Why the Future of Major League Soccer Is Downtown

[thelakelander]

Young urbanites are Major League Soccer's most loyal demographic. They want their stadiums in city centers.

Four years after its inaugural season and with the new millennium approaching, Major League Soccer looked deflated. Attendance in major urban markets was plummeting. Los Angeles was averaging 11,000 fewer fans in 1999 compared to its opening season. Attendance dropped similarly in New York by about 10,000 people. Maybe the pessimists were right? Americans enjoyed watching their kids play soccer. They just didn't want to pay to see the pros do it.

The fledgling league would be revolutionized that season, however, by an unlikely source. It wasn't the slick hair and status of David Beckham—it was a new stadium design, built specifically for soccer and mirrored after many of the boxy arenas that litter soccer-crazed Europe. And it happened in Columbus, Ohio.

Crew Stadium (named after the local team, the Columbus Crew) was the first soccer-specific stadium built for Major League Soccer when it opened in 1999. In many ways, this type of stadium is antithetical to American sports culture. The arenas are comparatively small, usually seating around 20,000. They're compact, allowing fans to sit a few feet from the sidelines. While modern football and baseball stadiums compete for garishness, soccer-specific stadiums seek intimacy. More Fenway Park, less Cowboys Stadium.

Columbus' attendance rates jumped by 5,000 fans after unveiling the soccer-centric facility. Others quickly followed: Teams based in Dallas, Kansas City, Colorado, New York, Salt Lake, and Philadelphia all built similar stadiums over the next decade and a half. The difference was that these were often set in suburban enclaves. Real Salt Lake built their new stadium 14 miles outside the downtown area in neighboring Sandy, Utah. Chester, Pennsylvania, (nearly 20 miles from Philly) is home to PPL Park, the Philadelphia Union's glitzy new soccer-specific arena. MLS' popularity skyrocketed during this period of stadium makeovers, and a case can be made that the initiative saved the league. But now Major League Soccer is at a demographic and geographic crossroads—one that can't be solved by innovative infrastructure alone.

Full article: http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/11/why-the-future-of-major-league-soccer-is-downtown/382942/

[mbwright]

1999 was a long time ago.  How about some current stats?

[tufsu1]

I think the Armada ownership has been tracking trends like these.  That is part of the reason they are starting play downtown and not out at UNF.  And recently they have been asking season ticket holders demographic information.  I believe they plan to build their permanent facility downtown as well. 

[tufsu1]

1999 was a long time ago.  How about some current stats?

you could just read the whole article

[KenFSU]

I believe they plan to build their permanent facility downtown as well. 

Yep, Armada president Steve Livingstone told the Times-Union that their goal is to have a downtown soccer-specific stadium built and in use by 2018.

[Tacachale]

The article cites a  2013 report by Steve Argeris and Mark S. Nagel. They suggest there's a solid correlation between MLS attendance and having a stadium located within 5 miles of downtown. The main reason for this seems to be that MLS' primary demographic is young, affluent white males, who increasingly prefer to live in urban environments. It's a change from the past, when MLS considered suburban families to be their target demographic. Though there's also a correlation between stadium quality (especially having a soccer-specific stadium) and attendance, the authors suggest the downtown location is as or more important.

I'm not totally sold. For one thing, many of MLS' biggest draws were also less than five years old at the time of the report. Most of them are in downtown stadiums, soccer-specific stadiums, or both, so newness may be inflating the numbers. Let's see what happens to attendance when some of that new team smell wears off. Columbus, for instance, has a soccer specific stadium that's within miles of downtown, but it has below average attendance.

Additionally, clearly MLS teams are having to strike a balance between getting good stadiums built, and having them in good locations. Kansas City and Salt Lake City couldn't get a good deal downtown, so they built their soccer-specific stadiums in the burbs. Portland got a downtown stadium for reasons beyond MLS: they they were converting an empty baseball stadium. But regardless, all three teams do well in attendance. Not every team in every market is going to be as fortunate as Portland.

We'll probably see MLS teams try for downtown stadiums when its possible, and MLS will continue shooting for expansion teams in markets where it will work. Orlando is treating its new stadium as a downtown revitalization project, so it works for them. Miami doesn't see the benefit, so their expansion team may never happen.

[Gamblor]

To be honest this whole argument is mute now. MLS 1.0 stadium standard was just get a soccer-specific stadium where you could. 2.0 was get something decent preferably in an urban/downtown area. We begin with the start of next season 3.0, and we kind of already know where it is going from this last round of expansion. Which is for a city like Jacksonville and what would be realistic to expect out of a MLS applying ownership group, the stadium has to be in an urban area, probably downtown. Although if something was built in a neighboring district like riverside, san marco, or springfield that had unbelievable mass transit links like the streetcar that runs right by portlands stadium, the board of governors might allow it. It also looks like 3.0 is going to call for iconic, bold design as well. Also being a catalyst for major growth/renovation of an area will help your chances with the board of governors. A good example of this is Sacramento Republic's expansion bid and stadium concept, which includes building essentially a new neighborhood with parks, a bunch of new mid rise residential, an entertainment/commercial facility, light rail station next to the stadium... all while trying to maintain historic icon-ism of the area.









http://www.sacrepublicfc.com/republic-fc-chooses-railyards-stadium-site/#.VHOVU1WJOuY



So, unless we can put together an extremely, extremely wealthy ownership group (see NYCFC, LAFC), with about 5 Khans, our chance for being in major league soccer lies in the core. It lies in being bold and visionary. Go big or go home.

[Tacachale]

^The authors of that report suggest that the new trend is/will continue to be in urban cores, but that it will potentially involve either cheaper stadiums in order to get good urban locations (as with Portland, Toronto, and Montreal), or piggybacking with football teams in urban stadiums (as with Seattle, Vancouver and probably Atlanta). Orlando is a case where the cost is about mid-level ($110 million), but the architecture is "underwhelming" to balance against expensive land so the stadium can be downtown.

[control]

Turnout for the Florida Cup game on January 17th at Everbank could be an indicator of the area's appetite for professional soccer.  Looking at the available seats on ticketmaster suggests it will a paltry attendance. I think a double-header of top level professional soccer from Germany and Brazil for $30 is pretty amazing,  I am looking forward to it myself. 

[Gamblor]

I don't know about cheaper. The Kraft's are looking to move the Rev's toward the core of Boston, and they don't spare dimes. The new DC site is moving along and hopefully should pass DC city council before New Years, and will be the most expensive facility in MLS history. The Quakes new one was significantly upgraded from what was initially reported (at the teams cost ofcourse). NYCFC has said it will only build in the 5 boroughs now, and I don't see the Yankees and Sheikh Mansour looking to build anything that doesn't knock NYC's socks off. Plus the Portland stadium came in so famously cheap because Portland was willing to spend during the recession when they could get the supplies and labor cheaper. I remember reading an article at the time talking about how they upgraded on the planned lighting system because they were approached by the manufacturer who cut them a major deal as their sales had plummeted.

Really though I was trying to get at it's not about the trend. It's about meeting the demands of the MLS Board of Governors to get a franchise awarded and accepted (difference being seen in Miami where they have been assigned a franchise, but haven't met criteria of the stadium to be allowed in yet). At this point it seems to be build in your urban core or pay us an exorbitant amount of money for your franchise fee.