TheWriter
04-25-2005, 03:36 AM
And I was lynched.
I also said we should tunnel 37 with park land and wide boulevards on the surface.
I was also lynched.
---------------------------------
Mike Greenberg: Remember the Alamodome as folly and then tear it down
San Antonio Express-News
As people age, their eyes change. Take, for example, Mayor Ed Garza. When he took office, his "South Side balanced growth initiative" indicated a farsightedness that outdistanced his five predecessors combined.
Now, less than four years later, his backing of $6.5 million of inducements to put "major league" soccer into the Alamodome indicates severe myopia.
There's a smarter, more visionary way to invest $6.5 million in the Alamodome — a way that will have a much better chance of producing real economic benefit for the city.
Instead of foolishly giving away $6.5 million to keep the Alamodome on life support, the city should wisely invest $6.5 million to tear down the Alamodome.
This is not my version of Swift's "Modest Proposal." I am absolutely serious.
Everyone with any sense knew the Alamodome would be an economic folly even before the voters were suckered into approving a sales tax increase to pay for it. History has justified the cynics.
The building has no value. It's a money-loser for the city. It will never be anything but a money-loser. As long as it's still standing, City Councils will be tempted to throw money at every sports operator with "major league" in its name. Today, soccer. Tomorrow, badminton.
The ridiculous fantasy of attracting a National Football League team to the Alamodome will never come true.
Austin will get an NFL team long before San Antonio does because Austin invests in public works and development projects that create real value and support real economic growth, not in useless baubles like the Alamodome.
In addition to its economic liabilities, the Alamodome is ugly and it has a stupid name. As any moderately attentive fourth-grader can tell you, there's no dome on the Alamodome.
Pardon me for uttering a heretical, if not blasphemous, sentiment: San Antonio should learn, for once, from its mistakes.
If the Alamodome has no value, the land under it, and under its mostly empty parking lots, is another matter.
That swath of land could generate property and sales tax revenues for the city. It could strengthen the downtown retail and office markets. It could enlarge the audience for downtown arts institutions and galleries. It could spread economic cheer and jobs to nearby neighborhoods on the east and south. It could help support an improved public transportation system.
But the Alamodome stands in the way of all that. The city should tear it down and pursue development partnerships with the private sector to create a high-density, mixed-use neighborhood in its place.
To maximize the potential of such a project, the elevated I-37 freeway, which divides the Alamodome site from downtown, should be converted to a street-level boulevard. (Yes, it can be done.)
With that barrier reduced, a neighborhood on the Alamodome site could mesh more effectively with the one being built on the old Victoria Courts site, as well as with HemisFair Park and Rivercenter.
A concentration of several thousand residents where the Alamodome stands could justify a demonstration light-rail line running west through the downtown core to the UTSA downtown campus, and east to the SBC center.
The Alamodome was a bad investment. It's time for the city to cut its losses. We can have a big glass of lemonade — if we're smart enough to give up the lemon.
I also said we should tunnel 37 with park land and wide boulevards on the surface.
I was also lynched.
---------------------------------
Mike Greenberg: Remember the Alamodome as folly and then tear it down
San Antonio Express-News
As people age, their eyes change. Take, for example, Mayor Ed Garza. When he took office, his "South Side balanced growth initiative" indicated a farsightedness that outdistanced his five predecessors combined.
Now, less than four years later, his backing of $6.5 million of inducements to put "major league" soccer into the Alamodome indicates severe myopia.
There's a smarter, more visionary way to invest $6.5 million in the Alamodome — a way that will have a much better chance of producing real economic benefit for the city.
Instead of foolishly giving away $6.5 million to keep the Alamodome on life support, the city should wisely invest $6.5 million to tear down the Alamodome.
This is not my version of Swift's "Modest Proposal." I am absolutely serious.
Everyone with any sense knew the Alamodome would be an economic folly even before the voters were suckered into approving a sales tax increase to pay for it. History has justified the cynics.
The building has no value. It's a money-loser for the city. It will never be anything but a money-loser. As long as it's still standing, City Councils will be tempted to throw money at every sports operator with "major league" in its name. Today, soccer. Tomorrow, badminton.
The ridiculous fantasy of attracting a National Football League team to the Alamodome will never come true.
Austin will get an NFL team long before San Antonio does because Austin invests in public works and development projects that create real value and support real economic growth, not in useless baubles like the Alamodome.
In addition to its economic liabilities, the Alamodome is ugly and it has a stupid name. As any moderately attentive fourth-grader can tell you, there's no dome on the Alamodome.
Pardon me for uttering a heretical, if not blasphemous, sentiment: San Antonio should learn, for once, from its mistakes.
If the Alamodome has no value, the land under it, and under its mostly empty parking lots, is another matter.
That swath of land could generate property and sales tax revenues for the city. It could strengthen the downtown retail and office markets. It could enlarge the audience for downtown arts institutions and galleries. It could spread economic cheer and jobs to nearby neighborhoods on the east and south. It could help support an improved public transportation system.
But the Alamodome stands in the way of all that. The city should tear it down and pursue development partnerships with the private sector to create a high-density, mixed-use neighborhood in its place.
To maximize the potential of such a project, the elevated I-37 freeway, which divides the Alamodome site from downtown, should be converted to a street-level boulevard. (Yes, it can be done.)
With that barrier reduced, a neighborhood on the Alamodome site could mesh more effectively with the one being built on the old Victoria Courts site, as well as with HemisFair Park and Rivercenter.
A concentration of several thousand residents where the Alamodome stands could justify a demonstration light-rail line running west through the downtown core to the UTSA downtown campus, and east to the SBC center.
The Alamodome was a bad investment. It's time for the city to cut its losses. We can have a big glass of lemonade — if we're smart enough to give up the lemon.