(01-20-2017 05:26 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  UNLV, like most of the G4, needs to drop to FCS

UNLV at least is somewhat of a brand. 80% of the G4 is a wasteland of garbage.

(01-20-2017 02:44 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  I fail to see your correlation then, or why the raiders moving to vegas and indirectly competing against their product should be a good thing for UNLV, regardless of swanky new rental digs.

UNLV football isn't any less of an event being in Sam Boyd Stadium, and moving to the tourist focal point on the strip won't make it any more of an event.

And FYI, Sam Boyd stadium is only a 7 mile drive away from the UNLV campus. That's closer than Ray Jay to USF, or the Citrus Bowl to UCF.

Technically true but that's like saying Joe Robbie Stadium (or whatever the Dolphins are calling it these days) is slightly farther from Miami Beach than MetLife is from Midtown Manhattan. Who cares, they're nowhere near the action? Just because it's relatively close (and for a college football stadium, it's not close at all) doesn't mean it's ideal and that stadium in its location isn't ideal at all.

(01-20-2017 08:08 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 05:26 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  UNLV, like most of the G4, needs to drop to FCS

UNLV at least is somewhat of a brand. 80% of the G4 is a wasteland of garbage.

true dat

(01-20-2017 08:27 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 02:44 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  I fail to see your correlation then, or why the raiders moving to vegas and indirectly competing against their product should be a good thing for UNLV, regardless of swanky new rental digs.

UNLV football isn't any less of an event being in Sam Boyd Stadium, and moving to the tourist focal point on the strip won't make it any more of an event.

And FYI, Sam Boyd stadium is only a 7 mile drive away from the UNLV campus. That's closer than Ray Jay to USF, or the Citrus Bowl to UCF.

Technically true but that's like saying Joe Robbie Stadium (or whatever the Dolphins are calling it these days) is slightly farther from Miami Beach than MetLife is from Midtown Manhattan. Who cares, they're nowhere near the action? Just because it's relatively close (and for a college football stadium, it's not close at all) doesn't mean it's ideal and that stadium in its location isn't ideal at all.

Considering Vegas and Miami traffic...those that haven't spent much if anytime in those cities have no clue on how long it takes to get to/from major events.

Like new NBA/NHL arenas that are usually built in/near downtown areas to maximize overall economic impact from hundreds of events per year...the new Vegas Dome will be able to be a "bigger" version of that...as being a retractable dome...they can have any and all events 365/24/7.

Thats one advantage of downtown dome or retrackable stadiums like the new one in Minneapolis or even the old Superdome in New Orleans. Location matters.

The "old" NFL model of building outdoor stadiums in the middle of no where surrounded by giant asphalt lots like the Chiefs, Patriots, Giants/Jets, Chargers, Dolphins, Cowboys, Bucs, 49ers, etc...has changed...as the Lions and Vikings built new facilities downtown so they can be utilized for a lot more events year round...similar to what Vegas wants to happen with their new facility.

(01-20-2017 12:13 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 11:38 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 08:58 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Because with Vegas now being a pro football town it's going to suck whatever remaining interest in football is left in the city

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using CSNbbs mobile app

Wrong.

The new stadium built close to campus and the strip will actually be a BOON to UNLV...a program that maybe plays in the worst stadium and worst location in the country...a stadium built far from campus and an outdoor stadium in the middle of a desert.

If they can draw 30,000-35,000 in the new domed stadium close to campus...UNLV could become a successful MWC.

Anything better then their desert dump will be an improvement and help draw more students/fans and $$$.

This? (Closer to campus, closer to the strip)


Or this?

Who doesn't love tailgating in asphalt lots in the middle of the desert in Sept and Oct?

What does the average bandwagon fan / tourist care about how close a stadium is to the university of the team that plays in it?

Maybe it will draw more students who will now be able to stumble out of their dorms and into some seats, but saying it will be a draw for anyone else is a huge assumption.

What isn't an assumption is now UNLV has to compete with yet another entertainment option, this time in the form of a more popular football program.

Why do you assume that UNLV will make more money? The stadium won't be owned by UNLV. Ask temple and USF about all the money they make from their stadium arrangements.

