Rams stadium to serve “regular fans” by giving them place to drink beer and not watch the game

When you’re locked in a flamewar with the legislators you need to pass your football stadium funding plan, what can you do to get people excited about it again? Release new renderings of what the stadium might look like if it ever gets built!

55e61e893f6ba.imageNow, sure, you or I might look at this and think, “Wow, those upper deck seats are going to be a million miles from the field, sitting atop two (or three?) levels of luxury suites and looking down even on the scoreboard.” But that’s not how HOK designer Eli Hoisington thinks of it:

“There’s a trend where everything is luxury, everything is suites now. And we put the general die-hard St. Louis fan front-and-center, embedded in the experience.”

Hoisington’s example of “front-and-center”: Fans will get a three-story brewpub on the outside of the stadium, where they can buy beers and look out at the Mississippi River. Also a 30-foot-wide observation deck for looking at, again, not the game.

Here’s where I would normally make a joke about a slow, muddy river being more entertaining to watch than the Rams, but you know what? This isn’t about what the Rams have done on the field lately, or what they’ll do in the future, or even whether diehard fans might enjoy watching the team through good times and bad, because that’s what diehard fans do. This is about stadium designers thinking that the best thing can do for “regular fans” is give them a really big place to get drunk while watching the game on TV monitors. The saddest part of which is that in the modern NFL-watching experience, it may actually be true.

Every city in the U.S. still thinks it can get an MLS franchise, and you know what that means

Sacramento Republic FC has chosen a designer for a new soccer stadium if it makes it to MLS (not that it doesn’t already have design renderings — hope you know how to design magical purple glowing radio towers, HNTB!), and the mayor of San Antonio is looking to help bring an MLS team to an expanded stadium in her city even as the local NASL owner is selling his franchise, and some developers in Las Vegas want to convert the 51’s minor-league baseball stadium for an MLS team, and…

…you know what? I’m going to go watch some baseball at the place with the free tickets. If there’s any important stadium news the rest of this week I’ll check in. If it’s just more MLS expansion teams, it can wait till next week.

Meanwhile, enjoy your vaportecture porn:

RepublicStadium2

Tuesdays will never be the same again: Heather McCoy Show finale tomorrow at 8 am PT/11 am ET

For the past two years, I’ve been honored to be a weekly guest on Heather McCoy’s radio show on KUCI in Irvine. Tomorrow morning is her last show, and expect a star-studded cavalcade of, okay, I think it’s probably just going to be a regular show. But who knows? Maybe we’ll solve the problem of public sports subsidies once and for all. You never know — so tune in tomorrow morning at 8 am Pacific (11 am Eastern) and find out!

And if you miss it, the archive of tomorrow’s show (and all past shows) will remain available via the Heather McCoy Show podcast page. It’s no substitute for hearing us talk about the latest stadium news, but given that we were probably going to be talking about the possibility of any NFL teams moving to L.A. for the next few months, reruns might not end up being all that different.

New radio series explores WTF is up with all those new Atlanta stadiums

WABE radio in Atlanta kicked off a week-long series yesterday on the metro area’s multiple new stadium and arena deals for the Falcons, Braves, and possibly Hawks, and I had the honor of being one of the first guests, pointing out that while there are certainly cities that got worse deals (hello, Indianapolis!), that’s not really something to brag about. You can listen to the whole interview here.

More interesting to me (since I know what I was going to say already) is Thursday’s upcoming appearance by Cobb County Commission chair Tim Lee, who will try to explain why it made sense to throw $300 million at the Braves to get them to move to a new stadium in the suburbs, plus maybe what’s up with that pedestrian bridge that won’t be ready in time to get fans from their cars to games, plus maybe the soaring ticket prices planned for the new place, plus even maybe why he secretly hired a lawyer with county funds to negotiate the Braves deal without even telling his fellow commission members, then lied about having done so. Come to think of it, I would have rather skipped my appearance yesterday and instead gotten to interview Lee. Now that would be some must-see radio.

LA Olympics plan facing backlash over same overrun guarantee that sank Boston’s bid

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said last week that he’ll sign the International Olympic Committee’s pledge to cover any cost overruns if the 2024 Olympics are held in his city, saying any bid would be “dead on arrival” without it. The L.A. Times editorial board, for one, is displeased:

[U.S. Olympic officials] know they need L.A. more than L.A. needs the Olympics.

But does Garcetti know this? We’re not sure. Last week, Garcetti said he’s pushing hard to be the American bidder for the Games, and that’s good. But he wouldn’t even consider playing hardball when it comes to the requirement that the city guarantee to pay any cost overruns. That’s not so good.

