Housing Authority, it might be time to start low-level discussions about Butler's future. With the school in place and the proximity to downtown and Southside, mid-rise mixed-use residential would seem to be a good, if not the highest use for the area's future. The existing buildings are reaching the end of their intended life (if not well past it), and sale of well-sited property would give the Housing Authority plenty of capital with which to pursue better options in more areas. Of course there would need to be serious infrastructure improvements, but there are established ways of providing those already in place.

 

As a site for a stadium? I agree that access to the site would be a limiting factor. What about access by emergency personnel including fire trucks? Would everything there now have to be paved over to provide adequate parking? Whatever is finally decided for that "island" of land in a sea of freeways should include extending the forest greenbelt that is presently facing US 287 all around the perimeter.



#59 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,325 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 21 October 2014 - 11:21 AM

The freeway and the rail lines make that a virtual no-man's land with respect to downtown. Like Texas Stadium, the ease of access gained by being surrounded by freeways can also be a curse. And the access to Texas Stadium was all about what lot you were in. I waited 3 hours to get out of a lot at one particular game.

 
It's been so long since I was there, I can just barely remember the traffic issues. I think Bush was in his 1st term.
 
Maybe having TOO MANY highway options can be a bad thing...


The lots close in to the stadium and those on the west side of Loop 12 had pretty good access to the freeways. The massive lot directly to the north across 114 that provided most of the general access parking was a nightmare when it came time to leave.

#60 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 21 October 2014 - 08:23 PM

Another poster's suggestion, this time for the Near Southside: 

10710872_10204031062050306_1987589935718

 

 

Basic Info:
- The Dannon Plant (plus some surface lots just south of it) 


Pros:
- Would be in in an urban area, in Near Southside and across the highway from downtown (getting across is a "con") 
- Right off of I-30

 

Why this would be "controversial":

 - It's one thing to build over a couple small buildings (that are either abandoned or underused) and surface lots, but when you're talking about replacing an entire plant with several blue collar workers, more questions and resistance would come, I'm sure. 
- Also, some of those surface lots belong to hospitals. And on top of that...

- It would be just a block away from Harris and Cook's Children's Hospitals. Something about a major league ballpark just a block away from not just one but TWO major hospitals may make peoples second guess that decision. Not too sure about that, but just a feeling.

 

 

10349879_10204031061650296_8651936032842

 

10704014_10204031062490317_2357631875194

 

10734004_10204031062330313_6563565772958

 

10421616_10204031062650321_5141793000846


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#61 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

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

Posted 21 October 2014 - 11:42 PM

Parking? I would be afraid that a stadium here would put a damper on the slow but steady development happening in the near-Southside. Would developers continue to build, and would renters and and homeowners want to live in such close proximity to traffic and noise?



#62 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 22 October 2014 - 08:20 AM

Parking? I would be afraid that a stadium here would put a damper on the slow but steady development happening in the near-Southside. Would developers continue to build, and would renters and and homeowners want to live in such close proximity to traffic and noise?

 

I think the parking issue goes without saying for this area. And the Near Southside is big enough for a pro stadium and development.

 

Just take a look at how it's been up north with some ballparks right in the middle of full neighborhoods and even down in Houston where they're building apartments and a new hotel right across the street from Minute Maid Park. I don't think traffic and noise is as much a factor as people make it out to be. Not if you're living in a CITY, that is.

 

If it were out in Burleson or Weatherford, then it would certainly be an issue...


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#63 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

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

Posted 22 October 2014 - 09:31 AM

Again, only my opinion... But:

 

It would be better if the location for a new stadium were to be in close proximity to already existing parking so that those facilities could use the same pavement. It would be ideal if parking facilities were planned in such a way that different client bases would use the same spaces during different times of day (business day vs. after work) or different days (church parking on Sundays and shopping on weekdays. Space for parking is expensive to buy, pavement expensive to lay and even maintain over time. Runoff from most pavement (non-permeable) contributes to flooding problems and stream pollution, not to mention having a limiting effect on local aquifer recharge potential. Vertical parking structures are more expensive than flat pavement, and can house retail, etc. and be used for other non-event parking needs, but again, (much) more expensive. Having multiple uses in one area also will increase the desirability of transit access in the future, even decreasing the need for as many parking spaces.