Let's monitor the changes in attendance, revenue, and performance between SDSU and UNLV... That will make it really easy to see who is right and who's wrong.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using CSNbbs mobile app

There is a following for unlv in vegas - not a strong attachment - for non alumni. Once a new stadium is built close to the city instead of the current miserable drive, I expect a lot of locals like myself will catch a couple of home games each year. I plan to take my kids to unlv games - not raiders games and there quite a few locals who would do that. I expect the new stadium, if it happens, will be much better for unlv.

(01-21-2017 09:56 AM)virgosports Wrote:  There is a following for unlv in vegas - not a strong attachment - for non alumni. Once a new stadium is built close to the city instead of the current miserable drive, I expect a lot of locals like myself will catch a couple of home games each year. I plan to take my kids to unlv games - not raiders games and there quite a few locals who would do that. I expect the new stadium, if it happens, will be much better for unlv.

That goes for a lot of families....that prefer to take their kids to college games vs dealing with "NFL" crowds (in virtually any city).

2 totally different type of crowds in deed...and maybe Raider fans belong in a 3rd category all of their own.

(01-20-2017 02:44 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 02:21 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 01:48 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  You'd have a great point if UNLV football was, in any way, a tourist draw. ..........

What are you rambling about?

I never once said that "tourists" would go see UNLV play....as all I noted was how the locals view Vegas as an EVENT city (something their new NHL team will provide 41 times a year too).

You don't seem to understand that most of UNLV's 30,000 students and near 120,000 alumni go to see them play NOW.

Believe I noted that if UNLV could draw 30,000 or so in the new stadium, that would mean success for this program and maybe it could grow thru the years.

The fact with know is that UNLV Football will NEVER grow playing in their old small off-campus stadium in the desert so yes, new digs should help the program.

I fail to see your correlation then, or why the raiders moving to vegas and indirectly competing against their product should be a good thing for UNLV, regardless of swanky new rental digs.

UNLV football isn't any less of an event being in Sam Boyd Stadium, and moving to the tourist focal point on the strip won't make it any more of an event.

And FYI, Sam Boyd stadium is only a 7 mile drive away from the UNLV campus. That's closer than Ray Jay to USF, or the Citrus Bowl to UCF.

The stadium maybe only 7 miles but it is a miserable drive. In addition, the additional support that unlv will get from locals will come from areas like Summerlin which is a lot more then 7 miles drive away.

I think sometimes people forget that Las Vegas metro has like 2.1m people and no, they are not unlv alums, but people living here do casually support the local university. In most houses you go, you have unlv gear at home along with their favorite team. We have unlv and Memphis stuff. I have friends who are broncos or packers fans but their kids sport unlv stuff as well. I expect this stadium to have a very positive impact for unlv.

(01-21-2017 07:52 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Considering Vegas and Miami traffic...those that haven't spent much if anytime in those cities have no clue on how long it takes to get to/from major events.

Like new NBA/NHL arenas that are usually built in/near downtown areas to maximize overall economic impact from hundreds of events per year...the new Vegas Dome will be able to be a "bigger" version of that...as being a retractable dome...they can have any and all events 365/24/7.

Thats one advantage of downtown dome or retrackable stadiums like the new one in Minneapolis or even the old Superdome in New Orleans. Location matters.

The "old" NFL model of building outdoor stadiums in the middle of no where surrounded by giant asphalt lots like the Chiefs, Patriots, Giants/Jets, Chargers, Dolphins, Cowboys, Bucs, 49ers, etc...has changed...as the Lions and Vikings built new facilities downtown so they can be utilized for a lot more events year round...similar to what Vegas wants to happen with their new facility.

7 miles isn't close for a college stadium no matter your rationale or how you want to slice it, especially for a school near a tourist Mecca like UNLV is. I don't care if there was a freeway going straight from UNLV to Sam Boyd. A college stadium should be no more than a few blocks from campus and in UNLV's case, walking distance from the Strip.

As for Detroit...yeesh, they should have built in the suburbs. If anything, the basketball arena should be Downtown and the football and baseball stadiums elsewhere.

(01-22-2017 12:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 07:52 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Considering Vegas and Miami traffic...those that haven't spent much if anytime in those cities have no clue on how long it takes to get to/from major events.

Like new NBA/NHL arenas that are usually built in/near downtown areas to maximize overall economic impact from hundreds of events per year...the new Vegas Dome will be able to be a "bigger" version of that...as being a retractable dome...they can have any and all events 365/24/7.

Thats one advantage of downtown dome or retrackable stadiums like the new one in Minneapolis or even the old Superdome in New Orleans. Location matters.