The mayor and his Olympic advisors say Angelenos shouldn’t worry, as Bostonians did, about paying for cost overruns because there won’t be any. Period. The city just can’t lose, he said.

Where have we heard that before? Oh yes, Montreal’s mayor said something similar just before his city incurred $1.5 billion in debt for staging the 1976 Summer Games.

Now, there are indeed some reasons to hope than an L.A. games could avoid some of the worst of the red ink that has befallen other Olympics: The city does have a lot of existing venues, for starters. Still, the number of Olympics that haven’t lost money is so vanishingly small — the only one in recent memory is the 1984 Olympics in L.A., which notably got an exemption from the overrun guarantee — that it’s worth being cautious. And with fewer and fewer cities willing to take on the risks of being a host city, this might well have been a good time to call the IOC’s bluff on this.

That’s apparently not going to happen, at least not this time around in L.A. (Unless the L.A. city council does an end run around the mayor and gets a public vote banning any public spending on cost overruns, as it did before he 1984 games.) Still, it’s interesting to see pushback growing to the IOC guarantee requirement — first in Chicago over its bid for the 2016 games, then with Boston, and now in L.A. It’s likely to be a while before the world runs out of mayors more eager to be the politician who landed the Olympics than the politician who stood up to them, but as I said in my own L.A. Times op-ed last month, the Olympics are supposed to be about chasing big dreams, right?

Japan issues guidelines for cheaper Olympic stadium, doesn’t include actually making it cheaper

The Japanese government has issued guidelines for designing a new Olympic stadium that isn’t as insanely expensive as the one they scrapped last month:

Japan on Friday approved guidelines for its new Olympic stadium, vowing to build an “athlete’s first” stadium as cheaply as possible and complete it by March 2020, a year later than planned, but without including any cost estimates or limits.

Great start, guys!

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also announced that “We should make a structure that will emotionally move people all over the world,” which the original design certainly managed to do. Hilarity is an emotion, right?

 

Which NFL teams will go to LA? No one can predict, but here are some predictions anyway

I’ve been trying to think of what to say about yesterday’s NFL non-action around moving teams to L.A. or not — in short, the owners of the St. Louis Rams, Oakland Raiders, and San Diego Chargers submitted presentations on the same L.A. stadium plans that we all already knew about, then no one decided anything — and while I was thinking, Barry Petchesky of Deadspin went and did it for me:

It’s a simple matter of math at this point. The NFL is going to move at least one team—Giants owner Steve Tisch says “it’s better than 50-50” that a decision will be made by the 2016 season—and Oakland is the only chopping-block city currently unwilling to offer its team’s ultrawealthy owners hundreds of millions of dollars to stay. Mark Davis has no attachment to the Bay; sentiment doesn’t factor into it.

Good for Oakland, honestly. It—like St. Louis, like San Diego, like every single American city—has much more important things to spend its limited funds on. But this remains sad news for Raiders fans, who seem likely to lose their team, possibly as soon as next year. It’s not fair, but the NFL has all the leverage, because if Oakland won’t make any concessions, there are other cities that will. The only way the stadium scam will ever be stopped cold is if politicians everywhere simultaneously decide sports leagues don’t deserve handouts. It’s hard to see that happening in the near future. It’ll be even harder when politicians look at football-less Oakland, and know the NFL will be more than happy to call their bluff.

Well, maybe. Undeniably, Oakland has the least close to anything resembling a viable football stadium plan: Whereas St. Louis is offering the Rams to go halfsies on a stadum and isn’t sure how it’ll come up with its half, and San Diego has a plan to pay for maybe a third of a stadium that the Chargers hated the minute it left the presses, Oakland has hopes that maybe one day there will be a plan that can actually debated, but not very strong hopes at that. So with three teams and five slots (counting L.A. as two), it’s hard to picture Oakland not ending up an empty chair when this is all over.

That said, it’s never as simple as all that. What happens next is the NFL owners all sit around and figure out how to decide on which teams should most logically move for next season — oh, sorry, they figure out how to exploit the current situation to make the most money. For the time being (the course of the 2015 season, certainly), that should mean speaking ever more loudly about how two teams will be moving to L.A. in 2016, in order to keep fans and elected officials in St. Louis, San Diego, and Oakland panicked that they not be one of the two.

What happens, though, if — okay, when — we get to January and the three non-L.A. cities are still all in their various states of incomplete deals? Sure, you can set ever-shorter deadlines, you can fly Roger Goodell into town to frighten the state legislature, but eventually you need to decide whether to have your bluff called or not. Which means deciding whether to take the offers on the table from existing cities, or selecting Door #2, whether that be Inglewood or Carson.