 

If this were taken to the extreme the best location for a new sports facility would be next to existing sports facilities... and yes, Arlington would be a great location for a new regional arena (when the sky-door at Jerry-World rusts open and AA Arena is torn down for something new. Of course, the many severely polluted dead industrial sites in the city would make ideal parking lots since there is no other economical use for the land outside of replacing all the soil down to X number of feet, and the wastelands surrounding gas wellheads could be used once the gas is gone. I suppose light standards could be installed next to the empty hole, but nothing can ever be put on top the well site. 



#64 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 22 October 2014 - 10:10 AM

Again, only my opinion... But:

 

It would be better if the location for a new stadium were to be in close proximity to already existing parking so that those facilities could use the same pavement. It would be ideal if parking facilities were planned in such a way that different client bases would use the same spaces during different times of day (business day vs. after work) or different days (church parking on Sundays and shopping on weekdays. Space for parking is expensive to buy, pavement expensive to lay and even maintain over time. Runoff from most pavement (non-permeable) contributes to flooding problems and stream pollution, not to mention having a limiting effect on local aquifer recharge potential. Vertical parking structures are more expensive than flat pavement, and can house retail, etc. and be used for other non-event parking needs, but again, (much) more expensive. Having multiple uses in one area also will increase the desirability of transit access in the future, even decreasing the need for as many parking spaces.

 

If this were taken to the extreme the best location for a new sports facility would be next to existing sports facilities... and yes, Arlington would be a great location for a new regional arena (when the sky-door at Jerry-World rusts open and AA Arena is torn down for something new. Of course, the many severely polluted dead industrial sites in the city would make ideal parking lots since there is no other economical use for the land outside of replacing all the soil down to X number of feet, and the wastelands surrounding gas wellheads could be used once the gas is gone. I suppose light standards could be installed next to the empty hole, but nothing can ever be put on top the well site. 

 

Those are all good points and well said.

However, much has been built without that much thought. In reality, many stadiums have been built and are being built with more focus on location. The owner of a pro sports may consider certain factors like environmental issues and transit options, but their MAIN focus is just putting a stadium there and (like Jerry Jones had in mind when he put the Death Star in Arlington) the more parking, the better, regardless of it being a vertical structure or surface lot, because that just means more money in their pockets.

 

 

These next few sites I'm posting I've marked as "controversial", but in some ways, aren't they ALL?


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#65 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:24 PM

This one may not be so controversial, depending on one very specific circumstance... 

 

10403103_10204038269990500_5816256481998

 

 

Basic Info:
- Ridgmar Mall

I'd thought I'd go into just a little more detail with this one. Let's say the mall one day fails. Ridgmar Mall is no more, outside of maybe the movie theater (KEEP THAT) and it's just a big, mostly empty building with a sea of surface lots... what better than to replace it with a ballpark, right...? Or something else. Just as long as SOMETHING replaces it.


Pros:
- Parking is a non-issue. Garages may be optional. 
- Right off of I-30

- PLENTY of space for development and/or redevelopment.

 

Why this would be "controversial":

 - Well, it may be more conversational if the mall was still alive and well but still replacing it. But if it does someday go under, why not? 
- Ok... the ballpark would be practically right next to a major Naval Reserve Base, so that may steer some people away from wanting it there.

 

 

10406373_10204038270190505_5276418574122

 

1546431_10204038269590490_15991933618569

 

10447619_10204038269630491_6994236620122


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#66 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,325 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:40 PM

Would someone take exception to having a 10+ story building that close (700 or so feet short of a mile, even closer to the flight path) to the end of the runway and the flight path?

#67 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 23 October 2014 - 07:21 AM

Would someone take exception to having a 10+ story building that close (700 or so feet short of a mile, even closer to the flight path) to the end of the runway and the flight path?

 

Probably not, seeing how there are a few low midrise buildings in the area.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#68 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 24 October 2014 - 09:42 PM

Yeah, I think I'm done here. 

These are really the only sites I can think of that aren't too far out (...except for Forest Hill, maybe) and at the very least plausible without being too crazy.

Final thoughts? 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#69 claxton

claxton

    Junior Member

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

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:17 PM

Site #5 all the way. I still think it has way more going for it than any other.



