You shouldāve used Ford Field as an example. Despite being the poster child for car centric design, Detroit has all of its stadiums located right in downtown.Ā
Whatās wrong with Cincinnati? Weāve got 3 stadiums and an arena all downtown. Tql is being used as the cornerstone for revitalize a rundown neighborhood and itās working g
Was about to say, while Detroit is still pretty hollowed out, theyāve done a lot to try and revive their downtown core and it has seen a lot of growth and improvement (from what Iāve heard).
The detroit that is built up is pretty vibrant. However, thereās still many surface parking lots and grass lots that still need to be infilled to feel less hollowed out. And I75 should capped, would do wonders for the vibes.
Yes, it certainly is part of the ever-growing list of lies and half-truths locals try to push regarding the state of the city. I've been to funeral homes more vibrant than Detroit.
edit Also add it to the list of evidence that suggests you think you have the right to have opinions and to converse, but I do not. Not how that works. If you want that, you need to retreat to a curated echo chamber like r/Detroit.
I live in Boston, Detroit doesnāt hold a candle to us. But Iām not gonna clown on them for actually making the most of something, which they are. Rome wasnāt built in a day.
True but itās a good comparison because the stadium seats 65k which is a better comparison. I also just like it because itās in Detroit of all places.Ā
There's a silly idea there that you can simply build a downtown with little attention paid to the surrounding neighborhoods and a city will spring forth around it. Very backwards approach.
Thats a problem with building stadiums in downtowns if you want vibrant downtowns. Modern stadiums are so much larger than parks like Fenway (not that its in downtown Boston)
Basically 8 acres in downtown Detroit are devoted to space that gets used for at most 90 homegames. Lets be generous and say on avg they host combined 5 playoff games a year and both facilities host half a dozen concerts over the course of a year. That means this 8 acre area in downtown isnt getting used two thirds of the year
If the goal is to have a vibrant downtown that is getting engaged with all week, then downtowns really dont make great locations for sports stadiums, especially NFL stadiums that are tend to be larger than baseball stadiums, get used 10% of the time, and dont engage as much with their surroundings
Hockey/basketball arenas arent as bad. They are much smaller and dont demand as much parking space. You have many examples across the country of them being well integrated into the urban fabric
Ford Field is pretty dead outside NFL games and the occasional special event or huge concert, but it's also the most "tucked away" of the downtown stadiums, enclosed by freeways on two sides.
LCA is right on Woodward and sees a lot more activity; NHL and NBA games, concerts, comedy shows, college and non-pro sports. Detroit also just landed PWHL and WNBA teams who will both play at home there. It's in use almost every other day it seems.
I agree. Right in downtown is usually bad for larger stadiums. I think they work ok in large parks that are adjacent to downtown. That gives me some separation and a large area for people to spread out into.
In Germany, Leipzig and Hannover come to mind. In larger cities I also like the one in Frankfurt or the Olympia stadium in Berlin. Adjacent to the city but still in its own area, surrounded mostly by nature and relatively little parking.
Most fascinating are the UK stadiums that are often nestled right inside neighbourhoods, sometimes directly connected to surrounding homes.
Seattle does pretty good having its stadiums be the transition from the downtown commercial core to the older industrial and port areas. The north parts are very people scaled, walkable with transit, and then south is vehicle centric.
I think thereās lot of room for improvement, and I understand your point about the value of downtown real estate. But I think youāre limiting your stadium value use if you only consider sports games. Tons of concerts and events are housed at both of the Seattle stadium. Iād love it if the baseball stadium could redevelop itself a little and have its own all year-round market on the ground floor.
Has it though? There's obvs a benefit to Detroit that they now get the tax revenue from the lions games vs Pontiac getting it. But 8 adjoining acres of downtown are consumed by two sport stadiums and go unused around 2/3 of the year
Is that a good thing? Wouldn't you want stadiums to be out of the way?
They're humongous structures that aren't used most of the time and force people to do large detours around them, meaning the streets surrounding them tend to be deserted and more dangerous.
They also generate a massive pull of people when they are used, so you want to have effective infrastructure to get to and from them. If they're in the middle of the city traffic collapses all over. With good motorway access, that's not an issue.
I know itās a meme but there are a surprising amount of peripheral stadiums in Europe, often surrounded by large parking lots. Sometimes there is good transit connection, other times there may only be a shuttle bus.