The "old" NFL model of building outdoor stadiums in the middle of no where surrounded by giant asphalt lots like the Chiefs, Patriots, Giants/Jets, Chargers, Dolphins, Cowboys, Bucs, 49ers, etc...has changed...as the Lions and Vikings built new facilities downtown so they can be utilized for a lot more events year round...similar to what Vegas wants to happen with their new facility.

7 miles isn't close for a college stadium no matter your rationale or how you want to slice it, especially for a school near a tourist Mecca like UNLV is. I don't care if there was a freeway going straight from UNLV to Sam Boyd. A college stadium should be no more than a few blocks from campus and in UNLV's case, walking distance from the Strip.

As for Detroit...yeesh, they should have built in the suburbs. If anything, the basketball arena should be Downtown and the football [b]and baseball stadiums elsewhere.

Totally disagree.

Everyone has seen what happened when the Lions had to play in Pontiac and the Pistons had to play in Auburn Hills (i.e. not much economic impact over the last few decades)

Arenas obviously and Baseball Stadiums SHOULD be in downtowns (like Comerica Park is), since there are at least 81 home games...so the opportunity for neighborhood businesses, restaurants, bars plus new residential areas is huge.

Detroit will actually be the ONLY city where all 4 teams play in downtown venues...as the $800 Million Little Caesar Arena will opened up next year approx 1/2 mile away from where the Tigers and Lions play...and both the Pistons and the Red Wings will play in the new downtown arena.

NOTE: Northern teams that have new domes like Detroit & now Minneapolis are able to have a lot more events than just 10 NFL Games (2 preseason) per year from Final Fours to Super Bowls and everything else inbetween.

It's sad what the NCAA did to UNLV basketball. While letting some of the "blue bloods" get away with a lot worse. It's not like they've ever been much in football. It's gonna be weird having an NFL team in Vegas. If that's true of course.

(01-22-2017 09:30 AM)VinnieVegas Wrote:  It's sad what the NCAA did to UNLV basketball. While letting some of the "blue bloods" get away with a lot worse. It's not like they've ever been much in football. It's gonna be weird having an NFL team in Vegas. If that's true of course.

lol wut!?

UNLV (Tark) was guilty of like, 63 violations.

(01-22-2017 08:49 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Totally disagree.

Everyone has seen what happened when the Lions had to play in Pontiac and the Pistons had to play in Auburn Hills (i.e. not much economic impact over the last few decades)

Arenas obviously and Baseball Stadiums SHOULD be in downtowns (like Comerica Park is), since there are at least 81 home games...so the opportunity for neighborhood businesses, restaurants, bars plus new residential areas is huge.

Detroit will actually be the ONLY city where all 4 teams play in downtown venues...as the $800 Million Little Caesar Arena will opened up next year approx 1/2 mile away from where the Tigers and Lions play...and both the Pistons and the Red Wings will play in the new downtown arena.

NOTE: Northern teams that have new domes like Detroit & now Minneapolis are able to have a lot more events than just 10 NFL Games (2 preseason) per year from Final Fours to Super Bowls and everything else inbetween.

You put a baseball stadium where there's a ton of people in walking, biking, training or easy driving distance AND where people have some semblance of money. In baseball, teams look to build a culture around going to the ballpark and that's just as important as having millions of people in a TV market. If everyone has to fight rush hour traffic to get home and then back to the city for gametime, attendance will suffer. In Detroit's case, the inner city is impoverished (even if the ballpark area isn't) and most of the money is in the suburbs, thus, it'd be wiser to put the team in the suburbs where families can make an easy drive to the game.

It only makes sense to place all of your venues Downtown if that's where virtually of the economic capital of the metro area is and a significant amount of people live there or if the area has a spread out and a nearly equal proportion of all of that in every direction (Houston, Atlanta, MSG in New York). So the notion of placing all of your venues in the downtown area is outdated based on how many northeastern and Midwestern cities were setup. In the case of Detroit, it's really stupid because that not where the majority of the money and ticket buying public is.

That said, I agree with the last part.

(01-22-2017 09:37 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 09:30 AM)VinnieVegas Wrote:  It's sad what the NCAA did to UNLV basketball. While letting some of the "blue bloods" get away with a lot worse. It's not like they've ever been much in football. It's gonna be weird having an NFL team in Vegas. If that's true of course.

lol wut!?

