Orlando Citrus Bowl Stadium [Renovation Completed]

[Serg2244]

38 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I was thinking about the soccer stadium too.

If that's close to scale it might work.

Right field looks a tad shallow, though.

But do the seasons overlap and if so, could the field be converted back and forth between baseball and soccer games?

It definitely would not work. MLS and MLB share almost the same slot in the year. It would be scheduling nightmare come mid-season and post-season tournaments (NYCFC and The Yankees had this problem). Also having a dirt patch in the middle of the field would make a lot of people angry. It was funny to think of though. But honestly if we were to ever have a baseball stadium built, it should designed similar to Exploria, small and intimate (25-30k would be perfect as attendance in MLB continues to drop), with a large canopy over head, seats close to the field. Detroit's old stadium is what I think of, but more modern of course.

[AmIReal]

45 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I was thinking about the soccer stadium too.

If that's close to scale it might work.

Right field looks a tad shallow, though.

But do the seasons overlap and if so, could the field be converted back and forth between baseball and soccer games?

The seasons are pretty much at the same time. Exploria is real grass so other sports would likely damage it. MLB parks are required to be minimum 325 feet along foul lines and the standard pitch is generally less than 300 feet.

[HankStrong]

"Come to our right field, where even the most casual hit is a home run!"

[spenser1058]

Combo stadia have fallen out of favor and this look at Joe Robbie Stadium (now Hard Rock) explains why. The marriage between football and baseball evidently was not a happy one:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Rock_Stadium

Fron Wiki

[HankStrong]

The marriage between more similar sports might be more pleasant.  Soccer and football might not be bad.  They are both rectangular and played on one field type.

Baseball and football is an awful combo.  Their fields are two wildly different shapes and baseball uses two field types

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, HankStrong said:

The marriage between more similar sports might be more pleasant.  Soccer and football might not be bad.  They are both rectangular and played on one field type.

Baseball and football is an awful combo.  Their fields are two wildly different shapes and baseball uses two field types

That is completely true.

 But.... football is a rough, tough, macho man's sport played by rough, tough macho men who don't give a crap about what the field's surface is comprised of, or the weather conditions or anything else for that matter.

They'd play in a (recently used) cow pasture if required, by golly.

[HankStrong]

Absolutely!

[spenser1058]

“I want to be a macho man”

[orange87]

Don't want to end up like Oakland.

[Uncommon]

Just got back from the Pro Bowl, and while the game itself was great and the actual field was solid, the stadium’s parking, surrounding area, and infrastructure are downright embarrassing. There were people with me visiting from Tampa and I was ashamed walking around and into CWS. I’d only been to the stadium once and don’t remember it being as bad as it was today. But man, those $60M upgrades can’t come soon enough. This is humiliating and I’m shocked the NFL kept this game here for 4 years.

[HankStrong]

1 hour ago, Uncommon said:

Just got back from the Pro Bowl, and while the game itself was great and the actual field was solid, the stadium’s parking, surrounding area, and infrastructure are downright embarrassing. There were people with me visiting from Tampa and I was ashamed walking around and into CWS. I’d only been to the stadium once and don’t remember it being as bad as it was today. But man, those $60M upgrades can’t come soon enough. This is humiliating and I’m shocked the NFL kept this game here for 4 years.

It's remarkable how much grief I get around these parts for saying the same thing.

I'll say my 4th Pro Bowl had the best weather of the 4.  I also purchased much cheaper seats (not THE CHEAP SEATS, but much cheaper than the prime seats I bought the first 3 years) this time because the 3 previous games had been wasted money as anyone who wanted to sit with us had done so.  Of course, this better weather meant I stayed in my cheaper seats all game.  The game was fun and interesting.  The chill in the air made it nice.  It wasn't too cold and it wasn't too hot.

The stadium itself is still highly deficient.  The concessions, while better than 4 years ago, are still weak and feel very high school/cheap county fair-esque.  The bathrooms are better, but still failing grade.  The merchandise still being in portable unit is sad.  The parking is awful.

 

I'm fully aware that for a part-time use stadium we don't get the Jerrah-Dome where the Dallas Cowboys play or Met Life Stadium where the NY Giants/Jets play, but this is a poor excuse of a stadium to represent our city.

[spenser1058]

22 minutes ago, HankStrong said:

It's remarkable how much grief I get around these parts for saying the same thing.

I'll say my 4th Pro Bowl had the best weather of the 4.  I also purchased much cheaper seats (not THE CHEAP SEATS, but much cheaper than the prime seats I bought the first 3 years) this time because the 3 previous games had been wasted money as anyone who wanted to sit with us had done so.  Of course, this better weather meant I stayed in my cheaper seats all game.  The game was fun and interesting.  The chill in the air made it nice.  It wasn't too cold and it wasn't too hot.