#70 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

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

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:16 PM

Thus far #4 makes the best sense to me. What about working up a plan than sites the stadium west of I-35W (Pan American Expressway?), north of Long Avenue and the TexRail/Hodge Station tracks, east of the BNSF tracks, and south of Meacham, actually, south of Downing Street. There would need to be major access improvements onto the freeway, but those are needed, and scheduled anyway. Other improvements would be needed to get traffic onto Long Avenue to the south, and Deen Road and Terminal Drive to the east. There would be transit access via an event passenger station at Hodge (sort of like Victory Station in Dallas) and possibly even another on the east side if the future Alliance Center commuter rail track followed that route. The land is currently a large plowed field, so no active businesses or residences would need to be relocated, and the community to the east might benefit from infrastructure investment in the area and possible future development spurred by the sports activity and traffic. The site lies within 2 miles of newly privatized lanes on I-820 Wright Expressway so traffic could speed in and out of normal traffic to get to and from the games...



#71 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 25 October 2014 - 10:07 AM

Thus far #4 makes the best sense to me. What about working up a plan than sites the stadium west of I-35W (Pan American Expressway?), north of Long Avenue and the TexRail/Hodge Station tracks, east of the BNSF tracks, and south of Meacham, actually, south of Downing Street. There would need to be major access improvements onto the freeway, but those are needed, and scheduled anyway. Other improvements would be needed to get traffic onto Long Avenue to the south, and Deen Road and Terminal Drive to the east. There would be transit access via an event passenger station at Hodge (sort of like Victory Station in Dallas) and possibly even another on the east side if the future Alliance Center commuter rail track followed that route. The land is currently a large plowed field, so no active businesses or residences would need to be relocated, and the community to the east might benefit from infrastructure investment in the area and possible future development spurred by the sports activity and traffic. The site lies within 2 miles of newly privatized lanes on I-820 Wright Expressway so traffic could speed in and out of normal traffic to get to and from the games...

 

 

...I'd consider it. 

 

Personally, I just don't want to get too far from the core of the city. The only reason why I put down Forest Hill as a potential spot is because... well, Forest Hill has nothing (outside of those rings on top of the communication tower) and there's just this HUGE swath of land that's not being used right off of a major highway. 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#72 McHand

McHand

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shaw-Clarke
  • Interests:music, neighborhoods, kids, education, biking, politics, urbanism, food, friends, family

Posted 25 October 2014 - 03:23 PM

How about here?  The lot was for sale last time I saw it.  I bet land is a steal.

 

Pros: Easy access to I-35

          Low taxes

          Might spur development on South Hemphill

 

Cons: Increased traffic during the season

 

 


Voice & Guitars in The Crystal Furs
Elementary Music Specialist, FWISD

Texas Wesleyan 2015
Shaw-Clarke NA 


#73 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 25 October 2014 - 05:06 PM

How about here?  The lot was for sale last time I saw it.  I bet land is a steal.

 

Pros: Easy access to I-35

          Low taxes

          Might spur development on South Hemphill

 

Cons: Increased traffic during the season

 

 

 

How about here?  The lot was for sale last time I saw it.  I bet land is a steal.

 

Pros: Easy access to I-35

          Low taxes

          Might spur development on South Hemphill

 

Cons: Increased traffic during the season

 

 

 

I see that more as housing/mixed use, but that could also work... 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#74 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 29 October 2014 - 08:00 PM

How about here?  The lot was for sale last time I saw it.  I bet land is a steal.

 

Pros: Easy access to I-35

          Low taxes

          Might spur development on South Hemphill

 

Cons: Increased traffic during the season

 

 

 

The width between Hemphill Street and the railroad line looks too narrow.


- Dylan


#75 BedfordLawyer

BedfordLawyer

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Location:Bedford, Texas

Posted 30 October 2014 - 12:23 PM

I don't see any situation in which Arlington lets the Rangers leave the stadium, particularly with all the infrastructure built up around both stadiums in the area.

 

I do not see the Rangers wanting to move out of a huge entertainment zone to move into parts of Fort Worth (like the Panther Island area) where there is nothing around to make going to the games an experience beyond being at the game itself. Arlington has all those restaurants along I-30 (although not all are doing very well) and around Six Flags that give families fun things to do before/after the games. That encourages ticket sales. Sure, people could venture into downtown Fort Worth and that would be great for Sundance but I don't see the Bass brothers being too keen on Sundance turning into a pile of sports bars and Chili's. A move into the northside would be putting the cart before the house.

 

I also do not see any situation in which Fort Worth could afford to contribute to a new stadium, given its current financial problems that are getting worse, not better.


The Kielich Law Firm

2205 Martin Dr #200

Bedford, TX 76021


#76 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 30 October 2014 - 01:04 PM

I don't see any situation in which Arlington lets the Rangers leave the stadium, particularly with all the infrastructure built up around both stadiums in the area.

