New Baltimore Arena?! BREAKING NEWS

[StevenW]

Where ever it is built, I just hope it has a high seating capacity and the architecture is done right.

[Maudibjr]

Originally Posted by StevenW

Where ever it is built, I just hope it has a high seating capacity and the architecture is done right.

I like the new KC arena with all its glass, maybe a nice model to follow.

[MasonsInquiries]

Originally Posted by Maudibjr

I like the new KC arena with all its glass, maybe a nice model to follow.

yeah, sprint arena will look nice. but when we finally get a new arena, you know we're going to wound up with a building that has that "brick look" to it with atleast a brick base to it. the same as camden yards, the same as m&t bank stadium.

[jamie_hunt]

Originally Posted by MasonsInquiries

yeah, sprint arena will look nice. but when we finally get a new arena, you know we're going to wound up with a building that has that "brick look" to it with atleast a brick base to it. the same as camden yards, the same as m&t bank stadium.

Probably. Though, if the MSA follows Maudibjr's recommendation and builds south of Stockholm Street, could be a hybrid with brick facing the football stadium to the north and glass and solar panels facing the wetlands/harbor to the south ... and a sun deck and pool, like the Bank One Ballpark in Arizona ... and a train running along its edge like Minute Maid Ballpark in Houston (which would be very convenient for the circus elephants).

[30 Floors Up]

City is urged to replace arena
1st Mariner's 'useful life' over, report says
By Jill Rosen and Childs Walker, Sun reporters
Originally published May 15, 2007


First Mariner Arena, Baltimore's largest indoor entertainment venue, has "served its useful life," and the city must build another before it starts losing events, a new report warns.

Though the 45-year-old arena has recently boasted such draws as the Rolling Stones and the Miss USA pageant, an analysis released yesterday suggests that a more modern setting would attract minor league sports teams and bolster the appeal of downtown's west side.

Rejecting the idea of repairing the building's aging systems, which could cost nearly $60 million, the report commissioned by the Maryland Stadium Authority recommends that Baltimore demolish the arena and build a bigger one on the same site or elsewhere.

"The report clearly indicates the current facility is beyond its useful life," said Donald C. Fry, president of the Greater Baltimore Committee, one of a number of city and state organizations that sponsored the study. "We have to take that next step and make those difficult decisions."

By recommending that the replacement arena seat 15,000 to 16,000, adding no more than a few thousand seats to the current capacity, the report assumes that Baltimore will never lure a major league hockey or basketball franchise, either of which would require 18,000 to 20,000 seats.

A new venue could attract arena football and minor league hockey, the analysis says, bring more than 200 new jobs and generate about $1 million in additional tax revenue. Officials say the private sector would have to bear the brunt of the estimated $162 million construction cost.

In the next month or two, Baltimore Development Corp. will begin seeking developers interested in the project. The city would consider giving up ownership of the arena, said BDC President M.J. "Jay" Brodie.

"We would like to see what kind of financing ideas there are, hopefully creative ones," Brodie said. "We're looking for some combination of private and public [financing], and that would include various options of who owns what."

Built in 1962 as the Baltimore Civic Center, 1st Mariner Arena is owned by the city and managed by SMG. The Beatles played there shortly after it opened, and Elvis Presley performed there in 1977, the year he died. More recently, the arena drew the Rolling Stones and Christina Aguilera, but it typically attracts family-oriented events such as Disney ice shows, the circus and Wiggles Live, scheduled for August.

The arena was last renovated more than 20 years ago, and its shortcomings have long rankled city leaders. Brodie called it a miracle that the arena books as many events as it does, with its run-down mechanical and electric systems, poor sight lines, tight corridors and bathroom shortage.

In 1998, Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke hired a consultant to study locations for a 20,000-seat venue, hoping to attract more professional sports teams to the city. The proposal went nowhere. The city also proposed a new arena when the region was trying to land the 2012 Olympics.

Weeks ago, Edwin F. Hale Sr., whose professional soccer team, the Baltimore Blast, anchors the arena, said he would like to build his team a new venue in Southeast Baltimore. Advocates for downtown, including the Downtown Partnership and Westside Renaissance, want the arena to stay downtown. Hale, who is the chairman and chief executive officer of 1st Mariner Bank and bought the arena's naming rights four years ago, has called that idea "laughable."

He also has said that it would be a mistake to replace the arena with another one too small for National Hockey League or National Basketball Association games. Hale did not return phone messages yesterday. Baltimore has no chance for major league hockey or basketball, Stadium Authority officials said yesterday. "It's just not there," said Chairman Robert L. McKinney. "The market can't absorb it when there's a team 40 miles down the road."