The stadium itself is still highly deficient.  The concessions, while better than 4 years ago, are still weak and feel very high school/cheap county fair-esque.  The bathrooms are better, but still failing grade.  The merchandise still being in portable unit is sad.  The parking is awful.

 

I'm fully aware that for a part-time use stadium we don't get the Jerrah-Dome where the Dallas Cowboys play or Met Life Stadium where the NY Giants/Jets play, but this is a poor excuse of a stadium to represent our city.

I still would like to know if any municipal stadium in the country that doesn’t have an NFL or major college team has a better stadium we should benchmark from. 

I’ve also concluded it’s in the wrong place but I realize that is the minority opinion here.

[HankStrong]

40 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

I still would like to know if any municipal stadium in the country that doesn’t have an NFL or major college team has a better stadium we should benchmark from. 

I’ve also concluded it’s in the wrong place but I realize that is the minority opinion here.

I don't think that necessarily applies.  The City Beautiful is actively marketing this as a facility to hold events.  I get that Decatur, Illinois or Salina, Kansas might have a dumpy stadium (I don't know if they do or not) because they are small towns with little to entice the NFL to hold a Pro Bowl or the NCAA to hold 2 or 3 bowl games a year and for college teams to hold neutral site rivalry games in.

I get that several posters keep saying "well, we don't have a NFL team here, why would we have a NFL stadium" because that's true.  I don't think we'll get or deserve a  NFL stadium.  However, that line of reasoning is complete garbage when you also want to draw big games here. 

You can drive a 1981 Chevy Chevette around if you don't have kids or a job that requires other people to ride in said car.  You might not need a 2020 Lincoln Navigator to shuttle your family around or even be an Uber driver, but you have to throw out the Chevette and at least get something nice enough to handle the job.

Orlando needs something nice enough to make people want to have their games here.  This place was a 1981 Chevette and now is a 1999 Honda Civic.  That's still not good enough.

[AmIReal]

I read the turnout was roughly 50k. I know they were treated to a nice game, but it would have been better if they were treated to a better overall experience.

I think when the park renovations are done (this summer) that will do quite a bit to improve the aesthetic. Then when the next round of stadium improvements are done it should address the bathrooms and hopefully vending- I haven't heard if parking is on the slate of improvements?

And if the City or Lynx will run constant shuttles back and forth on Church or Central during events it would help draw some of that crowd downtown.

[spenser1058]

35 minutes ago, HankStrong said:

I don't think that necessarily applies.  The City Beautiful is actively marketing this as a facility to hold events.  I get that Decatur, Illinois or Salina, Kansas might have a dumpy stadium (I don't know if they do or not) because they are small towns with little to entice the NFL to hold a Pro Bowl or the NCAA to hold 2 or 3 bowl games a year and for college teams to hold neutral site rivalry games in.

I get that several posters keep saying "well, we don't have a NFL team here, why would we have a NFL stadium" because that's true.  I don't think we'll get or deserve a  NFL stadium.  However, that line of reasoning is complete garbage when you also want to draw big games here. 

You can drive a 1981 Chevy Chevette around if you don't have kids or a job that requires other people to ride in said car.  You might not need a 2020 Lincoln Navigator to shuttle your family around or even be an Uber driver, but you have to throw out the Chevette and at least get something nice enough to handle the job.

Orlando needs something nice enough to make people want to have their games here.  This place was a 1981 Chevette and now is a 1999 Honda Civic.  That's still not good enough.

I don’t disagree at all. However, I’m just curious if any other city has been in a similar situation that we might learn from.

It may well be that we’re in uncharted territory here. Our tourism economy is completely different from any other city in the country because of the sheer size that it has grown to, The closest pertinent example is Las Vegas and my understanding is they have been using UNLV’s facilities for those sorts of games (iirc, they’re about to get an NFL team that I assume is getting a dedicated stadium).

If indeed as the premiere tourist destination in the country we are in a unique situation, then we have to find our own solution.

If the TDT is the vehicle by which we fund an appropriate stadium and the folks who have historically had the greatest stake in its use have challenges with spending money outside their immediate area, I go back to my original question: why are we insisting on further investment in a stadium that is neither where the tourists are (nor where the tourism infrastructure is nor the industry stakeholders), nor does anyone outside this room consider Tampa Avenue “downtown” and there seems little evidence it has significant impact on the core and in fact is causing traffic infrastructure problems trying to move from where people want to be to where they have to watch the game. 

It seems to me we need to rethink this if Hank’s compelling argument is correct.

Edited January 27, 2020 by spenser1058

[AndyPok1]

13 minutes ago, AmIReal said:

And if the City or Lynx will run constant shuttles back and forth on Church or Central during events it would help draw some of that crowd downtown.

They do before and after the game

[AndyPok1]

2 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

I don’t disagree at all. However, I’m just curious if any other city has been in a similar situation that we might learn from.