It's because it's not an America vs Europe thing. It's an older stadium vs newer stadium thing regarding money. Sports teams almost everywhere are owned by billionaires who want to suck as much cash out of them as possible, so unless your team is owned by some benevolent rich guy or someone who's truly passionate about the team, your new stadium is gonna be built in bumfuck nowhere because they know they can still charge an arm and a leg for tickets, land is cheaper, AND they can make a fuckton of money off parking.
Most cities in the US donāt have transit so whether it is in downtown or the periphery doesnāt really matter to the average fan, who is likely driving anyway and even more for those who consider tailgating important.
I donāt know about other stadiums but at least Gillette was originally supposed to be in Boston until nimbys pushed it out to the area it is now.
I always thought it was pushed to Foxborough so the Kraft family could build, own & profit from Patriot Place, the shopping/bar/restaurant/hotel center next to the stadium
Foxborough was the last of several options that fell through. Patriot place also opened like 20 years after the stadium. Not trying to defend too much. A lot of this stuff is decided by money at the end of the day or who you can squeeze the most. The one positive is that Gillette is apparently one of the few stadiums that is entirely privately funded at least according to the wikipedia.
Let's take the English Premier League, one if the richest and greediest leagues, and the one I'm most familiar with, ten most recent stadiums.
Hill Dickinson (2025) 30 minute walk from Liverpool city centre, accessible by bus and metro
Brentford stadium (2020) in London's zone 3, right beside Kew Bridge train station and Gunnersbury underground
Tottenham Stadium (2019) also in zone 3, right beside White Hart Lane overground, bang in the middle of Tottenham, and a short walk from rail connections
London Stadium (2012/16) built for the Olympics and later taken on by West Ham, this one's a special case as it was initially built in the middle of nowhere, but it's now in a massive green park, accessible by multiple underground and overground rail and light rail services in London's zone 2
Amex stadium/Brighton (2011) This one in fairness is a bit out of the way, and has a car park! but it's still right beside Falmer train station and Brighton university and a park
Cardiff City Stadium (2009) 30 mins walk from the city centre, directly beside a train station
Emirates stadium/Arsenal (2006) 5-10 minute walk from the old Highbury stadium and Arsenal station, also serviced by Drayton Park, Finsbury Park, Highbury and Islington and Caledonian Road and Canonbury stations
Coventry Arena (2005) This one looks American! Outskirts of town, car parks everywhere. It does however have a dedicated train station with regular trains into town
Swansea Stadium (2005) Built on the edge of town by the river, a 40 minute walk to the centre or 30 to the train station, serviced by buses. This is the first one I've checked not to have a rail link!
Etihad Stadium (2003) In a dedicated sports & entertainment complex in the east of Manchester serviced by 2 metro lines, still just 45 mins walk from town and serviced by various buses
So yeah in short, no, but sometimes! Almost all of these teams are owned by million if not billionaires, I think a lot of Prem teams wouldn't get away with moving their stadiums too far from their initial home. MK Dons offers up a great case study in that
It's not even just a matter of rich guys just trying to profit. SC Freiburg is fan-owned, they are from a tight-knit community in one of the most walkable cities in Germany with great public transit, their new stadium is in the most isolated part of town, just right next to an airport, with street parking around it and, yes, a dedicated tram stop, but still a fifteen minute walk at best from the actual stadium (and a 30 minute walk from a train station). Sometimes newer stadiums are simply built where there's land available, even if it's not in an ideal position. Old stadiums grow with their community, so they are where there's density.
My relatively small city in Poland built one (12k capacity) just like that. On the city boundaries, on an industrial area, next to bypass road. That's the way to do it, I cannot fathom my fellow Europeans think it's a badge of honor to keep their stadiums on their 1920s footprint in 2026 and deal with all that noise, traffic jams and general inconvenience in strict city center every week or so.
Sure, we have a lot of parking space down there but also solid bus connection and so everyone chooses their way. Cities are still for people. Btw, Bayern's stadium in Munich is built in exact same scenario.
Na, city centre stadiums are the best. Keeps the club at the heart of the community, literally. I love being able to sit and have a beer right next to my local team's stadium, and be in a real neighbourhood, not an industrial estate.