Chicago-based sports marketing consultant Marc Ganis agreed that it would be "almost impossible" for Baltimore to attract an NBA or NHL franchise. "With Washington on one side and Philadelphia on the other, it would be very, very difficult," he said. "So I certainly think they're correct in proceeding with that assumption."

The report is optimistic, however, about Baltimore's chances of attracting the Arena Football League and minor league hockey with a new arena. Both organizations have expressed interest. "The AFL views Baltimore as a viable market in its quest to achieve a league of 28 to 32 teams in the next 10 years," said league spokesman Chris McCloskey. "Is it a good football market? Obviously, Baltimore meets that requirement. If a new, state-of-the-art arena were in place, that would be a major factor in attracting us."

The league garners higher television ratings in Baltimore than in any other city that doesn't have an arena team. The AFL has 19 franchises and would like to expand to Boston, Washington and South Florida.

Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder owns the rights to a potential Washington franchise, which could be an impediment for Baltimore. Generally, when the AFL moves into a National Football League market, it gives the owner of the city's NFL team first shot at buying the new AFL franchise.

The Ravens said any talk of owning a Baltimore AFL franchise is premature. "We are all for more events in downtown Baltimore," said team spokesman Kevin Byrne. "Anything else, it's way too early to say."

Baltimore also has potential as a hockey town, said Brian McKenna, commissioner of the ECHL. The city would be one of the largest cities in the 28-franchise league, which has teams in Long Beach, Calif., suburban Atlanta, Las Vegas and San Diego. "We've long believed Baltimore could be a good market for hockey, given the right arena and the right ownership," McKenna said.

Baltimore has been home to a number of minor league hockey franchises, including the Skipjacks and the Bandits. The Bandits left for Cincinnati in 1997, blaming low attendance and concerns about the state of the arena.

Officials said the location of a new arena would largely depend on the places that developers suggest. City leaders seemed equally comfortable with the current downtown site and building elsewhere, then demolishing the old arena and encouraging mixed-use development there.

"We are not wedded to the idea that that has to be the only location," Fry said. Brodie said later, "We're not engaged or even dating."

If the arena ends up in another location, the 1st Mariner site, blocks from the Convention Center, the under-construction Hilton hotel and the renovated Hippodrome Theatre, would be desirable for redevelopment, said Downtown Partnership President Kirby Fowler. "I have no doubt someone would want to snatch up that site if they could get it," he said.

[DemolitionDave]

Whatever they build I hope they learn from Charlotte's mistake. Thye just demolished their colliseum and it was only 12 years old. It had 24,000 seats but no skyboxes.

[jamie_hunt]

Great catch, DemolitionDave. Here's a pic o' the old joint ...



and the new downtown arena (the location of which is analogous to where our current arena is -- the intersection of Tryon and Trade corresponds to Charles and Baltimore, street numbering-wise) ...



and the AP article on the demo:

It’s Demolition Sunday in Charlotte
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 3, 2007

The Charlotte Coliseum helped take a once-sleepy town into the sports mainstream. It played host to the city’s first major pro sports team and was home to the N.C.A.A. Final Four and the N.B.A. All-Star Game.

The building will not reach its 19th birthday.

The Coliseum will be demolished today, five years after its lack of luxury suites and premium seating led the N.B.A.’s Hornets to leave North Carolina and two years after it was made redundant by a glitzy replacement.

An arena that was host to 364 consecutive N.B.A. sellouts, the 1994 Final Four, numerous concerts and a speech by Mother Teresa will be reduced to rubble, making way for an office park.

“As nice as the building was, it was as someone said, the last of the propeller airplanes before the jets came,” said Max Muhleman of Private Sports Consulting, based in Charlotte, N.C.

Construction of the 24,000-seat arena began in 1986, with Charlotte intent on staying in the Atlantic Coast Conference basketball tournament rotation. Plans included luxury boxes but only eight high-priced suites.

The Palace of Auburn Hills in suburban Detroit opened the same year with 180 luxury suites and expensive club seats, a key difference that became a financial boon for the Pistons.

The Coliseum’s deficiencies were masked for years by the Hornets’ success. Before the $52 million building’s completion in 1988, the N.B.A. awarded George Shinn an expansion franchise, giving the arena a major tenant. His team lost its first game by 40 points — and received a standing ovation.

