But to Jake's point, it was done that way because the mayor was up for re-election, and did not want to announce anything about the stadium prior to the election because he felt it would hurt his chances. So it was rushed through one week after the election. Just because that's how it's done in business doesn't mean that's how it should be done for projects that receive large public subsidizes and/or tax breaks.

I don't think either candidate wanted it to be an issue.

I hate how the shadiness of this whole episode has damaged my enthusiasm as a fan. I don't know the extent to which it will affect my attendance, but the team sure feels dirty right now.

 

I was skeptical of this team from Day 1 because of who owned it and who they made the face of the operation.  I'm old enough to remember the 1996 stadium tax controversy whereas the bulk of FC's fan base is not.  It's literally all of the same figures -- the same blue blood machine.  That stadium ordeal is what changed this town from having a lot of pride to being one that is mad at any and all proposals. 

 

If these people who claim to love the West End so dearly actually understood how cities work they would oppose the soccer stadium and the relocated HS stadium in favor of high-density construction w/affordable housing in place of Stargel and the Citirama site.  The West End currently has a half-dozen major holes in its urban fabric and these are two of the most egregious violators.  The grade school along Court St. is a terrible waste of space, as are the 8-9 baseball fields that get absolutely zero use. 

 

City West did little for the area because it replaced dense public housing with low-density autocentric development.  The town homes have no back yards because they are consumed by garages and parking pads.  Their home depot front doors rarely open or close since there is nothing to walk to. 

 

The city needs to wake up and rezone Stargel and Citirama for high density w/affordable housing and minimal parking requirements and tell FC to look elsewhere for a stadium site.   

 

 

 

 

 

I hate how the shadiness of this whole episode has damaged my enthusiasm as a fan. I don't know the extent to which it will affect my attendance, but the team sure feels dirty right now.

 

I was skeptical of this team from Day 1 because of who owned it and who they made the face of the operation.  I'm old enough to remember the 1996 stadium tax controversy whereas the bulk of FC's fan base is not.  It's literally all of the same figures -- the same blue blood machine.  That stadium ordeal is what changed this town from having a lot of pride to being one that is mad at any and all proposals. 

 

If these people who claim to love the West End so dearly actually understood how cities work they would oppose the soccer stadium and the relocated HS stadium in favor of high-density construction w/affordable housing in place of Stargel and the Citirama site.  The West End currently has a half-dozen major holes in its urban fabric and these are two of the most egregious violators.  The grade school along Court St. is a terrible waste of space, as are the 8-9 baseball fields that get absolutely zero use. 

 

City West did little for the area because it replaced dense public housing with low-density autocentric development.  The town homes have no back yards because they are consumed by garages and parking pads.  Their home depot front doors rarely open or close since there is nothing to walk to. 

 

The city needs to wake up and rezone Stargel and Citirama for high density w/affordable housing and minimal parking requirements and tell FC to look elsewhere for a stadium site.   

 

 

That may true.

 

That said, a west end site could be a huge savior for North of Liberty, Mohawk, Old West End, perhaps Mt. Auburn. I can see true, "gentrification" occur, and see an influx of new infill developments. I can also see a large amount of historic old west end stock be rehabbed, rather than be left to rot, and emergency demo'd.

 

I can garauntee you that a FCC Stadium presence in the west end, will push redevelopment in those areas. I can also garauntee you that you will attract even more families who live in west chester who are scared of, "Downtown/OTR" and will become accustomed to urban life, and may even grow to appreciate OTR/Downtown.

 

 

A west end site can have MASSIVE implications for OTR/North of Liberty/Mohawk/Old West End. Interest in rehabs/infill development will accelerate x10 fold. You will see new businesses, especially more sports related bars, and just more businesses in general will rush to plant there flag down in OTR.

 

We also may be able to attract the young kids/teens who are currently living in the suburbs, to learn about OTR/Urban Life style as they go to these games, and really fall in love with the area (like many of us have) and once they grow old enough, may decide to live downtown becauses of there exposure to OTR/pre-game/post game festivities with fellow fans/family.

 

 

I just believe that if FCC lands in the West End, this can radically change the surrounding area, at a very intense rate of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can garauntee you that a FCC Stadium presence in the west end, will push redevelopment in those areas. I can also garauntee you that you will attract even more families who live in west chester who are scared of, "Downtown/OTR" and will become accustomed to urban life, and may even grow to appreciate OTR/Downtown.