And here’s where we run into unknowns again, because we simply don’t have a clue how lucrative the L.A. market is compared to the certain cost of being on the hook for paying for virtually all of the cost of building stadiums in Inglewood or Carson. And for that matter, the NFL may not know either. It all remains a massive game of chicken with unreliable information all around, which is no doubt one reason why the league has been stalling as long as it can, in the hopes that somebody makes somebody an offer they can’t refuse.

If I had to guess, I’d see three options. In one, Rams owner Stan Kroenke gets approval to move to L.A., then either the Raiders or Chargers join them. Whichever team is left out immediately starts threatening to move to St. Louis in order to get a better deal out of it current home town. In the second, the Chargers and Raiders move to Carson as planned, and Kroenke probably takes whatever deal he can get in St. Louis, though he’d lose a ton of leverage at that point. (One reason why option one is more likely to be approved by the NFL.)

Option three is the status quo: The NFL owners can’t come to an agreement, and decide to let things drag on into 2016. I’m not sure I’d say it’s likely — there’s little to be gained from stalling much longer than they have already — but it is 100% possible. Just keep in mind that none of this has to do with what makes sense: It’s a bunch of people demanding ransom in a chaotic situation, and those can often end in unexpected ways.

Ballpark security theater has officially gone from tragedy to farce

This is a bit awry of this site’s usual topic, but since I wrote it and some of you may be interested: The New York Yankees instituted a new biometric fingerprint-scanning method for fans to bypass the metal detectors that have made for huge lines at games, and it is as stupid as stupid can be:

Unlike airports, ballparks don’t usually have an ID-checking stage to skip. Security may want to know that you have tickets and that you’re not trying to smuggle in Uranium-235 under your cap, but they don’t give a crap about who you are. So the only way to expedite entry for the biometrically approved is to let them skip the metal detectors, provided they are bag-free—even though all they’ve shown is who they are, not what they’re carrying.

In other words, if you need someone to carry some brass knuckles into Yankee Stadium for your next bleacher brawl, I’m your man. Unless you want to take 60 seconds to join CLEAR Fast Access yourself, and stuff them in your own pockets.

There are differing reports on exactly what the experience has been for Yankees fans (and Giants and Rockies fans before them) who use CLEAR Fast Access to skip the lines: One person on social media claimed he was wanded, which did not happen at the gate I witnessed; another said she didn’t even have to submit to a bag check, which goes against what CLEAR officials told me. But either way, several MLB teams have now gone through the trouble of installing metal detectors at all gates (because the league now requires it, though wands are still an alternate option, and are widely used by the Mets, among other teams, to speed entry), discovered that it creates huge lines, then allowed fans to skip this step entirely just by proving they have a driver’s license and fingerprints.

If the detectors made little sense in the first place other than as security theater, this new wrinkle makes even less sense. But you know what they always say: Two wrongs make a right! Er, that’s how the phrase goes, right?

Beijing to host 2022 Winter Olympics, probably should just host all Olympics from now on

Beijing has been chosen to host the 2022 Winter Olympics, defeating Almaty, Kazakshtan in a two-city race after every city you’ve actually heard of dropped out. This will make Beijing the first city to have hosted both the summer and winter games, which is interesting from a trivia perspective I suppose, and the second city where there isn’t really any snow to host a Winter Olympics. (Events requiring actual winter will be held 100 miles away in Zhangjiakou.)

If there’s an upside here, it’s that at least Beijing already has lots of event spaces left over from the 2008 Olympics that can be repurposed for 2022, and presumably has already evicted everyone necessary to make way for the Olympic Village and such. In fact, once Beijing has a full set of Olympic venues for all seasons, maybe it would be best just to let it have the Olympics permanently, as Chris Dempsey of No Boston Olympics suggested earlier this week in my article for Vice:

Dempsey, for one, dreams of a day when the Olympics will just settle down in one place and put this orgy of beach-volleyball-stadium-building to an end. “Since 1896, we’ve invented the radio, TV, the internet, air travel,” he says. “You’re in a world now where 99.9 percent of people watch it on a screen. And the vast majority of the other people who are going to be there will fly in to see it. So they could really fly anywhere in the world for it — they could fly the same place every four years, and you could build this stuff once and not have to worry about with these massive capital and infrastructure costs.”

Sure, China has a terrible human rights record, but clearly the IOC doesn’t care much about that anyway. It would mean North America and Europe watching lots of events in the middle of the night or on tape delay, but we do that regardless, and who’s to say that Asia’s huge population doesn’t deserve to watch the Olympics in their own time zone? If Beijing wants to be Olympic City, I’m all for it, so long as it spares the rest of the world’s cities the headache. Now we just need to do something about the World Cup.