Which stadium site would lure you to more Rays games?

Should the future home of the Tampa Bay Rays be in downtown Tampa? Or the West Shore district? Or even the fairgrounds in eastern Hillsborough County? Those three options — along with potential sites in downtown St. Petersburg and mid Pinellas County — are all being considered by a panel studying whether the Rays should leave Tropicana Field for a new home.

Which site would you choose?

West Shore Boulevard
Keep the Trop, no need for a new stadium
Downtown Tampa
Fairgrounds
Downtown St. Petersburg
Carillon area

Comments

[Dave in St Pete]

Funny, this poll seems to be missing the most popular option from your May 22 poll. "Keep the Trop".

I'm sure it was just an 'oversight'.

[Karen McAllister]

Good point, Dave. That was truly an oversight. I will tweak.
~ Karen

[JOE]

Build it on the old Central Park Village housing project property! Have downtown Tampa Skyline in the background. Link Downtown, Channelside, and Ybor, with the new stadium. Easy access to trolly, crosstown, and Interstates

[Jack]

The trop is a p.i.a. to get to. I used to be a season ticket holder but I just got weary of fighting my way over there. The fairgrounds would be in the middle for a lot people including the Orlando market. I know that's unpopular to the Pinellas group but they aren't filling the bleachers.

[Joe]

Fairgrounds... more access for Central Floridians... You have I-75 and I-4 access right there..

Casino/Hotel and Amphitheater providing entertainment. granted, not much else in the area, but that would come..

easier time in and out than DT StPete.

[Brad]

Downtown Tampa is the best location. Plenty of people live and work downtown, thousands of young military families live in Brandon and would be willing to make the short drive, the trolley would be utilized even more, the channelside, ybor districts would be accessible and the parking garages already exist to handle an abundance of cars. Look at other cities...most of the successful stadiums are located downtown and people who aren't even that interested in baseball will go to a game as a social event. The land exists adjacent to the Lightening stadium and is extremely accessible by several major highways to include the crosstown. The stadium should be modeled after the Arizona Diamondbacks stadium...climate controlled with a roof that can open and close when weather is good in order to give that great feeling of being at an outdoor baseball game.

[Dave in St Pete]

Karen,

Thank you for updating the poll!

[PDQ]

Thanks. "Tweak it" AFTER the whiny tampons skew the voting.

[Jimbo]

No one will be happy, no matter where it's located. I'm really thinking there's more to it than just money or location, something Floridians as a whole are experiencing. Go here to see my take because, quite frankly, I don't feel like typing it all over again: http://philadorida.blogspot.com

[John]

Raymond James! Works in SD, Oak, and Miami. Great Location! Great Fan Base.

[Dave]

The fairgrounds area would be a disaster. I-4 and 275 are packed with cars from 4-6, the time people would be going to the game. Downtown Tampa, please! Look how bad traffic is for a Lightning game. Think Gasparilla every week. The Trop area has several arteries for traffic to enter and exit the stadium. 4th St., 9th St., 16th St., I-275, Central Ave. All of the other sites have basically one way in and one way out.

[Norm Roche]

Good day folks,

I think this could be a great opportunity to address several outstanding issues and absolutely skyrocket St. Pete and Pinellas’ economy. Here me out, or read me out as it were. It’s a concept I’ve been working on for a while now. I dropped a little bit of it – it its developmental stage – on Pinellas County’s Director of Economic Development a while back.

We could turn Pinellas into a cruise line port, resulting in a real and sustainable economic boost to the entire county.

Convert the Pier into a cruise ship receiving dock capable of receiving at least two ships. With the right plan and investors, this could revitalize Bay Walk, increase tourism to the beaches, bring jobs for thousands, and hence justify a functional mass-transit system as well.

As for the Trop: I took in a game with two leading foundation and bituminous engineers for the express purpose of investigating my concept – one of which was actually involved with the subsurface foundation study of the Trop when it was built. We don’t need to build a new Trop or install a retractable roof, etc… We simply need to “Rays” the roof (pi). With the proper construction of hydraulic-lift shaft mechanisms, we could literally raise the roof at any time we choose. We figured about 10-to-15 feet would do it. Given the shape of the hard-structure roof line, the breeze would flow through the Trop, the evening air, the sun sets, etc… and create the outdoor environment while maintaining the weather-protected option.

Imagine the 7th inning stretch; the Rays are winning or on a comeback move; the sound system begins to pump out a loud and bass amplified Black Sabbath lead-in… and the roof begins to “Ray’s”. The fans would go wild! People would fill the Trop just for the experience. It would be an ESPN highlight every night, and an MLB event shown around the world.

Then, we build a multi-level parking garage to the west of the Trop – across 16th I believe, and build a walkway over 16th that goes right by (and to) the open Trop and leads down into the existing parking lot – that has been redeveloped into an open-air town center/straw market/multi-use complex.