UNLV (Tark) was guilty of like, 63 violations.

How many was UCLA "guilty" of under Sam Gilbert? Kentucky ? And just look at North Carolina and their 25 plus years of academic fraud. UNLV didn't do anything that anyone else wasn't doing that was good.

(01-22-2017 08:49 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 12:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 07:52 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Considering Vegas and Miami traffic...those that haven't spent much if anytime in those cities have no clue on how long it takes to get to/from major events.

Like new NBA/NHL arenas that are usually built in/near downtown areas to maximize overall economic impact from hundreds of events per year...the new Vegas Dome will be able to be a "bigger" version of that...as being a retractable dome...they can have any and all events 365/24/7.

Thats one advantage of downtown dome or retrackable stadiums like the new one in Minneapolis or even the old Superdome in New Orleans. Location matters.

The "old" NFL model of building outdoor stadiums in the middle of no where surrounded by giant asphalt lots like the Chiefs, Patriots, Giants/Jets, Chargers, Dolphins, Cowboys, Bucs, 49ers, etc...has changed...as the Lions and Vikings built new facilities downtown so they can be utilized for a lot more events year round...similar to what Vegas wants to happen with their new facility.

7 miles isn't close for a college stadium no matter your rationale or how you want to slice it, especially for a school near a tourist Mecca like UNLV is. I don't care if there was a freeway going straight from UNLV to Sam Boyd. A college stadium should be no more than a few blocks from campus and in UNLV's case, walking distance from the Strip.

As for Detroit...yeesh, they should have built in the suburbs. If anything, the basketball arena should be Downtown and the football [b]and baseball stadiums elsewhere.

Totally disagree.

Everyone has seen what happened when the Lions had to play in Pontiac and the Pistons had to play in Auburn Hills (i.e. not much economic impact over the last few decades)

Arenas obviously and Baseball Stadiums SHOULD be in downtowns (like Comerica Park is), since there are at least 81 home games...so the opportunity for neighborhood businesses, restaurants, bars plus new residential areas is huge.

Detroit will actually be the ONLY city where all 4 teams play in downtown venues...as the $800 Million Little Caesar Arena will opened up next year approx 1/2 mile away from where the Tigers and Lions play...and both the Pistons and the Red Wings will play in the new downtown arena.

NOTE: Northern teams that have new domes like Detroit & now Minneapolis are able to have a lot more events than just 10 NFL Games (2 preseason) per year from Final Fours to Super Bowls and everything else inbetween.

(01-22-2017 05:56 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:49 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Totally disagree.

Everyone has seen what happened when the Lions had to play in Pontiac and the Pistons had to play in Auburn Hills (i.e. not much economic impact over the last few decades)

Arenas obviously and Baseball Stadiums SHOULD be in downtowns (like Comerica Park is), since there are at least 81 home games...so the opportunity for neighborhood businesses, restaurants, bars plus new residential areas is huge.

Detroit will actually be the ONLY city where all 4 teams play in downtown venues...as the $800 Million Little Caesar Arena will opened up next year approx 1/2 mile away from where the Tigers and Lions play...and both the Pistons and the Red Wings will play in the new downtown arena.

NOTE: Northern teams that have new domes like Detroit & now Minneapolis are able to have a lot more events than just 10 NFL Games (2 preseason) per year from Final Fours to Super Bowls and everything else inbetween.

You put a baseball stadium where there's a ton of people in walking, biking, training or easy driving distance AND where people have some semblance of money. In baseball, teams look to build a culture around going to the ballpark and that's just as important as having millions of people in a TV market. If everyone has to fight rush hour traffic to get home and then back to the city for gametime, attendance will suffer. In Detroit's case, the inner city is impoverished (even if the ballpark area isn't) and most of the money is in the suburbs, thus, it'd be wiser to put the team in the suburbs where families can make an easy drive to the game.

It only makes sense to place all of your venues Downtown if that's where virtually of the economic capital of the metro area is and a significant amount of people live there or if the area has a spread out and a nearly equal proportion of all of that in every direction (Houston, Atlanta, MSG in New York). So the notion of placing all of your venues in the downtown area is outdated based on how many northeastern and Midwestern cities were setup. In the case of Detroit, it's really stupid because that not where the majority of the money and ticket buying public is.

That said, I agree with the last part.

