If you had access to tons of cash and were tasked to put in a Hayward-esque track-only stadium anywhere in the US, where would you put it? Ideally, this would be a place with decent weather, a major airport, abundant hotels, fun nightlife, and a large population of sports enthusiasts.
the Hayward rebuild was botched. Lines at the men's urinals with small crowds. No utility space on the track. No equipment level in the stadium seats. No underground parking. Corrodors are too narrow, clog up with small crowds. No food service facilities inside the stadium. Instead thet make food twp blocks away, and used to cart the food on the asphalt street one hour before meets before the CIty of Eugene cited UO for food safety violations.
I guess this is what you get when you ramrod through a stadium rebuild on a budget before a hard deadline.
They are literally building a pool at Lucas Oil stadium (Indianapolis) for the Olympic Swimming Trials. That's right, they are constructing a pool overtop of the existing field/ground. Close to 30k people are expected nightly for the 9 nights of the trials.
Why can't something similar be done for track and field? Plenty of open air football stadiums you could do this in...you'd just have to build over top the existing field and first few rows of seats. Think about holding it at a place like Lincoln Financial Field in Philly. You'd literally have a population for what, 60+ million, within a 5 hour drive? Heck, MetLifeStadium would be a better option
They built a temporary 35,000 seat stadium for the Cricket World Cup in Long Island.
No vision from USATF....then again, this might cut into Max's ridiculous salary/bonus....
They are literally building a pool at Lucas Oil stadium (Indianapolis) for the Olympic Swimming Trials. That's right, they are constructing a pool overtop of the existing field/ground. Close to 30k people are expected nightly for the 9 nights of the trials.
Why can't something similar be done for track and field? Plenty of open air football stadiums you could do this in...you'd just have to build over top the existing field and first few rows of seats. Think about holding it at a place like Lincoln Financial Field in Philly. You'd literally have a population for what, 60+ million, within a 5 hour drive? Heck, MetLifeStadium would be a better option
They built a temporary 35,000 seat stadium for the Cricket World Cup in Long Island.
No vision from USATF....then again, this might cut into Max's ridiculous salary/bonus....
If you had access to tons of cash and were tasked to put in a Hayward-esque track-only stadium anywhere in the US, where would you put it? Ideally, this would be a place with decent weather, a major airport, abundant hotels, fun nightlife, and a large population of sports enthusiasts.
the Hayward rebuild was botched. Lines at the men's urinals with small crowds. No utility space on the track. No equipment level in the stadium seats. No underground parking. Corrodors are too narrow, clog up with small crowds. No food service facilities inside the stadium. Instead thet make food twp blocks away, and used to cart the food on the asphalt street one hour before meets before the CIty of Eugene cited UO for food safety violations.
I don't know which Hayward you've been to but that wasn't the case over the weekend or any other time I've visited. I joked about how many bathrooms there are around the stadium - I've never seen a serious line for the urinals. Parking does suck, but if you get there early enough, you can park up the street in the residentials without issue or if you want to avoid driving near the stadium, parkin a shuttle lot and do that route. The concourse is very wide - never ever felt claustrophobic there once. There's plenty of food service available and also food carts, which are actually affordable for major events.
In terms of drawing crowds, Hayward's biggest problem is being in Eugene. I live in Portland, and it's a decent drive down but hardly any traffic so it goes fast; if there was a decent regional airport down there, it would make life so much better for visitors, but I'm not sure Eugene really wants to be that big time anyway (regardless of being 'Tracktown USA' and having a world class facility).
I vote Chicago or San Diego. Chicago has a perfect location and facility already - Soldier Field is going to be available once the Bears leave (and why not just spend some dough to put in a track even if they aren't gone?). It's super close to Midway and Ohare is just a decent train ride from the facility as well. San Diego's weather makes it the best overall spot, although it's a bit out of the way for casuals to drive down from LA (I freaking hate that drive when there are any cars on the road).
