Should we buy into the dream of a football stadium in City of Industry?

Are you ready for L.A. Live, San Gabriel Valley edition?

The downtown entertainment complex may get a cousin of sorts 23 miles to the east if billionaire developer Edward Roski Jr. has his way.

So far, coverage of Roski’s proposal to build a 75,000-seat, $800-million stadium in City of Industry has focused on its potential to bring professional football back to the Los Angeles area after an absence of 15 years.

But Roski’s plan doesn’t just call for a stadium. It sees the football facility as the centerpiece of a 592-acre mixed-use complex including shops, restaurants, offices and an extensive network of surface parking lots.

And much like the Anschutz Entertainment Group’s L.A. Live, which was designed to join its nearby corporate cousin, Staples Center, to create a neon-drenched sports-and-retail wonderland separate from the rest of downtown, the City of Industry plan imagines a determinedly self-contained commercial universe.

Roski has even recruited the lead architect on Staples Center, Dan Meis, to design the stadium — and perhaps the larger complex as well. And though Meis’ stadium design has much to recommend it — more on that a bit later — the plan as a whole relies on a number of outdated ideas about growth and mobility in Southern California.

Even as Roski’s proposal remains speculative — he can’t start building until he strikes a deal with an existing franchise to move here — it’s not difficult to see why it appeals to Roski and NFL executives. As the developer points out, nearly 16 million people — or one of every 19 Americans — live within an hour’s Sunday-morning drive of the stadium site.

The league is so intrigued by the location that it quietly asked Meis to design a stadium capable of accommodating not one but two NFL teams. That kind of dual residency makes particular sense for a football stadium, since pro teams play at home during the regular season just eight times a year.

Roski also argues that building the complex could create as many as 18,000 jobs. That angle undoubtedly helped the developer convince Sacramento lawmakers to grant the project a controversial exemption last month from state-level environmental review.

But Staples Center and L.A. Live, at least, are located at the center of the region’s transportation network; their arrival arguably played a substantial role in promoting the maturation of downtown as a whole and the South Park district in particular. The stadium site, by contrast, is a classic greenfield location, a freeway-close, edge-city property tantalizingly untouched by development.

Although a Metrolink station lies a mile or so to the west, Roski’s development team concedes that no more than a fraction of fans would come by train in the stadium’s early years of operation.

And even if more fans arrive via Metrolink as time goes on, the location — bound by the 57 and 60 freeways on two sides and a warehouse district on two others — rules out the possibility that its development will forge or nurture any urban connections with the neighborhoods around it.

Though we often forget or sidestep this fact, the same qualities that make a piece of land ideal for development aiming to attract visitors from across a broad area in Southern California — easy freeway access, wide-open spaces, precious few pesky neighbors — also tend to make it a kind of planning black hole, a site that has little chance of succeeding in urban terms in any but the most circumscribed sense.

Separate from those larger questions, Meis’ design for the stadium itself has some real strengths, though many of its details remain underdeveloped. Now working with the firm Aedas, Meis — who as a partner in NBBJ helped design Staples as well as the NFL’s Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati — has turned a difficult piece of land to his advantage. 

By proposing to sink the stadium on three sides into a hillside, he managed to cut down significantly on the amount of steel and other materials required to build it, turning early estimates of a $1.3-billion facility into an $800-million project. The architectural result is an asymmetrical bowl with a tall suite tower on the west, leaning out toward the field, with the three other sides nestled lower to the ground. Stacked concourses slice through the stadium at its four corners, and a tunnel runs underneath the eastern section of the seating bowl toward additional open-air plazas.

Early renderings released to the media, decorated with fireworks displays and searchlights, camouflaged some of the stadium design’s sharp-edged appeal. The building avoids the saccharine sense of nostalgia that pervades so many new baseball stadiums. And it shows signs of the same design intelligence that make Paul Brown Stadium one of the NFL’s best new venues.