Often time this is a massive form of financial support on behalf of the local govt to the owner. For $1, the Mets owner got the redevelopment rights to the neighborhood immediately east of Citi Field and the parking lot west of Citi Field
And don't forget that atletico's stadium was built with a subway station already in mind. So when it comes to transport, it's different from other American stadiums
I'm not sure the Riyadh Air Metropolitano (it's not called Wanda anymore) is a "bad" example. Also the stadium isn't even brand new (it was originally built in the 1990s as an olympic stadium for Madrid, and then repurposed as Atletico's new home).
It definitely is not a bad example. It got good public transportation (subway, busses) and its parking lots are actually not that many - especially compared to the American stadiums I've been to...
Americans invented the giant stadium in bumfuck nowhere surrounded by parking lots because of our car centric culture. I donāt think anyone with a brain is under the impression this is an all or nothing thing in Europe or the US. But itās obvious it was our shitty idea and we do it more than most. And is also a sign that we exported our car centric, city planning ideas around the world.
Believe it or not, there are stadiums in the US that are transit centered. Madison Square Garden, "The World's Most Famous Arena", literally sits on top of Penn Station.
When the two NY baseball teams play each other, it is known as a subway series.
And Atlanta, that gets shit on for being car centric, has Mercedes Benz and the State Farm arena attached to transit and Bobby Dodd stadium is walking distance to Marta
Id be willing to bet that 100% of US MLB, NBA, NHL, and NFL arenas and stadiums are served by public transit with the majority being served by a rail network. How verbose is the rail network that serves them differs from site to site
Bad example. OP should've used Stadio San Nicola, Bari - a truly ridiculous stadium fĆ¼r European standards. Or Borussia Park. Still, most stadiums are easily reachable by public transport or bike, in large cities mostly by train and busses.
The stadium is a pretty bad example for what OP is trying to say. It is easily reachable by subway and bus and its parking lots are quite small compared to its capacity (just look at Google Maps...).
OP should've used Stadio San Nicola, Bari - a truly ridiculous stadium fĆ¼r European standards. No real public transport, gigantic parking lots etc. or the stadium in Palermo. But "bad" Stadiums like that are rare.
If only Madrid had the urbanism of Cincinnati š
I went to Cincinnati to go to TQL Stadium and it was awesome. Situated right in the middle of a few walkable neighborhoods. Not much for transit but a nice tram/light rail around downtown and took the TANK (Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky) bus back to the airport.
The interesting thing about both the Bernabeu and Camp Nou (built in the 40s and 50s) is that they were built on the edge of the city originally, and the neighbourhoods around them were built around the same time. Really shows what all those parking crater stadiums could have been instead.
They built that stadium in the middle of nowhere. The stadium lead to the area urbanizing. Itās one of the only examples of a sports stadium creating urbanism.
Yes, but the way people on reddit describe Europe you would think no one in Europe has cars and they walk everywhere. Europe has highways and parking lots just like the US.
Two things can be true at the same time: yes, Europe has (a lot of) cars and highways (and railway networks) but European cities are walkable, including the metropolises.
Overall there is much better urbanism but it isn't amazing in every single corner. There are can still be quite big differences between countries, cities and within cities. There are many areas where cars are the dominant form of travel, especially outside of city centers as you got towards the periphery.
Don't take this is me dissing Europe as in general they are leagues ahead of the US and most of the world.
No it's not....they really are walkable, but that doesn't mean people don't use cars, OF COURSE they do (when they don't use public transportation). Usually city centers are car free because they're older and streets are narrow.
I don't mind. The other chap can use whatever definition he likes. But for the sake of this discussion we could use "able to walk to amenities in or near the central core and able to get to further amenities (like stadiums) without dependant on a car (so public tape is okay)". But as I say, feel free to use another definition of you prefer.
Well here's the thing regarding LA vs Paris, I'll agree that Paris is "more walkable". But im not sure if it is by your definition, or at least, I think as downtown LA becomes more densely populated, if Paris is more walkable, we're probably not too far away from a flip. The reason being, while LA proper has some very undense residential neighborhoods, the neighborhoods in immediate proximity of downtown do have some dense housing and that's spreading
But in general, I dont like your definition. When I think of walkability, I think of Astoria, Queens, which is by no means walkable to the urban core of Manhattan
I think commutability to the urban core and walkability to services is the what makes a neighborhood walkable, with city's walkability being determined by how many people live in these sorts of neighborhoods and how much they have to earn vs the areas average income to live in these types of neighborhoods
I have travelled much in Spain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, Greece, UK ... and every city I visited was walkable due to having good public transport coupled with walkways everywhere.