As convenient as it is for me to go down to Eugene and watch the events, it's depressing to have my run of that facility even for big events. There just aren't enough casual track fans who are willing to come out and watch meets - the sport gets such random spotty coverage in non-Olympic years and I have met a lot of people here in the Portland metro - home of Nike and Adidas and soon a Hoka facility too - and they have never even heard of Diamond League. It's depressing, but there's hope - the sport grabs people when they finally do watch. I took a friend to the NCAA Women's finale - he had never seen a meet in his life is now in love with the sport and wants to go back down for the trials.
If you had access to tons of cash and were tasked to put in a Hayward-esque track-only stadium anywhere in the US, where would you put it? Ideally, this would be a place with decent weather, a major airport, abundant hotels, fun nightlife, and a large population of sports enthusiasts.
Honestly? Probably Eugene, OR. They're the only city that actually likes track.
Boulder. Times would be rough due to the altitude, but its a market where people would watch.
I dont think people would attend track events in a lot of the major metro areas. Just too many other draws.
A purpose built track stadium seems unlikely. They should just build a track into a football or soccer stadium.
LOL Boulder would be worse than Eugene. Just as expensive and still far from a major airport. Not to mention everyone would have to race at altitude. Come on.
No one place is ever going to be perfect. Why not just move it around all over the country. Sometimes the weather will be great, or not. As long as the facilities, transportation, etc. are decent, who cares. And yes, someone’s going to complain about the location every year, just like they do now.
Boulder. Times would be rough due to the altitude, but its a market where people would watch.
I dont think people would attend track events in a lot of the major metro areas. Just too many other draws.
A purpose built track stadium seems unlikely. They should just build a track into a football or soccer stadium.
LOL Boulder would be worse than Eugene. Just as expensive and still far from a major airport. Not to mention everyone would have to race at altitude. Come on.
Incorrect. It's only 35 min from DIA (which is in the middle of the country). Expensive? what does that mean.
And everyone in track events under 400m and all field people would love altitude.
I’d call the location “Chicago” for branding purposes but the stadium’s address would be in the northern IL suburbs. Good for transportation and lodging and a little spillover from Wisco fans. In order to offset some of the losses, I’d build the facility so it could also serve the kiddy sports industry/machine, hosting things like U8 field hockey nationals.
LOL Boulder would be worse than Eugene. Just as expensive and still far from a major airport. Not to mention everyone would have to race at altitude. Come on.
Incorrect. It's only 35 min from DIA (which is in the middle of the country). Expensive? what does that mean.
And everyone in track events under 400m and all field people would love altitude.
Indeed it's a pretty quick drive from the airport: 35 miles, 35-60 minutes depending on traffic.
Colorado fans are very fickle unless it's the Broncos, then they're rabid (but quick to turn on their stars).
The only way you could fill a large stadium would be to finish have a the track meet following Bolder Boulder. Or maybe bring in Taylor Swift. Possibly have some sprint match ups between Deion's fast Buffs and the speediest Broncos.
The sprints and jumps would be awesome, you could have some very exciting mid-d races, and 5000s could still be plenty fast (sub 13:30s, sub 15) at altitude.
Just don't think you'd get many fans in the stadium unless there were some other draws.
Track attendance is pathetic. There are what, less than 20 total meaningful track events every year? Can you imagine if there were only 20 total NFL games what kind of crowds they would get. Anything less than 100,000 people for a track meet of meaning is pathetic.
If you had access to tons of cash and were tasked to put in a Hayward-esque track-only stadium anywhere in the US, where would you put it? Ideally, this would be a place with decent weather, a major airport, abundant hotels, fun nightlife, and a large population of sports enthusiasts.
Sounds like USATF has to build a track somewhere in Europe. London maybe?
In an easily accessible suburb of Philadelphia. Great population base, good track history, and lots of track fans within an 2 hour drive. And the weather is usually not too extreme.
Scrap my idea of doing something similar for track what they are doing for the upcoming US Swimming Trials.
Cost of building a temporary track in a football stadium would be outrageous. You'd have to build the supporting structure so high up and long that if you could even do it, it wouldn't be cost effective. You'd essentially be doing all your construction "over" most of the first deck or 'lower" bowl of seats.