Maybe Detroit will be the only single city with all 4 playing downtown, but in the Twin Cities all 4 are in downtown(s) just that the Wild are in downtown St. Paul while the Twins, Vikings, and Timberwolves are in downtown Minneapolis.

(01-22-2017 05:56 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:49 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Totally disagree.

Everyone has seen what happened when the Lions had to play in Pontiac and the Pistons had to play in Auburn Hills (i.e. not much economic impact over the last few decades)

Arenas obviously and Baseball Stadiums SHOULD be in downtowns (like Comerica Park is), since there are at least 81 home games...so the opportunity for neighborhood businesses, restaurants, bars plus new residential areas is huge.

Detroit will actually be the ONLY city where all 4 teams play in downtown venues...as the $800 Million Little Caesar Arena will opened up next year approx 1/2 mile away from where the Tigers and Lions play...and both the Pistons and the Red Wings will play in the new downtown arena.

NOTE: Northern teams that have new domes like Detroit & now Minneapolis are able to have a lot more events than just 10 NFL Games (2 preseason) per year from Final Fours to Super Bowls and everything else inbetween.

You put a baseball stadium where there's a ton of people in walking, biking, training or easy driving distance AND where people have some semblance of money. In baseball, teams look to build a culture around going to the ballpark and that's just as important as having millions of people in a TV market. If everyone has to fight rush hour traffic to get home and then back to the city for gametime, attendance will suffer. In Detroit's case, the inner city is impoverished (even if the ballpark area isn't) and most of the money is in the suburbs, thus, it'd be wiser to put the team in the suburbs where families can make an easy drive to the game.

It only makes sense to place all of your venues Downtown if that's where virtually of the economic capital of the metro area is and a significant amount of people live there or if the area has a spread out and a nearly equal proportion of all of that in every direction (Houston, Atlanta, MSG in New York). So the notion of placing all of your venues in the downtown area is outdated based on how many northeastern and Midwestern cities were setup. In the case of Detroit, it's really stupid because that not where the majority of the money and ticket buying public is.

That said, I agree with the last part.

To the contrary, the notion of a stadium being out in the suburbs and car-centric areas (which is what many people thought would work the best in the 1970s and 1980s for exact reason that you've stated, e.g. that's where more wealthy people live) is what is outdated. What's happening is that more wealthy people are moving back to the city and/or want to visit more urban environments when attending a sporting event, going to a concert, going to the theater, etc.

Also, if you want *any* chance of a stadium being a catalyst for other private development (which is already highly speculative), it needs to be in a denser walkable area. Otherwise, the stadium will become an island in a sea of parking lots. Detroit isn't on par with NYC, Chicago or San Francisco as far as walkable cities go, but I've been to both Ford Field and the old Silverdome and I'd take the Ford Field environment any day of the week. In essence, the old historic stadiums like Wrigley Field and Fenway Park and the neighborhoods that built up around them are the template for new stadium developments. The cities that did a good job placing their new stadiums in dense urban environments (e.g. Denver with Coors Field, San Diego with Petco Park and Pittsburgh with PNC Park and Heinz Stadium) actually spurred private development that would at least provide an argument that public financing of those stadiums brought some additional benefits. Even Indianapolis, which had a car-centric downtown that looked more like a Sun Belt city than a Northeast/Midwest city, was able to use a district with a basketball arena, football stadium and minor league baseball stadium to spur a lot of private development. (I wouldn't say that public financing entirely paid off in those instances, but they at least weren't stadiums that turned into islands like you see in a lot of Sun Belt cities that didn't build in a downtown area.) It's quite amazing that the ultimate tourist towns of Las Vegas and Orlando (with their smart decisions to place new stadiums in or near denser areas) seem to understand this better than places like Houston and Phoenix.

I never said the suburbs, I said put a stadium where people are, a neighborhood with lots of activity and a vibe. Where people have some level of money and are in close driving if not walking/biking distance of the venue. You make it a thing to go to games and part of people's routines, it is for 81+ games a year after all.

NYC is full of these types of neighborhoods, LA has many, especially beach towns. In theory, Florida does (but only at the minor league level), Galveston would qualify if it was closer to Houston. Anywhere in San Francisco works, as well as Las Vegas in the tourist areas as well as Downtown New Orleans near the French Quarter.

Of course, the issue is the way the modern American city has developed, so not all cities have neighborhoods like that. BTW, that private development spawning from a baseball stadium doesn't work, look at Houston's downtown stadiums.