The decision to set the building into the hillside immediately brings to mind the way Dodger Stadium slices into Chavez Ravine. It also opens up views that may rival those of the Dodgers’ home, particularly of the mountain ranges to the north and east.

Meis and his client have made the case that the stadium is a piece of green architecture, not only because it would use relatively little steel but because it will take advantage of the mild climate and push a number of its facilities and circulation areas outdoors, where they won’t have to be heated or cooled. In addition, natural gas-powered shuttles will bring fans in from parking lots and the train station.

But don’t confuse economic efficiency with sustainability. Clearly the greenest approach, if hardly the easiest politically, would be to adapt the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum rather than build a massive new facility, no matter how smartly engineered, from scratch. Even a new stadium on the edge of the Dodger Stadium parking lot, an option Frank McCourt reportedly considered, would be greener than the City of Industry plan, simply because it would use a new NFL facility as a mechanism for the kind of large-scale infill development Los Angeles needs.

Roski’s proposed plan for the site follows a certain unmistakable logic: For him (at left), developing a stadium in Industry as a means of trying to buy all or part of an NFL franchise is a savvy strategy. The question is how politicians in Southern California ought to look at it. If we signal that we’re desperate for a team to return to the region, the NFL will likely exact from us a stadium project that makes a lot more sense for the league and for Roski than it does for us.

If, on the other hand, we recognize that the NFL, though its executives are careful not to admit it too explicitly, is counting on being back in or near Los Angeles for a long list of reasons — primarily because we make up the second largest media market in the country — we might pursue a far different approach. (The fact that the league is banking, long-term, on two teams here makes that plain.)

We might seize on an NFL stadium plan — whether that is a new building or the renovation of an existing facility — as a planning catalyst, a way to jump-start a particular district or provide a boost to mass-transit development.

Instead Roski’s plan will catalyze little more than his own dreams of creating an entertainment juggernaut that keeps the rest of the region at arm’s length.

This isn’t Jacksonville. It’s not Minneapolis or Arlington, Texas. Even after 15 years without a team, Southern California retains significant leverage in cutting a deal with the NFL. If we as a region back Roski’s plan as unthinkingly as Sacramento has done, we will be using essentially none of it.

-- Christopher Hawthorne

Artist renderings of the proposed 75,000-seat, $800 million football stadium: Meis Architects/Aedas

Photo of Edward Roski Jr.: Steve Marcus / Associated Press

 

Comments

[Dean Wermer]

This is a silly article and suffers from the same problems as most of the Times coverage on the new stadium (and most other SoCal issues): a narrow, west-side/downtown-centric, and elitist, attitude. A stadium in Industry would be enormously popular with SGV and Pomona Valley/Inland Empire fans (and would also be within easy distance of Orange County). The reality is that Industry is much closer to the heart of the NFL's fanbase in SoCal than downtown (and Chavez Ravine and similar Industry alternatives). The only part of the local NFL fanbase closer to downtown are potential luxury box purchasers. Contrary to the assertion in the above article, Industry is closer to the region's transportation network than a downtown or Chavez Ravine location. It is only when SoCal is myopically conceived of as just the Westside and Downtown that the article's assertion becomes true. The author should be more honest about his local biases.

[Jeffrey Turkell]

Not only does the proposed "LA Stadium" in Industry lack the centrality of the Coliseum or a Dodger Stadium site or the historic heft of the Coliseum, but games in Industry in August,September and into October (over half of the typical season's home games)promise to be miserably hot. Daytime games at Dodger Stadium tend to involve peope crowding in the shade, with thousands of empty seats in the sun. It can get ten degrees hotter in Industry (or Pasadena, as the Rose Bowl proves with annoying frequency)than it does in downtown L.A. Roasting at a football game is not pleasant.