 

Why would a stadium being present cause those things to happen? 

I can garauntee you that a FCC Stadium presence in the west end, will push redevelopment in those areas. I can also garauntee you that you will attract even more families who live in west chester who are scared of, "Downtown/OTR" and will become accustomed to urban life, and may even grow to appreciate OTR/Downtown.

 

Why would a stadium being present cause those things to happen?

 

I just believe your going to see an influx of renewed interest of millienials to further want to live downtown. FCC has a powerful draw. I know many of my fellow friends who are in supporter groups, who have stated they will move from there current homes in Oakley/pleasant ridge, if fcc builds a West End Stadium. The fan support and loyalty to fcc is very powerful.

 

On top of that, there was survey done that showed that a large percentage of fcc season ticket holders live in the suburbs. I don’t expect there parents to suddenly leave there mortgaged home and 2 car garage, but I do see this as a powerful opportunity for there children to be exposed to the urban core and have a desire to perhaps live in otr/Pendleton/mt Auburn/old west end when they grow older. It will have a chain effect imo.

It's not typical for stadiums to have that sort of impact.

^You don't think stadiums have an impact on the mindset of kids and affect how they learn to appreciate urban areas? I think I was positively impacted by going to Reds games downtown my whole childhood. It was practically my only experience in a truly urban environment growing up.

 

I'm still dubious of the claim that stadiums have no net economic impact on a city. I don't think they are wise investments, in general, for a city to bankroll, but I do think they are, in general, positive for the community as a whole. I certainly think they have a strong impact on a neighborhood, even if it draws some entertainment dollars from other sources.

It's not typical for stadiums to have that sort of impact.

 

This kind of a dirty projection.

 

FCC in the MLS will have 17 Home Games, 1 Friendly, and 3 potential Home Playoff Games (and potentially 1 all star home hosting possibility)

 

FCC says they want the stadium have a capacity of 28K.

 

Lets assume 10% of those fans, only 2,800 fans goes to dinner/drinks before + after the game, and spend roughly on average 10$ per person.

 

If we host 18 Home Games that equates to roughly an additional 1 Million dollars being spent in OTR.

 

If we host 21 Home Games that equates to 1.1 Million Dollars being spent in OTR.

 

 

I imagine the total will be more than 10%. I imagine that it will be close to 30% of fans hanging out in OTR before/after during home games.

 

30% = 8,400 Fans, = Min 10$ per/fan = 84K per/game, 18 Home Games = 1.5 Million $, 21 Home Games = 1.7 Million

 

.....

 

Again, dirty numbers, but at bare minimum I believe that OTR will see an influx of 1.5 - 2 Million Dollars being spent in the bars/restaurants/cafes, etc.

 

If we can retain say, 50% of the fans after the game to hang out in OTR, that's about 2.5 Million Dollars for the entire season.

The problem with talking about the economic impact of anything entertainment related is that it's usually close to zero-sum. It's true that people coming to FCC games might spend ~$100 per person on tickets, dinner, drinks, merch, or whatever. However this isn't usually new spending. In other words, if FCC didn't exist, those people would have spent roughly the same amount of money doing something else that falls into the entertainment category — seeing a movie, going to a Reds/Bengals game, going to the CAC or the Zoo, or just going out for a night of dining and drinking in OTR. So the city doesn't really get much new revenue from FCC, it just gets shifted from other sources. Maybe FCC attracts more people from outside of the region, so we gain a little in that regard.

 

With that being said, that doesn't mean that the infrastructure for a new stadium is necessarily a bad use of taxpayer dollars. I do believe that there are a lot of intangible effects of having a stadium in an urban location. Exposing more people to a thriving urban environment is going to improve the perception of the city which will have positive spin-off effects that won't even be felt until years later. Additionally, the city will now have an excuse to replace old infrastructure that needs to be replaced anyway.

The problem with talking about the economic impact of anything entertainment related is that it's usually close to zero-sum. It's true that people coming to FCC games might spend ~$100 per person on tickets, dinner, drinks, merch, or whatever. However this isn't usually new spending. In other words, if FCC didn't exist, those people would have spent roughly the same amount of money doing something else that falls into the entertainment category — seeing a movie, going to a Reds/Bengals game, going to the CAC or the Zoo, or just going out for a night of dining and drinking in OTR. So the city doesn't really get much new revenue from FCC, it just gets shifted from other sources. Maybe FCC attracts more people from outside of the region, so we gain a little in that regard.