“They were standing pretty much the entire game,” the former Hornet Dell Curry said. “From that point on, you knew that the city and fans were going to be behind you.”

The Hornets sold out every game for seven seasons, and the Hive, as the Coliseum was called, was considered one of the toughest places to play in the N.B.A. Perhaps its loudest moment came in 1993, when Alonzo Mourning’s buzzer-beater against Boston gave the Hornets their first playoff series victory.

“I made the pass to him,” Curry recalled. “It was hysteria.”

Charlotte hit the big time a year later when it played host to the Final Four. President Bill Clinton watched from one of those eight suites when his beloved Arkansas won the national title.

The suburban Coliseum was becoming a dinosaur. After the Palace’s example, most N.B.A. teams added suites or got a new arena. So did franchises in other sports, and almost all built facilities downtown.

“It provided as much a financial edge to cities that without one, your city and your team couldn’t compete,” Muhleman said.

Less than nine years after the Coliseum opened, Shinn asked for a new arena. By that time, Charlotte’s love affair with the Hornets was fading. Shinn let stars like Mourning and Larry Johnson leave, and there was a string of player arrests. The sellout streak ended.

The Final Four did not return because the N.C.A.A. started holding the event in domes. The city and the Hornets never brokered an arena deal, and voters rejected plans for a replacement in a 2001 referendum.

A year later, the Hornets played their final game in Charlotte in front of nearly 11,000 empty seats — in the second round of the playoffs.

After the Hornets moved to New Orleans, Charlotte struck a deal to obtain an N.B.A. expansion team in exchange for a publicly funded downtown arena.

The Bobcats played their first season at the Coliseum, in front of thousands of empty seats with a scoreboard that always seemed to malfunction. In 2005, they moved to Charlotte Bobcats Arena, which seats a more modest 19,026 for N.B.A. games.

The Coliseum was shuttered. The Atlanta-based developer Pope & Land, which bought the arena and land from the city, planned to use 550 pounds of explosives this morning. An office park, condos, a hotel and a park with walking and biking trails will take its place.

[PeterSmith]

http://www.gbc.org/news/May07/052307-ArenaReport.pdf

[jamie_hunt]

Originally Posted by PeterSmith

http://www.gbc.org/news/May07/052307-ArenaReport.pdf

Good stuff. The third paragraph on the first page is the nut graf.

Wonder if there's anyone other than Ed Hale who's really pulling for a new arena or if there's anyone arguing that the arena should be NBA-caliber 'cause we'll be able to snag a team down the line.

[Maudibjr]

Originally Posted by PeterSmith

http://www.gbc.org/news/May07/052307-ArenaReport.pdf

If you put this and the article about Charlotte's closed arena, you see the real difference, between shooting for an NBA team and not. They built there arena before they thought they would get a team. We need to be extra diligent about determining if we will get an NBA team.

The difference is not the number of seats so much, as the number of luxury suites. How much chance is there that a Baltimore Arena will sell 150 luxuary suites if we don't have a NBA team? Yet that is what will need to be built to even think about getting a team.

Those luxury suites will sit empty without a team, and that is a lot of wasted space and cost that will not be recouped, unless we get a team. Do we want to spend that kind of money on just the hope of getting a team.

I don't think we will get a team. So a much more modest proposal of 15,000 seats with 10-15 suites is much more reasonable to me.

[jamie_hunt]

Originally Posted by Maudibjr

Those luxury suites will sit empty without a team, and that is a lot of wasted space and cost that will not be recouped, unless we get a team. Do we want to spend that kind of money on just the hope of getting a team.

I don't think we will get a team. So a much more modest proposal of 15,000 seats with 10-15 suites is much more reasonable to me.

Well, don't think of them as "luxury suites" ... they're "party suites". ;-)

Seriously, if I had to bet right now, I'd go with you.

Still, this majority African American city could assemble an African-American ownership group and bring a team here. Chicago gets along fine with one team, so could LA. Problem with shooting for 15K is, you don't just foreclose on the possibility of an NBA team, you're also kissing the NCAAs, political conventions, big concerts and other such large events good-bye.

[Maudibjr]

Originally Posted by jamie_hunt

.

Still, this majority African American city could assemble an African-American ownership group and bring a team here. Chicago gets along fine with one team, so could LA. Problem with shooting for 15K is, you don't just foreclose on the possibility of an NBA team, you're also kissing the NCAAs, political conventions, big concerts and other such large events good-bye.

I don't think the number of seats is the deal breaker, its do we have an arena of unused party suites. So 20k seats is also fine, if your shooting for non pro team events. That may be a more realistic goal.

[Balmurfan]

Report: NHL nears proposal for KC, Las Vegas expansions

Speculation is growing that the National Hockey League is about to propose an expansion into Kansas City and Las Vegas, according to a report by SportsBusiness Daily on Wednesday.

When asked about the speculation, NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly stated in an e-mail to SportsBusiness Daily, "I don't know if or when there might be an announcement."

Daly also said that the NHL Board of Governors made no decisions about expanding the league and that no agreement exists with anyone to own an expansion team.

Kansas City made a strong bid for the Pittsburgh Penguins before the NHL team reached a deal for a new arena in Pittsburgh.

Eventhough the chances of Baltimore landing an expansion NHL team are slim to none why are we not building an arena large enough to hold a major league franchise? The LAX championship and a possible bowl bid should be reason enough. The city has proven it can host major national televised events that draw thousands while adding millions to the local ecomony. Not to mention the many other attractions that would utilize such a facility. I just don't get it!!

[30 Floors Up]

New arena, new opportunity
By Raymond Daniel Burke
Editorial, Baltimore Sun, Originally published June 11, 2007

While the Howard Street department stores were gearing up for the 1964 fall shopping season, a worldwide phenomenon descended on the Holiday Inn on Lombard Street - then distinguished by its revolving rooftop restaurant - when it played host to the Beatles during their performances at what was called the Civic Center, now 1st Mariner Arena.

The downtown department stores have long gone, of course, but the arena remains and, despite some cosmetic renovation, is substantially the same facility that provided the venue for Baltimore's brush with the Fab Four nearly 43 years ago. Now a report commissioned by the Maryland Stadium Authority has concluded that the building has "served its useful life" and should be replaced. Such a recommendation is long overdue.

Inherent deficiencies limited the usefulness of this facility from the beginning. Its rectangular configuration entirely ignored the concept of sightlines, and a permanent stage dominates one entire end. The boxy envelope also meant that many seats have obstructed views, causing the National Hockey League to abandon plans for a Baltimore franchise. Some planned features fell victim to budget cutting, most notably a sliding roof for open-air events. The building's weird roofline is all that remains of that design idea. Capacity was also limited to something less than 12,000.

These fundamental problems can never be entirely corrected by renovation, and they have been joined over time by the glaring absence of what are now considered standard amenities. While it remains an active host for ice shows, circuses and the undeniable fun of indoor soccer, the arena is woefully inadequate as a site for today's major shows and concerts, professional and collegiate sports, and the largest conventions and trade shows. All of these events now bypass Baltimore.

That is significant, because downtown Baltimore today is economically dependent on its ability to attract recreational dollars. The old engines of commerce have been replaced by entertainment and tourism. That was inconceivable in 1964, but it is a fact of life now, thanks to the rejuvenation of the Inner Harbor, the building of the Convention Center and the redevelopment of Camden Yards as a sports complex. Having thus jumped headlong into the saving waters of a vibrant service economy, we are, like it or not, in a competition with many other cities that have adopted the same economic strategy. In this context, the absence of a viable indoor facility is a severe disadvantage.

The NCAA men's basketball tournament pumped March Madness dollars into such places as Winston-Salem, N.C.; Spokane, Wash.; Lexington, Ky.; and Columbus, Ohio - all cities without any major-league sports franchises but with arenas that provide a desirable venue. The potential payoff from a regular schedule of such events, as well as large-scale conventions, is immeasurable. In fact, the lack of a competitive arena vastly diminishes the benefits of having invested in a fine convention facility.

It is encouraging that the process of moving forward with a new arena has, at long last, begun. However, the stadium authority report has two significant shortcomings.

First, it recommends a seating capacity of 15,000 to 16,000. This is based on the expressed assumption that Baltimore will never attract a major-league basketball or hockey franchise that would require something close to 20,000 seats. This logic smacks of the same shortsightedness that doomed the original Civic Center planning. Potential sports tenants should not be the sole consideration when it comes to capacity. Major concert tours, conventions and trade shows now fill the nation's largest arenas. Indeed, some entertainers, who previously tried to fill stadiums, find it much more desirable to perform in 18,000-to-20,000-seat arenas, where they can schedule more shows and offer a better-quality production.

Moreover, to say the city will never have the opportunity to return to the NBA or join the NHL is an attitude that screams "minor league," and is reminiscent of those who insisted we would never have another NFL franchise after the Colts' departure.