It may well be that we’re in uncharted territory here. Our tourism economy is completely different from any other city in the country because of the sheer size that it has grown to, The closest pertinent example is Las Vegas and my understanding is they have been using UNLV’s facilities for those sorts of games (iirc, they’re about to get an NFL team that I assume is getting a dedicated stadium).

If indeed as the premiere tourist destination in the country that we are in a unique situation, then we have to find our own solution.

If the TDT is the vehicle by which we fund an appropriate stadium and the folks who have historically had the greatest stake in its use have challenges with spending money outside their immediate area, I go back to my original question: why are we insisting on further investment in a stadium that is neither where the tourists are (nor where the tourism infrastructure is nor the industry stakeholders), nor does anyone outside this room consider Tampa Avenue “downtown” and there seems little evidence it has significant impact on the core and in fact is causing traffic infrastructure problems trying to move from where people want to be to where they have to watch the game. 

It seems to me we need to rethink this if Hank’s compelling argument is correct.

Reasonable comparisons off top of my head would be San Antonio's AlamoDome and the Cotton Bowl in Dallas.  Legion Field in Birmingham was similar until UAB started football again, but I don't think we really want to be comparing ourselves to Birmingham.

I don't think anyone, even here, considers Tampa Avenue downtown, but rather downtown adjacent.  Most football stadiums are in similar locations because they are such a large land mass that are largely unused most of the time, so you put them on the outskirts of downtown.  This is *VERY* normal.  New Orleans SuperDome is over a mile from the French Quarter, through the CBD which shuts down at 5.  You don't see consternation of them having to walk 25 minutes and deal with the parking problems.

Also, a football event is ALWAYS going to have parking and transportation issues.  That's why tailgating is so popular.  Moving 70k people in and out of one location just isn't easy.  You want the stadium on IDrive?  Think of when Mega-Con or whatever it is is in town.  I-4 and Kirkman and Sand Lake get backed up for HOURS.

Moreover, I think that there isn't an issue of "little evidence of impact on the core and causing traffic problems".  There's a single tweet from a guy that wants to be a reporter but isn't.  

[spenser1058]

10 minutes ago, AndyPok1 said:

Reasonable comparisons off top of my head would be San Antonio's AlamoDome and the Cotton Bowl in Dallas.  Legion Field in Birmingham was similar until UAB started football again, but I don't think we really want to be comparing ourselves to Birmingham.

I don't think anyone, even here, considers Tampa Avenue downtown, but rather downtown adjacent.  Most football stadiums are in similar locations because they are such a large land mass that are largely unused most of the time, so you put them on the outskirts of downtown.  This is *VERY* normal.  New Orleans SuperDome is over a mile from the French Quarter, through the CBD which shuts down at 5.  You don't see consternation of them having to walk 25 minutes and deal with the parking problems.

Also, a football event is ALWAYS going to have parking and transportation issues.  That's why tailgating is so popular.  Moving 70k people in and out of one location just isn't easy.  You want the stadium on IDrive?  Think of when Mega-Con or whatever it is is in town.  I-4 and Kirkman and Sand Lake get backed up for HOURS.

Moreover, I think that there isn't an issue of "little evidence of impact on the core and causing traffic problems".  There's a single tweet from a guy that wants to be a reporter but isn't.  

I’m happy to cite my own anecdotal description: whenever there is a major game that attracts tourists, the backup on I4 from the tourist area to the JYP exit is readily apparent. This is the same reason when citizens voted on OCCC they chose for it to be On I-Drive.

Why are we wedded to the notion that Tampa Avenue is the eternal home of a stadium, particularly when the biggest set of stakeholders involved in the TDT would more likely support it on their own turf?

I really would love to know why this solution makes sense other than, “we’ve always done it this way?”

Put another way, if you put it to a vote tomorrow, how many voters would remain tied to a Tampa Ave location? And what location would our largest industry choose?

Finally, a little Civics 101, why was this issue not vetted when the venues were passed instead of a last-minute add-on with zero discussion of alternatives?

Edited January 27, 2020 by spenser1058

[AndyPok1]

2 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

I’m happy to cite my own anecdotal description: whenever there is a major game that attracts tourists, the backup on I4 from the tourist area to the JYP exit is readily apparent. This is the same reason when citizens voted on OCCC they chose for it to be On I-Drive.

Why are we wedded to the notion that Tampa Avenue is the eternal home of a stadium, particularly when the biggest set of stakeholders involved in the TDT would more likely support it on their own turf?

I really would love to know why this solution makes sense other than, “we’ve always done it this way?”

Sure.  My own anecdotal description of being on Church/Wall St the hours before games.  The fact that I personally know multiple dozens of people who were eating/brunching downtown before going to the game and then continuing to drink and be out after the game.