 

With that being said, that doesn't mean that the infrastructure for a new stadium is necessarily a bad use of taxpayer dollars. I do believe that there are a lot of intangible effects of having a stadium in an urban location. Exposing more people to a thriving urban environment is going to improve the perception of the city which will have positive spin-off effects that won't even be felt until years later. Additionally, the city will now have an excuse to replace old infrastructure that needs to be replaced anyway.

 

I believe that the fcc fan Survey indicated that a massive amount of the season ticket holders lived outside of the city of Cincinnati and a huge amount lived in warren county.

 

If I recall it was like 60-70% of the Holders.

 

So I imagine a large majority of those fans coming to the games would have probably spent there money at the Apple bees/tgi Friday at the liberty township mall.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that different entities collect different types of tax.

 

If spending shifts from Warren County to Hamilton County, per your example, then Hamilton County benefits from the additional sales tax revenue that is collected on tickets, merch, restaurant/bar tabs, hotel stays, etc. The County will also get the revenue from the parking garage that they have agreed to construct and potentially additional property tax due to property values around the stadium rising.

 

However, the City of Cincinnati does not get any revenue from sales tax, it only gets revenue from income tax and property tax. If the stadium actually results in additional restaurants and bars opening, or existing ones hiring more staff, then Cincinnati will benefit from the income tax on those workers' paychecks. Also, under the City's current method of calculating property tax rates, the City does not actually get any more revenue when property values rise. This is a very bad policy that can change if the mayor and council choose to do so.

^You don't think stadiums have an impact on the mindset of kids and affect how they learn to appreciate urban areas? I think I was positively impacted by going to Reds games downtown my whole childhood. It was practically my only experience in a truly urban environment growing up.

 

I'm still dubious of the claim that stadiums have no net economic impact on a city. I don't think they are wise investments, in general, for a city to bankroll, but I do think they are, in general, positive for the community as a whole. I certainly think they have a strong impact on a neighborhood, even if it draws some entertainment dollars from other sources.

 

I don't doubt that kids visiting downtown to attend ballgames has an impact on their perception of downtown. I was referring to new stadiums spurring additional development. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

A boom of development instigated by a new stadium project is pretty uncommon. There are only so many bars and restaurants that can be built and generally I think people are averse to living or staying close to open air stadiums - they're noisy, they bring large crowds and congestion, and shine bright lights until 11pm.

 

I generally advocate for stadiums to be grouped together as much as possible in pre-existing downtown entertainment districts.  In ranked preferred location order I'd say:

 

1. Pre-exiting entertainment district

2. Downtown

3. Suburb

4. Exurb

5. Rural

6. Urban waterfront on a river

7. Urban waterfront on a large lake or ocean

Yeah putting the Reds and Bengals stadium out in the middle of a cornfield would be way better then the current setup at the banks....

It's not typical for stadiums to have that sort of impact.

 

This kind of a dirty projection.

 

FCC in the MLS will have 17 Home Games, 1 Friendly, and 3 potential Home Playoff Games (and potentially 1 all star home hosting possibility)

 

FCC says they want the stadium have a capacity of 28K.

 

Lets assume 10% of those fans, only 2,800 fans goes to dinner/drinks before + after the game, and spend roughly on average 10$ per person.

 

If we host 18 Home Games that equates to roughly an additional 1 Million dollars being spent in OTR.

 

If we host 21 Home Games that equates to 1.1 Million Dollars being spent in OTR.

 

 

I imagine the total will be more than 10%. I imagine that it will be close to 30% of fans hanging out in OTR before/after during home games.

 

30% = 8,400 Fans, = Min 10$ per/fan = 84K per/game, 18 Home Games = 1.5 Million $, 21 Home Games = 1.7 Million

 

.....

 

Again, dirty numbers, but at bare minimum I believe that OTR will see an influx of 1.5 - 2 Million Dollars being spent in the bars/restaurants/cafes, etc.

 

If we can retain say, 50% of the fans after the game to hang out in OTR, that's about 2.5 Million Dollars for the entire season.