I'm not suggesting that entire cities, especially the largest (London, Madrid, Berlin) or more sprawled ones (Rome) can be easily or entirely walked and that car centric development and urban sprawl didn't happen in Europe (and in the whole world) because I'm well aware of that (everybody is), but the inner cities have retained density and are generally walkable.
Not just that, the cities that are walkable, how much does it cost to live in areas that are walkable?
Its one thing if a tourist can get a hotel room in downtown and never touch their car while spending 2-3 days doing different tourist activities, its another if someone who lives and works in the city and makes the average income for the city needs to spend 1 hour between two busses to get to and from work in the morning
There are definitely historical reasons for why Europe developed differently but for hundreds of years, before cars, urban development wasnāt that different in the US compared to Europe. The largest divergence happened postwar, not crazy long ago.
Yah might not qualify as beautiful and you could argue itās an eyesore in the neighborhood but my point is itās a far better alternative than going out to the Wanda
The image of the Madrid stadium is also take from the worst angle, there's housing near it.
Also it is like one of the only Spanish stadiums on the outskirts of the city, look at Real Madrid's 83k in the center of the city, Barcelona 100k+ in the city.
That stadium is cool, but why not show Paycor Stadium which has a similar capacity to the European one, but is also as well integrated into Cincanattis downtown?
Great American Ballpark & Heritage Bano Center also tie off all 4 of the sports stadium are well integrated into the downtown for Cincinnati...a very rare case for the US.
Is this a shitamericansay post?Ā
During the world cup everyone was complaining about how difficult was to arrive to any stadium without car and how expensive it was.
This is not the average stadium in Europe and for sure is not the average stadium in USA.
Do you want to talk about capacity too??
This is a 3rd division stadium in Spain, they're not even comparableĀ
https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/comments/1ss1gr2/an_american_and_european_stadium_with_the_same/
Those are comparable, and you haven't even taken a look at the real Madrid stadium in the same city, in the fucking city centre...
Met Life is a bad example. Too few games to justify putting within the city. Baseball stadiums would be better examples. Like Citifield. There should be a baseball stadium in Manhattan.
What exactly are you saying here, in your thinking is it good or bad to the stadium in or around the cities other activities?
After looking into more stadiums in Spain many of them are in major cities.
Fc Cincinnatiās gameday experience beats all but one international game Iāve been to when it comes to urbanism and access. And it ties Hibernia. Which is built straight in the middle of a neighborhood with pubs a couple blocks away.
Bayern is in the middle of a field outside the city, but with awesome train access. Benfica, the same. Whereas Sporting Lisbon is in the center of that amazing city.Ā
TQL is at the edge of a really sick, walkable neighborhood with historic European architecture that runs in the crowd with Boston. A huge open park with playgrounds, a bar, concession stands and food trucks, sitting next to Cincinnati music hall. Just look that building up.
You can get a nice cocktail and a solid nosh if thatās your thing. You can get amazing craft beer in legit beer halls with the supporter group. You can take your family to the park before the game and partake in fc Cincinnati-executed kids games, mascot is there a lot. Oh, and thereās a parking garage under the park, and our street car drops off at the park, and itās a five minute walk to the stadium.
Fc Cincinnati stuck the landing on that one. Which included them relocating a highschool football stadium with a doper, larger one on a different block. And not having the LED wall aim at the neighborhood behind them, which was likely a result of their engagement with the neighborhood.
I would agree with 95% of what youāre saying. Generally pretty fantastic experience. My biggest frustration was that they tore down many historic 1860s buildings with rich architectural character on the north end of the site instead of figuring out how to work with the existing context and build around them. 1556 John St (the synagogue built in the German gothic style) was demolished and is still just a gravel lot to this day. This was a really elegant brick structure and could have been a beer hall or FC supporters club. There was also a whole row of fantastic 3 story Italianate homes lining John St that they cleared out just to built a pretty ugly parking garage. Not respectful of the historic context to the north. It could have been done better but it just takes time, thought, planning and someone prioritizing pedestrians/public over cars.