Filling 60-70k requires a mix of locals and out of towners.  There will ALWAYS be people driving in.  Also, think about not bowl games.  Monster Jam, concerts, those are things that are only locals focused and still pack the house.

 

[spenser1058]

3 minutes ago, AndyPok1 said:

Sure.  My own anecdotal description of being on Church/Wall St the hours before games.  The fact that I personally know multiple dozens of people who were eating/brunching downtown before going to the game and then continuing to drink and be out after the game.

Filling 60-70k requires a mix of locals and out of towners.  There will ALWAYS be people driving in.  Also, think about not bowl games.  Monster Jam, concerts, those are things that are only locals focused and still pack the house.

 

Which leads to the question: if those things are economically significant, why has none of that infrastructure appeared adjacent to the stadium?

The MEC is supposedly a no-brainer next to the arena but yet nothing similar has ever been proposed for the Citrus Bowl and no hotels built to support it. Again, why is Tampa Ave the best location for this venue for the next 50 years?

[AmIReal]

31 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Put another way, if you put it to a vote tomorrow, how many voters would remain tied to a Tampa Ave location? And what location would our largest industry choose?

You have to add another layer of complexity. The question is more, if we are going to have a stadium for part time use would you rather spend another $500M to dress up what we have or $700M to move it where the tourist are?

[spenser1058]

Another interesting event to compare with: the Orlando Fringe Festival.

The Fringe was originally downtown but due to a variety of logistical issues it ended up moving to Loch Haven.

A number of the hard-core downtowners had fits about the decision but there really was little choice at the time. (I myself was iskeptical as Loch Haven seemed a little sterile for something as outre as the Fringe was supposed to be).

It turns out I and others were wrong. The move north was the best thing Fringe ever did.

Because there were more venues, more space and yet a more compact clustering of events, Fringe has gotten bigger and better every year. Very few people regret the decision.

Sometimes, change, even a change that seems like its 180 degrees from what seems to fit, is good.

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

I’m happy to cite my own anecdotal description: whenever there is a major game that attracts tourists, the backup on I4 from the tourist area to the JYP exit is readily apparent. This is the same reason when citizens voted on OCCC they chose for it to be On I-Drive.

OCCC is not a occasional use sports facility. 

It's a full time use convention and trade show exhibition center that requires the close (walking/short ride) proximity of thousands of luxury hotel rooms. I-Drive was the only choice.

Putting a stadium down there is just a plain bad idea. Everyone understands that and it's never going to happen. Period.

Maybe if Orlando gets an NFL franchise someday, but as long as we are merely a December/January bowl host, CWS on Tampa and W. Church is the best and most obvious choice.

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

Why are we wedded to the notion that Tampa Avenue is the eternal home of a stadium, particularly when the biggest set of stakeholders involved in the TDT would more likely support it on their own turf?

I really would love to know why this solution makes sense other than, “we’ve always done it this way?”

Because, as has already been explained, we already had the land and much of the structure in place. There is not an unlimited pot of money available to go buying very expensive land off I-Drive, hire architects and start ground up construction of a stadium that gets used three or four times a year.

I cannot see what is so difficult to understand about that. 

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

Put another way, if you put it to a vote tomorrow, how many voters would remain tied to a Tampa Ave location? And what location would our largest industry choose?

What's the point of engaging in hypotheticals?  Who knows what the voters would decide? My guess though, based on the cost difference, is that they'd opt for keeping it where it is.

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

Finally, a little Civics 101, why was this issue not vetted when the venues were passed instead of a last-minute add-on with zero discussion of alternatives?

Wasn't it? You claimed basically the same thing about the demolition of the Jaymont block and that claim was proven false.

So unless you can find some kind of documentation that backs up your claim, I'm going to have to remain skeptical.

If what you claim is true, I think I also addressed that issue before as well. There was a time crunch. If Orlando was to keep these major sporting events from moving elsewhere, a commitment to an upgraded facility needed to be in place ASAP. Not five or ten years down the road after all the haggling, debating and economic studies had been done. The quickest, most cost-effective and most acceptable option was upgrade the Citrus Bowl.

Again, I cannot see what is so difficult to understand about this.

 

.

Edited January 27, 2020 by JFW657

[orlandouprise]

You can dress a monkey up, but its still a freaking monkey. Burn it to the ground and build it right (which today means investing a Billion dollars)

[Uncommon]

No point in building it right if there’s no promise of an NFL team. Until there’s some discussion about moving a team here, Orlando should just keep the status quo and continue to use minor upgrades to lure events here.

Now if the NFL wants to expand or gives us assurances that a team will move here, then sure, construct a billion dollar stadium. But short of that, it’s a gigantic waste of money.

FYI IMO nothing sports-related should be on I-Drive. That’s not Orlando, not really. It needs to be somewhere in or near the CBD.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Uncommon