The report also fails to identify a location. There are some who see the arena as an opportunity to bring growth to a newly developing area with readily available highway access. But the arena should not be designed with automobiles primarily in mind. Its importance in the fabric of the city, and the justification for public investment, is the pedestrian traffic that it would generate for all surrounding businesses and attractions, as well as its use in conjunction with the Convention Center.

For those reasons, a downtown location is essential. It would be foolish to build a new facility and place it where the attendees would never leave the parking lot. That is what the Capital Centre was in Landover, generating no spillover economic benefit. When we were trying to attract an NFL franchise, some, for traffic reasons, proposed building the stadium at the Beltway and Interstate 95. Imagine all we would have lost without the excitement of Ravens football downtown.

Let's do this right and not repeat the mistakes of the early 1960s that left us with a weird roofline and a white elephant as an enduring testament to our lack of vision.

AMEN!

[MasonsInquiries]

i'm gonna' really flip my lid if we do indeed end up with a 15k-16k arena. it's a waste of money. i wish ed hale would realize the importance of this new arena being in the CBD.

[jamie_hunt]

Originally Posted by MasonsInquiries

i wish ed hale would realize the importance of this new arena being in the CBD.

Ed Hale is (understandably) looking to protect his investment in the Blast. He'll come around.

[StevenW]

At least an 18,000 seat arena. I wishing for a 20,000 seat arena, though.

[PeterSmith]

Dear Mr. Smith,

Thank you so much for your recent letter in support of building a new,
state of the art, arena in downtown Baltimore. Like you, we have great
appreciation for the vitality that a multi purpose facility brings to
the business district, and the economic development it produces.

We are referring your comments to the Baltimore Development Corporation,
who is taking the lead for the city and the private sector partners interested
in building a new arena. One of the findings in the feasibility study is that
such an arena should be undertaken with private sector interest and
participation.

The Baltimore Development Corporation will be sending out a formal
Request for Expression of Interest to see who is interested in
participating in such a project, and where they propose to locate it.
Because of their involvement with so many of the redevelopment projects
in city, and the public-private partnerships they have forged, the BDC
is the logical lead agency in this process.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important
undertaking. It is something we have needed for many years, and has
the potential of taking Baltimore to yet another level in quality of
life for those who live, work and visit here.

Allison L. Asti

[30 Floors Up]

Dan Rodricks, from the Sun, wrote a column yesterday supporting putting the New Arena on the interstate instead of downtown. I mostly agree with what he writes, but not on this issue.

Here is the column:
A bright idea?
A Harford County guy named Eric - no last name given (out of modesty, I assume) - cried "Eureka" the other day, and not because his vacuum cleaner came back from the shop, but because a bright, energy-efficient light bulb when off in his head.

"I think this is the best idea I've ever had," Eric asserted by e-mail. "What do you think about the 'BP Solar Center' [for a new arena in Baltimore], nestled conveniently off of I-95, wherever Ed Hale wants to put it? Let BP Solar cover the entire roof in solar panels, thus collecting, storing, and supplying a massive amount of energy. Let various think tanks and universities spend some grant money to devise new ways of making the building energy efficient. Make it a science project of the highest order.

"In turn, BP Solar gets free naming rights to the venue for some extraordinary number of years. Everybody wins!"

Thanks for sharing, Eric. I don't even know you, but I can just tell that's the best idea you ever had.

Baltimore needs a new arena. It should be located away from downtown, in southeast Baltimore by the interstate, just as First Mariner Bank Prez Hale has suggested. Making it a green building is an even cooler idea. (Plus, any place that is going to have an ice rink - because we will have a professional hockey team here again - must conserve energy costs.)

This concludes the great-ideas portion of today's column.


I e-mailed him this
Dan,

In your column about the arena today you seem to have a major disconnect when it comes to logic.

Now I ask you, why bother to make a new Arena energy efficient when you want to site it on an interstate highway and force everyone who wants to attend an event to arrive by car? If the arena's life is 40 years, that is a hell of a lot of gas and oil burned up. Doesn't that seem "penny wise and pound foolish" to you? When it comes to energy use, it sure does to me.

Seems to me that there would be a lot more energy saved if the Arena was in downtown Baltimore and people could arrive by subway, light rail, bus, and car. I like the energy efficient area idea. I don't like your location because it does nothing but squander energy. Why not get the most energy savings by constructing an energy efficient area in Downtown Baltimore?