(01-23-2017 03:13 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I never said the suburbs, I said put a stadium where people are, a neighborhood with lots of activity and a vibe. Where people have some level of money and are in close driving if not walking/biking distance of the venue. You make it a thing to go to games and part of people's routines, it is for 81+ games a year after all.

NYC is full of these types of neighborhoods, LA has many, especially beach towns. In theory, Florida does (but only at the minor league level), Galveston would qualify if it was closer to Houston. Anywhere in San Francisco works, as well as Las Vegas in the tourist areas as well as Downtown New Orleans near the French Quarter.

Of course, the issue is the way the modern American city has developed, so not all cities have neighborhoods like that. BTW, that private development spawning from a baseball stadium doesn't work, look at Houston's downtown stadiums.

That's exactly why the Padres moved from 15-20 mins away in a suburb right into the heart of their "buzzing" downtown area...as all are just a walk away (Gas Lamp, Convention Center, all the Hotels, scores of restaurants/bars, etc...).

Same for Denver...Same for San Fran (moved to downtown). Seattle didn't leave downtown.

Baltimore was basically the first "new" stadium to be built in a downtown area by an already high traffic area (Inner Harbor), and soon become the model of how cities can hopefully get some of their investment back...as new development/projects came in...just like they have in Denver, San Diego, San Fran, Seattle, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, etc...
u
Atlanta is a misnomer...as they had a chance to do it right prior to the Olympics, but they choose to stay at a bad site (next to old Fulton County Stadium), instead of say near MidTown or even by the Convention Center/New Mercedes Benz Stadium, etc...but after 2 bad choices....they are headed to the burbs...but that isn't the norm.










Meanwhile, is it any surprise that the Tampa Rays never have historically drawn well at their old dome in St Pete, surrounded by highways, asphalt lots and some not so nice areas?



Rays are now looking at new sites in/near Downtown Tampa...where there are a lot more people and businesses.

(01-23-2017 03:13 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I never said the suburbs, I said put a stadium where people are, a neighborhood with lots of activity and a vibe. Where people have some level of money and are in close driving if not walking/biking distance of the venue. You make it a thing to go to games and part of people's routines, it is for 81+ games a year after all.

NYC is full of these types of neighborhoods, LA has many, especially beach towns. In theory, Florida does (but only at the minor league level), Galveston would qualify if it was closer to Houston. Anywhere in San Francisco works, as well as Las Vegas in the tourist areas as well as Downtown New Orleans near the French Quarter.

Of course, the issue is the way the modern American city has developed, so not all cities have neighborhoods like that. BTW, that private development spawning from a baseball stadium doesn't work, look at Houston's downtown stadiums.

That's a Houston problem...as its still known as a city that rolls up after 5 pm.

Cities like San Fran, Denver, Seattle, et al have a heck of a lot more booming downtown residential areas than Houston.

Maybe, but the idea isn't full-proof. I say, unless your city is San Francisco or NYC, putting your stadium downtown is overrated. That doesn't mean put it in a suburb but for some places, especially the Sun Belt, the entire metro area is one giant suburb and the saving grace for putting it downtown is that it's the population's center of gravity.

Other than that last fact I mentioned, it's ridiculous that Houston's venues are Downtown. It's not the heart and soul of the area the same way, say, Midtown Manhattan is in NYC and Center City is in Philadelphia.

I have a feeling C2 doesn't get to downtown Houston much. It's booming. Here's what's new or under construction since 2014;

10, 24, and 48 story office towers with a combined 2,125,000 square feet
a new High School for the Performing and Visual Arts 168,000 square feet
a 1,000 room, 30 floor Marriott Marquis Hotel with a Texas-shaped lazy river
a shared 14 floor Hampton Inn/Homewood Suites with 300 rooms
a 21 floor, 223 room Hotel Alessandra
a 255 room LeMeridien Hotel
an aLoft Hotel with 168 rooms
a Holiday Inn with 215 rooms
a JW Marriott Hotel with over 250 rooms
and a combined 12 residential projects with over 3,500 units

And that's just downtown proper. Right across US 69 from Minute Maid Park, there are hundreds of townhouses, a massive apartment community, a newish MLS stadium, converted loft buildings, music venues, bars, and even that area's first hotel proposal (Hotel RL).

The suburbs in Houston are hurting. The Inner Loop is booming still.