Whether the people of the San Gabriel and Pomona valleys or even would turn out to see pro football should not determine whether to support this project. Ultimately, the NFL's decision will be driven largely by where it can attract the most purchases of boxes and premium seats. This is nothing new. It is the reason the Rams left Los Angeles for Anaheim, the reason the Raiders left Oakland, and the reason (once the Coliseum broke its promise to build boxes) the reason the Raiders went back to Oakland. While some may say that a stadiuk should not be located based solely on the needs of the moneyed elite, the reality is that NFL, and therefore we, must cater to them. If the Coliseum gets remodeled, as it has needed for over 30 years, it will become a more elitist place. STAPLES Center is far more elitist than the Forum was, and we got used to that.

As many times as the Coliseum as been considered and rejected for NFL football, it is time to make a more serious run at the NFL at that site. Los Angeles decided over a decade ago that subsidizing STAPLES Center was a good deal, and in hindsight that view appears to have been correct. USC has proven that the Coliseum neighborhood is not the same as the one the NFL abandoned. Freeway access is improved, new parking structures have been built, and the Expo Line is almost finished. USC and Mr. Roski (a fervent Trojan) should team up to embellish the Coliseum into the first-class facility that the Trojans and NFL should have. Perhaps Mr. Hawthorne can help push this along.

[K. Jackson]

Dean Wermer's earlier post is exactly correct. As I read the article, I got the same sense of attempted project sabotage that I used to get when reading comments from fans who insisted any stadium had to be in Los Angeles proper. Elitist is truly the right term for this attitude. Given the freedom that the currently proposed site allows for construction of a first rate, uniquely southern Californian NFL stadium, you would think petty agendas could be set aside. If the author is both a football fan and a Los Angeles resident, someone should pass him the message that driving to a Sunday game like everyone else will not kill him.

[Daniel]

If SGV and Pamona Valley want this monstrosity let them have it. It'll be a black hole where they can get lost in bad design, unhealthy eats and a stadium that is half full. Eventually this stadium will be just another parking lot.

I'm glad the Times has taken a serious look at this horrible project that is ill planned and reeks of cronyism at its worst.

A real NFL stadium a la Heinz Field or Safeco in downtown LA would be a project most Angelenos could get behind. A stadium accessible by light rail or subwaybus and one that sits on 3-6 acres as opposed to 600 acres.

Have we not learned a thing from our mistakes?

[brett]

WE DO NOT NEED A FOOTBALL TEAM. Let alone two!

[Rick]

Bravo, Christopher. Excellent points all around. We have done without a football team for 15 years, we don't need one now. You didn't say it explicitly so if I may be allowed to say it for you: the NFL needs a team in LA more than LA needs an NFL team.

AEG has done a fantastic job revitalizing the downtown area, this Industry project will be reduced to an example of poor planning decisions in the 21st century once the glitz and glamor wear off. Even though our beloved Dodger stadium is showing its age, it is still in a marquee area in Los Angeles.

Great article, thank you!

[R Baird]

Staples Center and LA Live did not turn downtown LA around. Revising the city's archaic building and zoning codes to allow for density in logical places is what encited the current revitalization. The people that live in and patronize downtown do so for reasons that have almost nothing to do with events of any kind. They do so because it's becoming an intersting and convenient place to habitate on any normal kind of day or evening.

From a circulation point of view, there is no good alternative for a stadium in the region. Whether it's downtown LA, Pasadena, or Industry...smart people will avoid the traffic hell that exists on game days. And there's no way to design that issue out of the equation until the whole region is reorganized around multiple urban centers (which will take most of the century to happen).

[Robert Lamb]

What could be more environmentally friendly than the adaptive re-use of the Colliseum? A good example of what will happen in Industry is DC, where the new football stadium is well outside the center of downtown. Traffic on gameday is unbearable for anyone who chooses to make the trek.

[Michael]

There should be no public money supporting this. I don't want any of my tax dollars used to make these guys rich, our city can't afford these expensive stadiums and its a dumb idea.

[A Lux]

good Lord. I love football but this is so so stupid for so many reasons. Undoubtedly one way or another taxpayers will get stuck with the bill, and won't see nearly the benefits which the promoters claim. Citizens get robbed blind every time a city is tricked into building a paean to some rich dude's franchise dreams and ego. Also, regardless of where the fans are coming in from, the environmental damage can only be expected to be significant.