 

I do not see the Rangers wanting to move out of a huge entertainment zone to move into parts of Fort Worth (like the Panther Island area) where there is nothing around to make going to the games an experience beyond being at the game itself. Arlington has all those restaurants along I-30 (although not all are doing very well) and around Six Flags that give families fun things to do before/after the games. That encourages ticket sales. Sure, people could venture into downtown Fort Worth and that would be great for Sundance but I don't see the Bass brothers being too keen on Sundance turning into a pile of sports bars and Chili's. A move into the northside would be putting the cart before the house.

 

I also do not see any situation in which Fort Worth could afford to contribute to a new stadium, given its current financial problems that are getting worse, not better.

This whole thing is a "What if", but to get to your points:

 - Same thing you're saying about the Rangers was the same thing that was said about the Cowboys not leaving Dallas County. You never know what an owner might do.

 - You say that Panther Island has nothing to do... well, no it doesn't...NOW. But we're talking about what could happen in the future. That entire site is being planned for development. I or anyone else wouldn't think of putting it there if it wasn't. 

 - The "Cart before the Horse" saying may be true in a lot of cases, but isn't it possible for the stadium to be the horse sometimes? Just look at Houston (I know, I'm using them as an example a lot, but it's a pretty good example) and all they're building around Minute Maid Park. They just now added this 28-story luxury apartment to be built on one of the surface lots just north of the ballpark. Gillette Stadium has Patriot Place, a mixed use development that was built AFTER and around the stadium, 5 years later.

 - The restaurants are one thing and they're very much used for patrons before, during, and after games, but not everyone goes straight to Six Flags or the other amusement parks. I'm thinking of more casual fans not just people who are looking to blow their wallets on a full "family day".  

 - As for "current financial problems", I've found that when it comes to stadiums, those problems are more or less a flip of a coin. There are other ways of paying for it. Pending the vote, we are about to build a new (and MUCH needed) arena, so there are ways. Hell, even Detroit is building a new arena for the Red Wings.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#77 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 14 August 2015 - 01:37 PM

So, about having a Rangers Ballpark in Ft. Worth...
I did a quick, small visual of what it would look like if it were built in that very large parking lot east of Farrington Field. 
 
Just taking from this model I got from Sketch Up, I found that having a Major League ballpark there IS possible... but there's some issues. Of course. 
 
- Obviously, you'd have to shape the ballpark to fit this area, that is if you don't want to get rid of the building with the spinning "MOTHERS" sign and reshape that end of Foch. 
- Even while shaping the park and reducing seats from the example you see here, more than likely, you'd still have to shoehorn this thing in to avoid encroaching (well, further) on Farrington's footprint.
- Parking... which is ALWAYS an issue. Although there are plenty of open lots for the new arena that would be built (along with future garages) and surface lots on Will Rodgers Memorial Center on University, I don't think it would be enough. So there's probably be a need east of the Trinity.  
 
What do you think? 
 
Rangers%20Ballpark_zpsxyzmzzkc.jpg

7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#78 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 29 September 2015 - 11:48 AM

Shots Fired!

 

http://frontburner.d...on-to-downtown/



#79 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 29 September 2015 - 04:36 PM

Shots Fired!

 

This story is based upon a story in the Star Telegram and the paper was unwilling to attached a name to its author. 

 

Also, there is some unnamed persons saying that they want a roof top stadium; again all unnamed.

 

Can we all admit that we want something, and by the way, we want everyone else to pay for it.



#80 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 29 September 2015 - 11:33 PM

 

Let's be honest, this has been talked about for years, now. DECADES, even. 

It's no shock that this is being thrown around. 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#81 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 30 September 2015 - 08:59 AM

 

Let's be honest, this has been talked about for years, now. DECADES, even. ..... 

 

 

Let us also be real.

 

How many of you, in this case it would be Dallas, think that it is a good idea to change home every 10 years so as to have the latest state of the art facility. Professional team owners always want more and more; they are never satisfied.

 

What is this all about? - "Urban Renewal for the southern sector of Downtown Dallas/Fair Park". 

 

Unfortunately, but expectantly, I agree with both Volare and Jeriat - they're firing at Arlington yet again.



#82 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 30 September 2015 - 10:29 AM

 

 

Let's be honest, this has been talked about for years, now. DECADES, even. ..... 

 

 

Let us also be real.

 

How many of you, in this case it would be Dallas, think that it is a good idea to change home every 10 years so as to have the latest state of the art facility. Professional team owners always want more and more; they are never satisfied.

 

What is this all about? - "Urban Renewal for the southern sector of Downtown Dallas/Fair Park". 

 

Unfortunately, but expectantly, I agree with both Volare and Jeriat - they're firing at Arlington yet again.

 

 

It's no secret that there are people in Dallas who want the Rangers IN Dallas now. They've wanted them in Dallas since the beginning. 

 

I don't think the current or next mayor of that city will have the same attitude towards a stadium near downtown like Laura Miller did. 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#83 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 06 October 2015 - 12:24 AM

Watching my Rangers win the AL West was sweet and bitter.  Why? The team's post game celebration.

 

Apparently, Major League Baseball supplied each of the post season teams with an official T-shirt; one that had the skylines of each winning team.  Well, I noticed and I was not the only one to notice, that MLB supplied the Rangers with T-shirts with the skyline of Dallas.  This is not the first time that MLB has made a PR blunder about the Texas Rangers.

 

Well......Arlington and lots of people in Tarrant County have voiced their displeasure with MLB causing MLB to apologize. Right on!

 

The Texas Rangers is a regional team, it is not a Dallas team; I think that of all the teams in North Texas, it is considered a team of the entire region, and just not a team of one city.  This is why I believe that any attempt to relocate the Rangers to Dallas will be met with a huge backlash; and that this is just a hint of what is to come if Dallas makes a play for the Rangers - it will be bitter and nasty.



#84 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 06 October 2015 - 09:10 AM

Watching my Rangers win the AL West was sweet and bitter.  Why? The team's post game celebration.

 

Apparently, Major League Baseball supplied each of the post season teams with an official T-shirt; one that had the skylines of each winning team.  Well, I noticed and I was not the only one to notice, that MLB supplied the Rangers with T-shirts with the skyline of Dallas.  This is not the first time that MLB has made a PR blunder about the Texas Rangers.

 

Well......Arlington and lots of people in Tarrant County have voiced their displeasure with MLB causing MLB to apologize. Right on!

 

The Texas Rangers is a regional team, it is not a Dallas team; I think that of all the teams in North Texas, it is considered a team of the entire region, and just not a team of one city.  This is why I believe that any attempt to relocate the Rangers to Dallas will be met with a huge backlash; and that this is just a hint of what is to come if Dallas makes a play for the Rangers - it will be bitter and nasty.

 

KRLD news ran this story this morning and reported that the Dallas Skyline T-shirt was going to be replaced.



#85 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 06 October 2015 - 09:49 AM

They changed their mind. No new shirts.



#86 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,325 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 06 October 2015 - 08:56 PM

Nobody seems as riled up about this as Bud Kennedy. Almost to the point that it's weird.

#87 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 06 October 2015 - 09:38 PM

Nobody seems as riled up about this as Bud Kennedy. Almost to the point that it's weird.

 

Yeah, I was wondering if he was off the deep end this time or if it was just me.


My blog: Doohickie

#88 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 06 October 2015 - 10:00 PM

 

Nobody seems as riled up about this as Bud Kennedy. Almost to the point that it's weird.

 

Yeah, I was wondering if he was off the deep end this time or if it was just me.

 

 

It may not come as a surprise to y'all, but I think Bud is right - condescending comes naturally from east of the county line.

 

One wears a ball cap as a way of telling others where you come from.  Of all of the major league sports, baseball is the closest thing to tribalism.



#89 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 06 October 2015 - 10:19 PM

It may not come as a surprise to y'all, but I think Bud is right - condescending comes naturally from east of the county line.
 
One wears a ball cap as a way of telling others where you come from.  Of all of the major league sports, baseball is the closest thing to tribalism.


...except the shirts were designed by MLB, not someone in Dallas.

And all major league sports are tribalism. That's pretty much all they are.
My blog: Doohickie

#90 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,325 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 07 October 2015 - 05:52 AM

I'm not saying that Bud's wrong. I'm saying that responding to every troll on Twitter that's looking to get a rise out of him is not all that becoming for someone who does what he does.

#91 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 07 October 2015 - 06:45 PM

Arlington is a massive, overhyped suburb (of Fort Worth and Dallas) with no real skyline of its own.

 

Would've been nice to see the Fort Worth skyline, but the Dallas skyline is also appropriate.