And there are other benefits to a downtown site. Seems to me that the City of Baltimore would get a lot more money for it's investment if people could arrive early, or leave late, and enjoy the restaurants and shops downtown. In short, they could make a day out of an event that may last but a few hours. That is a much better alternative than an arena surrounded by a sea of parking on an interstate where everyone is trying to arrive and leave at the same time.

The "arena on an interstate" idea has been tried and it failed miserably in Maryland. It was called the USAir Arena and was recently demolished when a new Arena was constructed in Downtown Washington. BTW, that new arena was responsible for the rebirth of a whole section of Downtown Washington. Why shouldn't the same thing happen here?

Now if Mr.Hale wants to foot the entire bill for a new arena, that is a different story. But as long as the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland are going to contribute to the cost, we should try and get the most for our money as tax payers. Small things, like the site of an arena, are what saving the bay is all about. Mass transit vs. cars!


He replied:
Who says everyone has to arrive by car?
If you're so smart then where do you build an arena on a public transit line?


Dan Rodricks
The Baltimore Sun
501 N. Calvert St. Baltimore, Maryland USA 21078
1-800-829-8000 ext 6166
410-979-2061
RANDOM RODRICKS BLOG: http://blogs.baltimoresun.com/news_local_rodricks/


I replied:
If an arena is not on public transit, how else will they arrive? WALK?

Here are just a few sites that will work:

1. State Center - It is about to be completely redone. The site is served by both subway and light rail and has tons of vacant land that is now used as parking. Also, it is right on MLK Blvd which leads to I-95, and I-83 is also close by.

2. Lexington Market - 2 large square blocks of downtown Baltimore that is not being used to it's fullest advantage. The Market is dated and struggling. Demolish it and build a new Lexington Market on the 1st floor, and an arena above it - like Madison Square Garden in NY is over Penn Station. That site is served by all forms of public transit. It would also do wonders for Lexington Market's business insuring that it will be around for many more years. Also, they have a huge parking garage already built that holds thousands of cars. The garage sits mostly empty at night.

3. There are blocks of land on North Howard that are abandoned. That area is served by Subway, Light Rail, and tons of buses. An arena would do wonders for the surrounding area just like MCI Center did for it's area in Washington. In fact, the areas are very similar.

4. And then there is the area East of I-83 and south of the Jail. It is easily walkable from the Shot Tower Subway and the Penn Station Light Rail which could be extended to it at a small cost.

Those are just a few sites that would work and be better than an arena on an interstate.

I did a little calculation based on very conservative numbers.

Assume the arena is in use 100 days a year.
Assume each event generates 5,000 cars
Assume each car uses 1 gallon of gas round trip
Assume the arena's life is 30 years.

On an interstate, 100 % arrive by car. That equates to 15,000,000 gallons of gas burned up over the life of the building.

If just 50% arrive by mass transit at a Downtown site, the amount of gas used is cut by half. That is a lot less global warming and polution in the bay area, IMHO.

Just so you know, I don;t just criticize without thinking about my argument first.

Regards


He sarcastically (I think?) replied:
Oh, those are all prime locations! Yeah!
I particularly like the idea of tearing down historic Lex Market.
Great stuff. Thanks


Dan Rodricks
The Baltimore Sun
501 N. Calvert St. Baltimore, Maryland USA 21078
1-800-829-8000 ext 6166
410-979-2061
RANDOM RODRICKS BLOG: http://blogs.baltimoresun.com/news_local_rodricks/


And lastly, I replied:
A 1950's modern building past its prime isn't historic.

Now I may be wrong on this issue, but at least I present a rational argument. He just makes a statement. Period. When someone questions it, he doesn't back it up with any logic at all IMHO.

[GodricVT]

Wow, I didn't know Rodricks was such a jackass. If he doesn't have the time or energy to respond to you he could have just answered "thanks for the input" and been done with it. Instead he's rude, condescending, and can't be bothered to take the time to think through his responses.

Anyway, I agree with you. The O's and the Ravens both do fine with their city center locations, as does the Hippodrome and the Inner Harbor generally. Many if not most of the patrons of those attractions come from outside the city, some by public transit but most by car.

The only reason to build an arena in Southeast by I-95 is the fact that Ed Hale owns some land out there. I, for one, would be much more likely to attend an event at a place surrounded by a vibrant neighborhood with places to eat and drink and people to watch than one surrounded by parking lots next to the highway.

The Lexington Market idea is an interesting one. I'd quibble with the idea that it's struggling quite so much, since the place is packed every time I go in there, which is pretty frequently. What would you do with the existing vendors during construction?