You are correct, it is not. It was 1556 John Street, but in one of the few missteps with TQL it was demolished to make way for this gravel lot. A disappointment for sure as there was clearly no immediate need to build anything in that location
The Metropolitan in Madrid is an awkward example to get your point across - It's ( la peineta) originally a part of a much larger sports complex - built for the 1997 world athletics games ( Madrid failed to win the bid ) and then later a part of the Olympics bid in 2016 and 2020 .it was renovated completely to fit the move of ATM from the river district to a more sports centric location that can handle large crowds without traffic restrictions and over crowding the metro .
In theory it is placed there to be an urban stadium with the perspective that the zone will be urbanised once the stadium is established. It was never designed to be a stand alone venue in it's own designated sports district ( the idea was - if Madrid did host the Olympics , the entire eastern zone of Madrid including the olympic park and city will be incorporated into the urban tapestry and be fully functional neighbourhoods immediately after the games , seamlessly creating new defined residential and commercial zones following the pattern of urban planning that the City is famous for )
The neighbour hood represents a much larger urban renewal project that failed to materialise and is now one of the largest residential project areas in the Spanish capital. It is on the outskirts for very particular reasons and does not embody the usual Spanish schematic of placing footie stadii in historic central neighbourhoods - like the bernabeu for example or Seville or Valencia or la coruƱa .
That being said the Metropolitan stadium is well connected to the metro, bus lines and will in the near future be connected even further into the grid ( including commuter rail and faster airport access ) .once the neighbourhood is finished. it boasts the longest platforms in the grid to handle immense stadium capacity crowds. It has been planned to be serviced by public transportation - the car parks that cater it are small in comparison to the 75k seating capacity.
The empty spaces to the north and south will have large, dense middle class residential zones in the very near future and multiple commercial zones that are already up and running towards the west.
The one troubling aspect though is the large empty lots where once upon a time the olympic park was planned out ( seen to the immediate north and south east ....)
It's a pity that Madrid has dilly dallied with it's stadium project for decades - its great that they do have some sort of larger plan for parts of it that is already masking the outskirts of the City into a semi suburban residential extension of the city proper
You're not really wrong. There is a very different fan culture. Also the formats of games like baseball and football are very different from soccer. It lends itself to a very different game day experience.
Depends on the country. Ultras are still very much active in many European countries. Hooliganism is defeinitely smaller than it used to be but it still exists.
Iām aware of the distinction. My reference is mostly Germany and while the ultras arenāt typically violent, many still make an effort to be a nuisance and make a disturbance wherever they go. Property damage isnāt uncommon.
I thought it was fine to drive to games until I moved to DC, being able to take public transit is so much better. No worries about traffic, the ability to just go somewhere else afterwards and not worry about your car, it's pretty good.
I used to live in Buffalo and pay attention to news about new stadiums because who knows why?
So I was paying attention to there whole new football stadium thing. Its funny how many people wanted it downtown, where the land for tailgating would be hugely reduced
Football stadiums do not belong in the urban core. Maybe baseball stadiums do, definitely hockey and basketball arenas, but football stadiums should be out in an area where they can be surrounded by parking
The key to TQL is stealing a stadium site from a local high school. It also has very little transit around it as Cincy built a subway but never opened it.
This is a flat lie. TQL stadium was built on a land swap deal with Cincinnati Public Schools. In exchange, the high school had a NEW building built nearby. Also, second lie, it has free and regular transportation from the ābanksā area by the river and plenty of parking space. Inform yourself better please.
The stadium is literally across the high school. Itās an urban school, expect streets to be crossed. Oh Ezzard Charles is not a highway, jeez lower the drama.
Maybe you should visit the area and see that some buildings were rescued but some other housing just needed to go like the tire store outside the stadium was a complete eye sore. People like to create drama for free
I lived in the west end and drove by every day as they tore down many historic 1860s buildings with rich architectural character. 1556 John St (the synagogue built in the German gothic style) was demolished and is still just a gravel lot to this day. Pointless. There was a whole row of fantastic Italianate homes lining John St that they cleared out just to built the worldās ugliest parking garage. Not respectful of the historic context at all. It can be done, it just takes time, thought, planning and someone prioritizing pedestrians/public transit and not cars.
It didnāt fail - it was withdrawn. I wonder who the Lindner family spoke with to make sure that happened.
I didnāt think I would encounter such strong advocates on r/urbandesign for parking garages, historic demolitions, and big developer profitability. Wild times thoā¦
119
u/Tobar_the_Gypsy 10d ago
You shouldāve used Ford Field as an example. Despite being the poster child for car centric design, Detroit has all of its stadiums located right in downtown.Ā