The NFL is a for-profit industry that takes advantage of civic pride and the enthusiasm of its fans to steal from every one of us. The wheeling-dealing that goes on every time a new stadium is built detracts from the enjoyment of the game. If football is a profitable enterprise, they should be able to pull it off without any concessions from a city whatsoever. Cities shouldn't be competing for franchises. Franchises should be competing for cities.

[Wolfy]

That's right. Add a mega football stadium next to the busy HWY 10 & 605. It's gonna be HUGELY popular with the commuters already fed up with the congestion.

[Dr. G]

My favorite city is Chicago. Confession: I was born there. Still, having just spent time downtown, it's delightful to see that the city still invests in classical infrastructure. Millennium Park is an example of a public space that is integrated into an architecturally and functionally rewarding gathering place.

The Coliseum is the best venue for development. As mentioned by others USC can play there. Confession: I graduated from SC.

NFL bucks will pump money into the local, south side economy, which can always use the help.

And it gives folks in the region yet another reason to congregate in the greater downtown area.

Let's update and embrace an architectural icon.

Why put a football venue in a wasteland?

[foorball tickets]

I really hope this goes through it would be nice to have a football team here in LA. I think it would do great for the community. Also i wouldn;t mind seeing the Vikings here either.

[Ed C.]

This stadium is only going to be used for half of the year. What congestion? And besides, for an NFL team to come to the Coliseum, they have to break up the Coliseum Commission. They're the ones putting up the roadblocks.

[SkIM_in_CHINO]

Hmm.. In a city already engulfed in, let's see: Millions of hours in traffic ALREADY 25 some odd miles WEST of the proposed build site, I speak from 100% experience. I have lived in a community called Diamond Bar/Chino area all of my life, worked in Downtown Los Angeles for all of my life as well, which is within a 5 mile radius of the build site. The traffic is already incredibly, superbly, idiotically ridiculous in ALL of Southern California as it is already. To keep extending out the region that will be engulfed in traffic, by adding another day (Sunday) as another HUGE traffic clogging day, is stupid (for restraint of using profanity). Not to mention that Mr. TURKWELL has an absolutely, on-the-point answer as too the climate in that specific region. Again, I speak from experience, there is no such thing as an "off-shore breeze" in that area, other than a hot, gusty, earful from the nearby Inland Empire. If that doesn't ruffle your feathers, than maybe the fact that this stadium will not be centralized to the majority of the population in Los Angeles, and that they would have to drive 30 miles in LA Traffic, which feels like driving 1/2 of the way to Vegas, everyday, would be appealing to most fans, especially with so much more going on in Los Angeles, much closer, than a mediocre football team, at best, that LA would get.
Also, lets not forget the other things going on in California, better yet LA, with the state on the brink of bankruptcy and being taken over by the Government, and the thousands of educational jobs being cut, we are sitting here talking about hundreds of millions of dollars going into entertainment, when our future generation is suffering the most. Do you think that minimum wage earners will truly pay $4.00 per gallon fuel prices, to drive 30 miles, to watch a so-called "NFL" team (that is if we get one that is semi-decent), on a Sunday, and then get stuck in traffic for a couple hours on their day off? Or maybe the stadium will generate enough revenue to digg California out of its billions of dollars in debt? And since it will only be making money for only half of the year, then we taxpayers have to pay for the maintenance of the other half of the year, don't we? Thats a big waste of prime land in a primetime state, for 6 months out of the year. At least in other states, football is a passion and the people/community bleed football. California, we only try to bleed green, and the true fans (the LA Raider fans, Rams fans) well, the generation isn't as rabid or as loyal as them, so what's to say that this generation is going to be selling out stadiums? There's no gurantees in life, but there are premonitions, and from a businessman's standpoint to be put in layman's terms: 'Build it and they will come, the headaches and the loss of profits that is!!'