Unfortunately the reality often is that it’s cheaper to buy more land and demolish buildings that get in the way than it is to build tall to solve for that. And that prestige project has to be cheap so that it can get out the door in this local politicians election cycle. Now if people could be held accountable for really bad choices they made a long time ago…
If cost is the concern, why did it get placed downtown where land is expensive? The stadium could have been built on the outskirts where land is cheaper and they can build as much parking as they want.
We should also be factoring in the long term impacts. Over the course of 20 years is it better to have a sea of parking around the stadium or a parking garage which leaves space for local restaurants, shops and merch stores to open right next to the stadium?
We should do that. But politicians that are out of office in a couple of years really don’t care because by then it won’t be their problem to solve. Solving actual problems is boring but the flashy project that was totally unnecessary will be remembered. For better or worse.
Yep - that’s something we tend to do well:
Melbourne Cricket ground (100,000 capacity)
Adelaide oval (53,000 capacity)
Brisbane Gabba (42,000 capacity)
Sydney Olympic stadium (83,000 capacity) (there are some carparks just out of view, but not many)
Yup. Run a metro line to it. Run 100 busses when there is a match. Don’t take up so much space for something that’s not in use for 95% of the time.
I know right? But that makes sense to do and most places have politicians that want their prestige projects where it suits them and those usually don’t make too much sense. Besides that good public transport solutions are boring. That huge parking space looks way more impressive from above…