- Dylan


#92 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 07 October 2015 - 08:55 PM

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened had the Minnesota Twins made it in. I would suspect they would have had a Minneapolis skyline. Of course, their stadium is actually in downtown Minneapolis. But their team name actually references the fact that there are two "twin cities." Had St. Paul been slighted, I doubt they would have cared much, because they have the Xcel Energy Center and the Wild.



#93 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 07 October 2015 - 10:11 PM

Arlington is a massive, overhyped suburb (of Fort Worth and Dallas) with no real skyline of its own.

 

Would've been nice to see the Fort Worth skyline, but the Dallas skyline is also appropriate.

 

So what does a skyline really have to do with a team?

 

What if the west had been won by Anaheim (L.A.)  I would wager that had San Francisco made the playoffs, the Golden Gate Bridge could have been used and would be just as appropriate as their skyline.

 

Accuracy among the national media is missing.

 

And you would think that someone with MLB would have a bit of curiosity about why or how Dallas "is not" the team name of the Rangers?

 

The silver lining coming from this slip up may be that in the future MLB shall take greater care in its public relation projects surrounding the Texas Rangers.



#94 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 08 October 2015 - 10:47 AM

I agree, skylines are greatly overused as icon for cities. Usually, they are a cities most unique and largest identifier, but there could be others they could use. 



#95 Jimmy

Jimmy

    Senior Member

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

Posted 08 October 2015 - 01:20 PM

I thought using the Dallas skyline was a pretty tone-deaf move by the league and team.

 

That being said, I think it's silly to waste any energy on being upset about it.  The Rangers are in the playoffs!



#96 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 08 October 2015 - 07:07 PM

 

Arlington is a massive, overhyped suburb (of Fort Worth and Dallas) with no real skyline of its own.

 

Would've been nice to see the Fort Worth skyline, but the Dallas skyline is also appropriate.

 

So what does a skyline really have to do with a team?

 

What if the west had been won by Anaheim (L.A.)  I would wager that had San Francisco made the playoffs, the Golden Gate Bridge could have been used and would be just as appropriate as their skyline.

 

The Los Angeles skyline would be appropriate because Anaheim is a suburb of Los Angeles.


- Dylan


#97 Dallastar

Dallastar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Location:Dallas White Rock Lake

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:17 PM

 

 

Arlington is a massive, overhyped suburb (of Fort Worth and Dallas) with no real skyline of its own.

 

Would've been nice to see the Fort Worth skyline, but the Dallas skyline is also appropriate.

 

So what does a skyline really have to do with a team?

 

What if the west had been won by Anaheim (L.A.)  I would wager that had San Francisco made the playoffs, the Golden Gate Bridge could have been used and would be just as appropriate as their skyline.

 

The Los Angeles skyline would be appropriate because Anaheim is a suburb of Los Angeles.

 

Do you guys think (should the Rangers win the World Series) the parade will be in Arlington?  I believe most are held in the teams downtown.



#98 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,325 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:26 PM

I firmly believe it's way too early to think about parades or parade planning.

#99 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 October 2015 - 10:08 PM

 

 

 

Arlington is a massive, overhyped suburb (of Fort Worth and Dallas) with no real skyline of its own.

 

Would've been nice to see the Fort Worth skyline, but the Dallas skyline is also appropriate.

 

So what does a skyline really have to do with a team?

 

What if the west had been won by Anaheim (L.A.)  I would wager that had San Francisco made the playoffs, the Golden Gate Bridge could have been used and would be just as appropriate as their skyline.

 

(2) The Los Angeles skyline would be appropriate because Anaheim is a suburb of Los Angeles.

 

(1) Do you guys think (should the Rangers win the World Series) the parade will be in Arlington?  I believe most are held in the teams downtown.

 

 

2. - Then that downtown would be Arlington if what you belief is true; however, no where is that a rule. Usually, the city pays for the parade.  The question is what criteria do you think should determine the location of a parade?  For the record, the Angels' 2002 championship celebration was held in Anaheim, CA.

 

1. - I frequently enjoy reading the Angels Fan Blog ---- the Angels play in Orange County, their fan hate LA Dodgers and many think of Los Angeles as a pit.



#100 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 08 October 2015 - 10:16 PM

I firmly believe it's way too early to think about parades or parade planning.

 

The 2006 Mavericks would agree with this statement. 


  • JBB likes this

7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users