 

I like your numbers, I also think there will be other events in the stadium from large to small that will add people to the area. I am sure there will be a few concerts there every year plus, albeit small, there will be a number of clinics and other events held down there, even some HS games that will bring a smaller amount of people to the facility and increase its use.

Aaron Renn at Urbanophile.com has a great article on an alternative way to view publicly funded stadiums.

 

Pro Sports As Naming Rights Deal: http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/11/08/pro-sports-as-naming-rights-deal/

 

Let’s assume that when you add up all the lost revenues, factor in interest, etc, you are looking at $1.5 billion over time. That’s just a rough, finger in the wind measure.

 

Lucas Oil Products, desirous of building a brand for itself, purchased the naming rights on the stadium for $120 million. This is far from the high water mark, by the way. Reliant Energy signed a $300 million deal in Houston.

 

So Indianapolis paid 12.5x to put its name on the team versus what Lucas Oil paid to put its name on the stadium. This means it needs to draw 12.5 times as many impressions to have paid the same effective rate as a private business that is presumably purely profit motivated. I don’t think it is hard to imagine that the name “Indianapolis” appears or is mentioned on TV with regards to the Colts way more than 12.5 times more than “Lucas Oil Stadium” does.

 

That puts it in perspective. How much money do advertisers pay to get their names on TV? A 30 second Super Bowl ad is $2.7 million or so. That’s what Budweiser pays to get 30 seconds of air time. But when the Colts were in the Super Bowl, the name “Indianapolis” appeared for a heckuva lot longer than 30 seconds. Think about what you would have to pay the TV networks to put your name on the screen and on the lips of the commentators (even that jerk Chris Collinsworth, who has always hated the Colts) as often as “Indianapolis” appears. The price tag would be staggering.

 

Beyond just having distinctive names versus a generic one, sports teams and major events are likely the main reason everybody in America knows where you are talking about when you say Indianapolis, Cincinnati, or Cleveland, but “Columbus” does not have the same resonance.

 

 

^ I remember a few years ago when the Jaguars were talking about moving to London or something like that there was a quote from the mayor of Jacksonville that stuck out to me. "Before the Jaguars we had to say Jacksonville, Florida. Now we just say Jacksonville."

^You don't think stadiums have an impact on the mindset of kids and affect how they learn to appreciate urban areas? I think I was positively impacted by going to Reds games downtown my whole childhood. It was practically my only experience in a truly urban environment growing up.

 

I'm still dubious of the claim that stadiums have no net economic impact on a city. I don't think they are wise investments, in general, for a city to bankroll, but I do think they are, in general, positive for the community as a whole. I certainly think they have a strong impact on a neighborhood, even if it draws some entertainment dollars from other sources.

 

Yeah, I think it would help some economically as Troy mentioned.  I think also the West End site is better Economically maybe than UC, that's just spitballing though, and only because it is a bit more open than UC which can get gridlocked and possibly turn people off from dining before and after...

 

I also think people are right to say that it could have a ripple effect for younger generations.  Maybe not so much people established already in the suburbs with children, but possibly when they retire they can see themselves in downtown/OTR.  Really for me, anything that gets people spending time downtown and OTR is a good thing, and especially now in that area specifically it has really done a lot better.  I don't know how much it would make people look at the old housing stock on Dayton STreet, though and make them want to buy a house there.  To me, that is still a bit of, how do I say without sounding bad, urban pioneerish where you are taking a big risk and you have to be fully committed.

 

Now, something like, purchasing a building on Pleasant Street for rehab or Republic Street, etc., I can see that more at least in the next 5 years if there are still spots left, and I'm guessing that development will travel around McMicken to Mohawk area then down again Central Parkway before we start seeing a lot of interest in the old housing stock of West End.  I could be wrong there though, just my thoughts.

Yeah putting the Reds and Bengals stadium out in the middle of a cornfield would be way better then the current setup at the banks....

 

Compared to other possible uses for waterfront property, yes it would be.

Yeah putting the Reds and Bengals stadium out in the middle of a cornfield would be way better then the current setup at the banks....

 

Compared to other possible uses for waterfront property, yes it would be.

The Cincinnati downtown riverfront has existed for hundreds of years and yet we never were able to make good use of it until the banks was created. 