Trolley’s and busses running throughout St. Pete and Pinellas respectively; cruise ship passengers taking in a Ray’s game as part of a tour package; commerce, jobs, economic growth, worldwide publicity…

Call me crazy, but I’m telling ya… it’s all doable!

My best to you and yours,

[Dave]

Norm I like your ideas except for the roof concept. MLB rules are such that once a decision is made on whether to open or close the roof, that's it. It can't be closed or opened during the game. I like raising the roof up to eliminate the tilt tho.

[Norm]

Much obliged, Dave. But hey; rules can be changed, even broken. Our politicians break the rules every day! Sorry; bad form on my part.

Bottom line: I love the Rays. Our family has enjoyed many games over the years, and I volunteer at the Trop as well. I simply do not buy the “we must have a new stadium” rhetoric; especially given the current state of our economy, and if it involves taxpayer dollars. We can play the semantics game all day long, but the infusion of tax dollars just to build a new stadium is not going to sell in my opinion. Threatening to leave wont do it either, neither will the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs! $10-an-hour vendor jobs does not equate to substantive and sustainable economic job growth.

On the other hand, if we think outside the box (sorry for the cliché), and envision a larger plan that encompasses a PPP (Public/Private/Partnership) concept – perhaps state, federal, even stimulus funding – incorporate tourism – tie into the “green jobs” models – include our goal of improved mass-transit – and take a more global approach to economic and job growth that will expand the benefit beyond the city borders… then we may be able to develop a win/win for all involved resulting in a sustainable solution.

Like I stated; I love the Rays. When I was working for the magazine, I had the privilege of interviewing the Skipper (Joe), Silverman, and many of the players. These are great people who are part of a dynamite organization. But there is no question in my mind that a tax dollar funded “stadium only” deal is not going to fly. But a win/win plan with big picture, long-range, solid, quantifiable, and sustainable benefits to all is doable, in my opinion mind you.

[Ray]

Dave-the rule is actually inning by inning on the roof. At places such as Minute Maid Park in Houston, the routinely open/close the roof in the middle or late innings of the game. The rule is that it has to be at the beginning of an inning if not weather related (where the umps can order it to be closed immediately)

[Ryan]

Norm, your idea to "Ray's" the roof is retarded. Having a 15 foot opening above the stadium would add nothing to the ambiance what so ever, and would only allow the warm night air to enter the building. You would not be able to see the sky or the skyline. The roof is white, and "ray'sing" the roof would do nothing to take away from the fact that you are in an indoor warehouse. Second of all, it simply is not feasible. The roof is held up by a combination of catwalks, supports, and pressurized air. If you raise the roof, the whole thing would collapse on itself. And even if your idea could work, the whole stadium would still be surrounded by a 150ft tall cement wall with no windows.

[Rick K]

Issues about the economy are non-issues. If you only make the decision to expand during boom times, the stadiums will always be opening just as the economy takes a turn for the worse - the BEST time to initiate a multi-year project to boost economic activity is in a down time.

As for this nonsense about the "money" for a stadium going from the public to the owners - reality is exactly the opposite. It is the construction worker, retail clerk, and small business owners/employees who will benefit from the spending of $400 - 750 million on local construction projects. Sternberg isn't going to be installing the new seats at the stadium for $15 - $35 per hour, Joe and Jerry lunch bucket will do the work. And they will buy their lunches at Carol's Cafe, and their after work beers at Bob's bar!

So it's the everyman who benefits most directly from the stadium project itself. And it is also the everyman who benefits from having the team in St Pete, both by making the community a more desirable place to live (increasing home values) and through the spillover effects from the increased tourism dollars (defined broadly, to include money spent by locals, near-locals and out of towners).

Some foolishy argue (without any hard evidence or any reasonable economic theory to back them up - but plenty of hyperbole from economists who love peddling speculation as fact) that there is no significant benefit from a team. Each time I take out of town guests or my intown family to Fergs or any number of other downtown establishments that wouldn't exist as they do absent the Rays - I see irrefutable evidence that the presence of MLB in downtown St. Pete creates benefits for the citizens.

These questions really come down to this: some people don't like MLB and it's contributions to the community or don't believe the contributions to the community are worth the cost of public investment. Others believe the opposite.

Which is why we should vote on the matter and not let a handful of political thugs hijack public opinion.

[Work on Franklin St]

I work in downtown Tampa. A handful of people live in downtown Tampa, that is if you consider Harbour Island part of downtown. There isn't even a grocery store or drug store. The Trolley is a joke. Land is plentiful, but the Crosstown would be an eyesore if the stadium was open-air. Everyone would still have to arrive by car, unless there was some mass transit added (the Looper has never taken off in St. Pete, I would expect the same in Tampa).

