ATLANTA - New Falcons Stadium (65,000)

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by 1772

Not to dis Atlanta, but the Olympics have grown out of Atlantas size.
The IOC are only after new markets or really big cities nowadays.
In the US, I can only see NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago getting it.

Sadly. They're just to damn greedy. :/

a city the size of Atlanta was lucky to get one in the first place

[Darloeye]

Can't see Miami getting the olympic's think New York or LA have the best shot at getting them but both citys will need brand new stadiums to host them. But this is off topic

Would the Falcons move citys if they did not get a new stadium deal ?

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by Darloeye

Can't see Miami getting the olympic's think New York or LA have the best shot at getting them but both citys will need brand new stadiums to host them.

How much would a suitable Olympics venue cost? And who would need it post-Games?

Our biggest problem is the fact that most of our larger venues are built specifically for American football, which doesn't allow much room (if any) for a track, and most of those that had one have removed theirs to bring seats closer to the field.

Would the Falcons move citys if they did not get a new stadium deal ?

Unless they win the L.A. sweepstakes, I'm having a hard time figuring out who would build them a new stadium.

What I think will most likely happen, is that Blank will renegotiate his lease of the Dome with the State to receive a share of revenues more equitable with what other owners are receiving, which is essentially the reasoning behind this entire folly of moving out of a venue two decades old that recently underwent a $55 million modernization.

[1772]

Originally Posted by Topher51

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

I remember during the closing ceremonies, there was a big to-do made about the president of the IOC not saying the games were "the best games yet" or something like that. Apparently that had been done at every Olympics before and every Olympics since. The IOC was very uphappy with the Atlanta games overall and would never give them another shot. Especially since many world class cities have yet to host a second games.

What were the IOC's objections to Atlanta?

Originally Posted by Darloeye

Can't see Miami getting the olympic's think New York or LA have the best shot at getting them but both citys will need brand new stadiums to host them. But this is off topic

Would the Falcons move citys if they did not get a new stadium deal ?

I know it's off topic, but I'm just curious why you don't think Miami could get it?

Feel free to PM me.

[Darloeye]

The size of the city maybe a factor in getting it but also the heat would get in the way of it. Does the city have a few Billion to spend on a stadium and other building ?

[Knitemplar]

Originally Posted by Topher51

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

I remember during the closing ceremonies, there was a big to-do made about the president of the IOC not saying the games were "the best games yet" or something like that. Apparently that had been done at every Olympics before and every Olympics since. The IOC was very uphappy with the Atlanta games overall and would never give them another shot. Especially since many world class cities have yet to host a second games.

Who cares? That prissy old man is dead!! C'mon Billy Baby, we want ANOTHER Atlanta Olympics. Those were good Games. Samaranch, piss off!!

[Knitemplar]

Originally Posted by 1772

What were the IOC's objections to Atlanta?
)

That Coke gave too many freebies!! The pin dealers did NOT make enough $$$.

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by Topher51

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

I remember during the closing ceremonies, there was a big to-do made about the president of the IOC not saying the games were "the best games yet" or something like that. Apparently that had been done at every Olympics before and every Olympics since.

It was simply Samaranch's trademark line and everyone went into the closing ceremonies nervous about it because of a) the olympic park bombing and b) some misgivings by visitors expecting Atlanta to be a tourist mecca. Some of the well to do had grown used to the games being their paid vacation, and Atlanta is more a place for living and working than for recreating (no beaches, no mountains, etc).

The IOC was very uphappy with the Atlanta games overall and would never give them another shot.

The IOC was thrilled because they made tons of money and the events themselves were loved by the athletes and spectators. Hell, even the City made a profit. It was the tourists comparing Atlanta with larger global cities that were frustrated because these games were almost completely funded by sponsors rather than on the government dime. Thus the city was besieged by make-shift shops and peddlers of all-kinds. It was, shall we say, the exact opposite of the regimented big-brother approach of China, and not as traditionally stoic as long-time Olympic-philes were accustomed.

Atlanta's games were bad by any account, and the City knew it was reaching for the stars (a very Olympian effort, as it were). It had the venues, the hotels and the ease of access, it simply lacked the more esteemed tourist appeal to "Wow!" visitors.

[laokstate]

Originally Posted by Darloeye

Can't see Miami getting the olympic's think New York or LA have the best shot at getting them but both citys will need brand new stadiums to host them. But this is off topic

Would the Falcons move citys if they did not get a new stadium deal ?

Yeah. I think Dallas or Houston would have just as good of shot given the current state of the national economy.

NY, sure but I do not think the state and local governments of California could handle the cost. San Francisco would have made a beautiful backdrop for the games but is it really financially realistic.

The money is in Texas right now (as annoying as that is).

[Knitemplar]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

. Some of the well to do had grown used to the games being their paid vacation, and Atlanta is more a place for living and working than for recreating (no beaches, no mountains, etc).

.

uhmmmmm...R u kidding? There is Hartsfield International, Buckhead, Margaret Mitchell's mansion, Stone Mountain. The World of Coca-Cola, Centennial Olympic Park!! These are fantastic tourist destinations -- right up there with the Eiffel Tower and Times Square.

The South will rise again!! A revived Atlanta will win 2032 or 2036!!

[GunnerJacket]

I'll refrain from further threadjacking, but... That poor Margaret Mitchell house. That thing has been through political and ownership wrangles, survived multiple fires, break ins... It seemingly can't catch a break.