There's probably multiple reasons for that, foremost, I would guess, being the installation of 71 that cut off downtown from the waterfront. One of those mid-century decisions that is largely considered a bad move today.  If the city ever capped 71, it would improve the area substantially.

The riverfront was quite well used until the 1950s when it started to be demolished for parking lots and highways. 

Ken Broo sez it shall be the West End:

https://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/broo-view-fc-cincinnati-soccer-stadium-will-go-where-the-money-leads-it?page=2

The riverfront was quite well used until the 1950s when it started to be demolished for parking lots and highways. 

 

Actually, it was quite well used up until the two hulking empty stadiums were built. Before that there was nightlife and the thriving produce center.

 

^You don't think stadiums have an impact on the mindset of kids and affect how they learn to appreciate urban areas? I think I was positively impacted by going to Reds games downtown my whole childhood. It was practically my only experience in a truly urban environment growing up.

 

I'm still dubious of the claim that stadiums have no net economic impact on a city. I don't think they are wise investments, in general, for a city to bankroll, but I do think they are, in general, positive for the community as a whole. I certainly think they have a strong impact on a neighborhood, even if it draws some entertainment dollars from other sources.

 

Seeing the WEBN Fireworks from Mt Adams gave me the first taste of urban lifestyle.  It only snowballed from there - so yes this is positive.

^You don't think stadiums have an impact on the mindset of kids and affect how they learn to appreciate urban areas? I think I was positively impacted by going to Reds games downtown my whole childhood. It was practically my only experience in a truly urban environment growing up.

 

I'm still dubious of the claim that stadiums have no net economic impact on a city. I don't think they are wise investments, in general, for a city to bankroll, but I do think they are, in general, positive for the community as a whole. I certainly think they have a strong impact on a neighborhood, even if it draws some entertainment dollars from other sources.

 

Seeing the WEBN Fireworks from Mt Adams gave me the first taste of urban lifestyle.  It only snowballed from there - so yes this is positive.

 

It would've been far more impactful if WEBN could've still afforded the second barge.

Puddle of Mudd isn't paying the bills

 

ribbit...

The riverfront was quite well used until the 1950s when it started to be demolished for parking lots and highways. 

 

Actually, it was quite well used up until the two hulking empty stadiums were built. Before that there was nightlife and the thriving produce center.

 

 

 

Do you remember the days of old riverfront? besides a few produce warehouses and Caddys there was nothing but a sea of parking down there.  It looked like Newport from the Licking River to downtown

The riverfront was quite well used until the 1950s when it started to be demolished for parking lots and highways. 

 

Actually, it was quite well used up until the two hulking empty stadiums were built. Before that there was nightlife and the thriving produce center.

 

 

 

Do you remember the days of old riverfront? besides a few produce warehouses and Caddys there was nothing but a sea of parking down there.  It looked like Newport from the Licking River to downtown

 

I still miss the Old Spaghetti Factory!

The riverfront was quite well used until the 1950s when it started to be demolished for parking lots and highways. 

 

Actually, it was quite well used up until the two hulking empty stadiums were built. Before that there was nightlife and the thriving produce center.

 

 

Lol no it wasn't.  There were a couple of bars and a bunch of surface parking lots.  You seriously are wrong on like 90% of the stuff you post on here.  The park, with underground parking topped by apartments, restaurants, bars, office space and a museum is a million times better then what was there before. 

Hey guys the old riverfront was way better then what exists now

 

 

 

 

VS

 

 

 

I love how bad that old postcard makes us look. Half of the postcard is literally a parking lot.

Puddle of Mudd isn't paying the bills

 

ribbit...

 

That event used to be pretty wild.  They banned alcohol at some point in the early 90s and it's never been the same.  Well actually it has -- lead off with Smoke on the Water, then a bunch of movie soundtrack crap for the next 25 minutes.  Plus the newscasters saying "it gets better every year" even though the second barge has been gone for the past ten. 

 

This was 1992

After over 100 years of flooding, the bottoms were identified along with Kenyon-Barr as needing to be demolished and wiped clean as the city “reinvented” itself for the modern times. The Third Street Distributor began construction in the late 50s as prescribed by the 1948 plan. That began the 40+ year process that got us an almost flood proof riverfront.

 

So, yes, the riverfront as it was ceased to be a viable neighborhood by the 1960s.