I understand that DT Tampa is an option, but a stadium would MAKE downtown Tampa, not enhance it. I am not opposed, but let's be honest about it.

A drawback to DT is also events at SPTF which take up most of the "dirt" lots downtown. Hockey season overlaps by a month on either end (preseason), would be longer if Bolts make playoffs. Big concerts and other steady events would collide w/baseball parking.

Carrillon or Westshore would be better options, though I have no idea where there is enough land on Westshore for a stadium.

[Dave]

From MLB.com: In general, if a game begins with the roof open and weather conditions become less favorable during gameplay, the home team may, with the approval of the field officials and visiting team, request the roof be closed. Depending on the stadium, weather or gameplay conditions, and the judgment of the officials, play may or may not continue until the roof is fully closed. If the game begins with the roof closed (or it is closed after the game begins), it must remain closed for the duration of the game.

[Norm]

Ryan, thanks for the constructive input, but I believe the proper term in Mentally Handicapped.

I would disagree with your position on feasibility. Respectfully, it is indeed very feasible. I tend to take the opinion of experienced structural engineers over yours; no offence. The point is not to provide a “window”, but rather allow the open air environment to come inside – weather agreeable of course – yet maintain the ability offer an inside environment as well. A balanced approached to the obvious argument.

Rick K., No disrespect intended, but temporary construction jobs and their associated benefits, are just that; temporary. That’s why I submit that we look at the larger, long-range benefit from an extended plan that encompasses more than just building a new stadium. And I completely disagree with the dismissal of the obvious impacts of our current economic situation.

I agree with voters having the ultimate say. No plan involving tax dollars in any form will fly without a vote of the people. But being able to present a substantive, long range, and viable plan is crucial. Also, out of pure curiosity… could you please explain for me the difference – in your view – between a “political thug”, a “corporate thug”, and a “corporate-owned political thug”?

[J Simon]

Regardless of how much anyone tries to play it down, the location is Key - anywhere from Gateway to downtown Tampa will draw much better. It is that simple. People have to remember that there is no tradition of going to Rays games, the stadiums is not very inspiring, and it is in an inconvenient place - those are the facts. You can deny them all you want, but it doesn't change them.

[Rick is "mentally handicapped" AKA RETARDED]

No, Rick (moron), the reason to have a retractable roof is not to simply let the air in, but to experience the outdoors, where baseball should be played. Just because I crack the window open on my car does not mean I'm riding with the top down. You simply don't get the point about baseball outdoors, nerd, so why don't you go back to your wonderful game of Risk (the game of global domination). You also neglect to mention that if you open the roof (sorry, "Ray's"), that you then subject the stadium to the elements. The stadium is not weather proofed, and that was already shown to be no small task in a previous study. IF YOU SIMPLY THINK OPENING THE ROOF TO ALLOW AIR IN IS WHAT PEOPLE WANT, THEN JUST OPEN ALL OF THE DOORS. SAME RESULT. Thanks for writing in though and trying to act like an expert.

[kevin]

careful norm, logic makes some people crazy. you might get a nasty gram from a political thug on taxpayer-funded state letterhead. we don’t need temporary fixes that benefit political thugs, we need permanent solutions that benefit everyone. good job, i like you idea.

[Dave]

J Simon, inconvenient to who? You? I am a seaon ticket holder to all 3 major sports in the area. Tropicana Field is by far the easiest to get to and get out of. I live in North Pinellas. Getting to the Forum is a nightmare at 5:30. Getting out of a Bucs game is well better than the Forum, but not much. There are so many ways to get to the Trop. 4thSt., 9thSt., 16th St., I-275, Central Ave. Iy takes me 30 minutes to get to a Rays game, same for the Bucs. 45min. to an hour for the Lightning. But, I still go....why? Because I am a fan!

[Scaramouche]

Rick's back!

And for once, I would absolutely agree with your tag line. And the "handful of political thugs" you refer to are not folks who sensibly oppose or at least question the wisdom of giving hundreds of millions of tax dollars to a private, for-profit entertainment business, but the "stadiium proponents" who are not only trying to hijack public opinion, they are doing the back door tango to hijack the democratic process. For which you have already expressed your effective contempt. With the notion, that you have stated repeatedly, that the "democratic process" consists solely of electing people who then do what they dang please, without reference to what the people they snookered into electing them might need and benefit from.

So yes, though I don't for one think you really believe what you wrote on the "vote" point, given your contempt for referendums, let "we" the people vote on this.

I wonder if Thomas or any of the other studious and honest people who have in the past spent time and effort refuting with endless streams of actual real studies and data your "economic insinuendoes" are still paying attention here. Or if they recognize the futility of attempting to address your line of patter once again. Still pushing for that "paired redevelopment" myth, eh?