Spoke with a GWCC official this week about the proposed stadium and at the staff level they're convinced it will be a go. Apparently the power brokers are thinking more and more they can make enough out of the Georgia Dome to keep it a highly viable venue for select sporting events, especially since it will essentially be paid off soon. Meanwhile the new Falcons stadium would still be contributing to GWCC coffers, so as long as the facilities loading and parking demands are still met as part of any renovations then this might prove to be a win/win from their eyes. Two interesting notes also came up:

- Look for the proposed stadium to have the long-term potential for a roof structure of some kind, as a possible, eventual replacement of the Georgia Dome. Not a guarantee, but an option that the GWCC would support.

- Expect the Falcons to pitch the new stadium as a future home venue for Ga Tech. The Jackets don't need anything that large at the moment, and they're still paying off renovations made to Bobby Dodd Stadium in 2003, but the Falcons obviously want to make the most of their stadium and this facility would be less than a mile from GT's stadium. Given the campus' tight footprint and premium demand for land, and how poorly the last renovation was done, the Falcons are wondering if the Jackets might move in, say, 10-15 years.

As a GT grad and fan I'm not for the idea but the location means it would be a whole lot more feasible than comparable pro-college sharing deals in Pitt, USF, Miami, etc.

[Topher51]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

It was simply Samaranch's trademark line and everyone went into the closing ceremonies nervous about it because of a) the olympic park bombing and b) some misgivings by visitors expecting Atlanta to be a tourist mecca. Some of the well to do had grown used to the games being their paid vacation, and Atlanta is more a place for living and working than for recreating (no beaches, no mountains, etc).

The IOC was thrilled because they made tons of money and the events themselves were loved by the athletes and spectators. Hell, even the City made a profit. It was the tourists comparing Atlanta with larger global cities that were frustrated because these games were almost completely funded by sponsors rather than on the government dime. Thus the city was besieged by make-shift shops and peddlers of all-kinds. It was, shall we say, the exact opposite of the regimented big-brother approach of China, and not as traditionally stoic as long-time Olympic-philes were accustomed.

Atlanta's games were bad by any account, and the City knew it was reaching for the stars (a very Olympian effort, as it were). It had the venues, the hotels and the ease of access, it simply lacked the more esteemed tourist appeal to "Wow!" visitors.

I was going to say it was thought to be too commercialized, had the terrorist attack and it had the unfortunate luck of hosting right after Barcelona, but you gave a much more detailed explanation. Don't get me wrong, as a 17 year old I went to several events and had a blast, but Atlanta has zero chance of hosting another one in my lifetime.

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

Spoke with a GWCC official this week about the proposed stadium and at the staff level they're convinced it will be a go.

Who's paying for it?

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

Who's paying for it?

The conventional mix of taxpayers, sponsors, taxpayers, the owner and the taxpayers.

Obviously that detail remains to be sorted, but the feeling seems to be Blank wants the move much, much more than any compromise deal on staying in the Dome. The assumption is the studies about the proposed site are as much to determine the cost logistics for the Falcons regarding a design as it is about can it work. Thus the Falcons will pitch a "This or nothing" deal to the City/County, and negotiations will commence from there.

But it appears the subtle message being conveyed from the Falcons is "We will be leaving that dome."

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

The conventional mix of taxpayers, sponsors, taxpayers, the owner and the taxpayers.

Obviously that detail remains to be sorted, but the feeling seems to be Blank wants the move much, much more than any compromise deal on staying in the Dome. The assumption is the studies about the proposed site are as much to determine the cost logistics for the Falcons regarding a design as it is about can it work. Thus the Falcons will pitch a "This or nothing" deal to the City/County, and negotiations will commence from there.

But it appears the subtle message being conveyed from the Falcons is "We will be leaving that dome."

If he goes there then the city of Atlanta (and subsequently the state of GA) should call his bluff.

Like I asked before, where's he gonna relocate the Falcons if another franchise moves to L.A. before he can? Toronto?

[RaiderATO]

Can't see GT leaving Historic Grant Field.

I bet the money they'd spend/lose moving to a New Falcons Stadium would be better used by paying the massive amount of $$$$ needed to replace the West stands. The North endzone is a cluster****. You just hope they do the West side correctly when that time comes.

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

Like I asked before, where's he gonna relocate the Falcons if another franchise moves to L.A. before he can? Toronto?

I think the threat is to move north of the perimeter, or at least outside City limits.

Originally Posted by RaiderATO

Can't see GT leaving Historic Grant Field.

I bet the money they'd spend/lose moving to a New Falcons Stadium would be better used by paying the massive amount of $$$$ needed to replace the West stands. The North endzone is a cluster****. You just hope they do the West side correctly when that time comes.

I doubt it, but the Institute knows land is at a premium and the stadium is especially landlocked. And they're not going to do any further renovations to the stadium so soon after just spending $63M on the effort concluded in 2003 ('04?). An effort, which did all they could to the west stands without incuring more expensive work to bring the facility into full ADA compliance. More importantly, the Athletic Association is more than $100M in debt (though manageable), which means anything that maximizes revenues going forward will be favorable.

Really wish they'd added a smaller second tier to the north end that matched the east side, resembling something like BC's Alumni stadium.

[RaiderATO]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

I think the threat is to move north of the perimeter, or at least outside City limits.

The Doraville plant on the NE side (JUST inside the perimeter) has been mentioned, and makes somesense. The location is much larger than needed for a stadium, and could possibly add a good amount of retail around it.

I'd like to see it turn into something else. I like repurposing industrial buildings for modern residential and commercial use. But, that isn't the most desirable location to live in an expensive new development.

[desertpunk]

CLOUD Architecture | Design have released this proposal for the new Falcons Stadium:


http://atlanta.curbed.com/tags/new-falcons-stadium

[www.sercan.de]

Why does it have a roof?