On a good night in the 70's two 2nd street bars had more patrons than the entire Banks does today. PB Stadium ruined the Riverfront and it has taken 25 years to come back.

Wait, how is that specifically PBS’s fault?

Yeah...not only do I REALLY doubt your comment holds up to the truth, the 70s were 3 decades before Paul Brown Stadium. Your timeline needs to be compressed dramatically to hold up. That's to say, it doesn't.

 

The fact that ANYONE could possibly think that what we have now, a gorgeous park, a sunken highway that can be built over in the future, a proper street grid, and mixed use development that holds thousands of people everyday, is somehow worse than the massive slab of parking that was there previously is seriously bewildering.

Some people make sure they know what they're saying before they talk while others just talk. For some reason we're supposed to think both approaches are legitimate.

 

Hell, all there was to do in the '70s was to drink and drive around. You only got a DUI if you hit something. Until about the late '90s people got f-ing bored all the time. Home sucked, night sucked, winter sucked. No wonder everybody was an alcoholic and/or constantly taking psychedelics.

Geez. i hope that you guys read plans and drawings better than text.

 

I said two things in my post above.

 

1. "On a good night in the 70's two 2nd street bars had more patrons than the entire Banks does today."

 

Most of you are too young to remember, but that was the heyday of 2nd Street. Every weekend night the crowds spilled out of the many bars. Live music, food, but mostly alcohol fueled. And, it was like Main St. at its peak. Lines formed outside the Spaghetti Factory and other food places. Sleeepout Louie's Caddys, 2nd St. Saloon, etc. And, during the daytime, hundreds of employees of the produce houses swarmed all over the place. One could never find a place to park or a bar or restaurant without a line.

 

2. The second thing I said was that it took 25 years after PBs to get the Riverfront where it is today. The land owners on Second Street started clearing out the produce industry to make way for Riverfront development in the mid 90's. By 1997 (20 years ago), they were all being displaced. Many of the saloons were gone well before that.

 

I point this out, not because I think we would be better off with a raw, gritty riverfront of the 70's but because I am pretty sure that the location of FC stadium in the West End will not bring with it the economic boom that FC is claiming.

Sharon Coolidge

‏Verified account @SharonCoolidge

 

.@JeffBerding stopped by @enquirer editorial board with this @fccincinnati news today: Stadium site selection must be complete, with government approval by March 31. @jwilliamscincy @PBrennanENQ

1:21 PM - 12 Mar 2018 from Cincinnati, OH

 

^ Prepare for another rush job with ordinances supporting the West End location jammed through, with very little time for City Council to actually learn the details or ask for modifications or require a meaningful community benefits agreement. Local media will be consumed with news about the City Manager and Mayor's feud for the next few weeks, so the stadium stuff won't get the attention it deserves.

She also tweeted that Berding says the stadium will be on Central Pkwy to give John Street residents and Taft a buffer.

She also tweeted that Berding says the stadium will be on Central Pkwy to give John Street residents and Taft a buffer.

That's interesting. Must mean they have signed agreements to buy the properties along Central Parkway.

She also tweeted that Berding says the stadium will be on Central Pkwy to give John Street residents and Taft a buffer.

 

I pointed out awhile back here that Central Parkway is 10-15 feet above Central Ave., meaning a sidewalk entrance from the parkway would potentially well above field level. 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1110497,-84.5206499,3a,75y,246.16h,75.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skfITePutb5wTdQH6fQlsgQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

You could conceivably place the concourse on street level like they have at GABP. Based on Berding's comment, I wouldn't be surprised to see the stadium set up with most of the suites on one side and general seating on the other. It would make sense to orient that stadium North South so the Central Pkwy stands might be the main spectator stands with the suites, offices, etc on the John St. side.

Putting the suites on the John Street side will also give viewers a nice backdrop of the Cincinnati skyline.

More Details on Proposed West End Site:

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/03/12/berding-fc-cincinnati-pick-stadium-site-march-31/417145002/

The portion of the property at the NE corner of this site has lagering cellars 40' deep from the Windisch-Muhlhauser/Lion Brewery. Any construction there could be expensive, but potentially very cool if they are able to incorporate them somehow.

Many natural grass playing fields require heating and life support systems for the grass. You might be able to house some of that inside the old beer cellars, if it's not a hazard to do so.