Jul 14, 2011, 3:15 PM EST
I’ll admit, I’m still kind of steaming over that downtown Los Angeles Dodger Stadium thing I went on about this morning. But I’ll also admit that, from a “could it happen” perspective, I may be looking at this too narrowly.
My thinking (actually my outrage) is based on the fact that no solvent Dodgers owner would ever consider moving the team out of Dodger Stadium. Why? Because a solvent Dodgers owner owns the park, owns the parking, has no competition from outside food or drink vendors or any of that stuff, and thus has no incentive to move downtown where everything would have to be shared with developers, other retail, etc. But of course the insolvent Frank McCourt and a new but as yet unidentified Dodgers ownership don’t have the same incentive structures.
Against that backdrop, someone I know who knows lots of someones in California business sent me an email a few minutes ago trying to explain the downtown L.A. dynamic to me. I’ve reproduced it below, and it makes a compelling argument for the “why would the City of Los Angeles be behind the Dodgers moving downtown” angle to it all. It’s hung on what’s going on with the L.A. Live entertainment complex, the Staples Center and the adjacent development.
I still don’t get why Major League Baseball would want to go this route. Getting around Frank McCourt’s ownership of the ballpark has to be easier than simply abandoning it and going in with some developers, right? But this goes a long way in explaining the non-baseball parts that are moving here.
L.A. Live is incredibly impressive. And while yes, it got some love in terms of zoning or tax breaks or whatever from the city, it really was built with private capital.
L.A. Live fulfills the self image of L.A., and L.A. politicians, in ways that are hard to express. It really is a combination of sports and entertainment and glitz all in one place. The Grammy Museum is there. People like J-Lo and Denzel Washington are regularly visible from the windows of rooms that I have meetings in. The Lakers play there, and the role of Lakers tickets in the social hierarchy of L.A. cannot be over-expressed. The thought of putting a baseball stadium right there, and adding a summer season (“the box seat Hamptons” to go with “the courtside seat Aspen” of the Lakers) excites a lot of rich and powerful people.
For the first time ever, there’s something attractive in downtown L.A. to draw people in. Until now, the only things in downtown L.A. were politicians who felt lonely. Do not underestimate the desire of those politicians to have a nice entertainment place nearby. Yes, it will take 10 years, but this move is a key chess piece in bringing the NFL back to L.A. Believe it or not, the Dodgers are like a rook or a bishop at best in that game — maybe a knight is more appropriate.
The fact that it’s bubbling now, as you point out, is to put more pressure on Frank McCourt. But not only is it a credible threat, it is actually the plan. And when it is done, Dodger Stadium will be bulldozed, the NFL will be back in L.A., and Phil Anschutz will own the stadiums where basketball, baseball, football, and soccer are played in the #2 media market in America. L.A. Live is making lots of money. It’s got huge hotels, a dozen restaurants, three live music venues, a movie theater, a bowling alley, a shopping mall, the Grammy Museum… just wait until there’s baseball nearby, sweet condos across the street, another urban shopping center built… you know the drill.
Concrete will be poured. Money will flow. Mark my words.
- Media paying for athlete interviews? Not likely. But watch this stuff closely anyway. 12
- Rockies acquire Brett Anderson from A’s 12
- D’backs, Angels, White Sox agree to three-team Mark Trumbo deal 65
- Ranking MLB managers by . . . handsomeness 81
- Curtis Granderson: “A lot of people have told me real New Yorkers are Mets fans” 61
- Robinson Cano agrees to $240 million deal with Mariners (260)
- Report: Mariners willing to offer Robinson Cano a 10-year, $240 million deal (143)
- Report: Yankees have agreed to a three-year deal with Carlos Beltran (125)
- Brett Gardner is drawing “significant” trade interest (113)
- Robinson Cano “didn’t want to play” for Joe Girardi (110)