Super Bowl disappointment

May 22, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
Word of Indy's Super Bowl defeat spread quickly among Hoosiers attending the International Council of Shopping Centers annual event in Las Vegas. Employees at booths for several real estate companies, including Simon, checked news Web sites all morning for updates. "It's a shame," said Mark Perlstein of Sitehawk. "It could have been a major shot in the arm for the majority of retailers in the city." What do you think?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • CorrNDMay 22, 2007 2:27 PM
    Not surprising. Lots more money to be made in Big D and that's what talks to NFL owners.

    Hopefully they bid again next year.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Jim AMay 22, 2007 3:05 PM
    I knew Indianapolis would not get the bid. Jerry Jones has lots more money to throw around than Jim Irsay. They can't say it was because we are a cold city and their not. I've been in Dallas in February and sometimes it can get very cold. I still believe that know matter how good you are money talks and bull---- walks. Both the NFL and NBA are getting to big for their pants.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • AdamMay 22, 2007 3:16 PM
    I think Indianapolis has a lot to be proud of, the Super Bowl is not the end all be all in terms of defining an already wonderful city. Sure, maybe they will bid again, but the reality is - the city put together a first class bid that was hampered by NFL politics. City leaders should now strive to get a college bowl game at Lucas oil stadium - a YEARLY shot in the arm, rather than an NFL controlled weekend without a true Indy feeling.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • ablerockMay 22, 2007 4:40 PM
    It would've have been a great feather in our cap, but definitely nothing to get down about. I hope city leaders regroup and refocus on more permanent things such as city infrastructure, quality architecture, cultural growth, and crime reduction.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • JimMay 22, 2007 9:49 PM
    The thing I don't understand is why it took four rounds of voting. According to the Star...A location needs 75 percent of the votes to win on the first ballot. If no location gets enough support, the lowest vote-getter will be eliminated, then only a simple majority of votes will be needed. How could neither Dallas nor Indy get a majority in the second or third round of voting? It is also very plausible that the Star just reported the voting procedure incorrectly (that'd be a shocker!)
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • CorrNDMay 22, 2007 10:34 PM
    Yep, that'd be incorrect reporting from the good ol' Star. As I understand it, they actually needed 75% of the vote in order to win in the first three rounds of voting, not just the first round. I don't understand why that's necessary when there are only 3 candidates.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • CJMay 22, 2007 10:42 PM
    It's possible that rounds 2 & 3 ended up in a 16-16 tie with a change by one owner to make it 17-15 in the 4th round.

    For the time being, there are no new stadiums on the horizon (at least nothing of the size of Dallas') so it remains to see what the competition looks like for 2012. Try, try, try again!!!
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • JimMay 22, 2007 10:56 PM
    Unfortunately New Orleans will likely get the 2012 Super Bowl.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Think BigMay 23, 2007 9:41 AM
    If Indy wants to jump start its sports initiative, then it should try to attract the headquarters of major sports leagues.

    Over the years, several of the amateur sports groups attracted in the 1980's have left our state.

    Why not re-energize this effort and think bigger. Certainly having the NCAA headquarters located here has benefited our city. Why not attract the headquarters of a growing international sport like soccer? Why shouldn't the NBA be headquartered in the heartland of basketball country?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT