Thursday, February 4, 2016

Rays Release Stadium Site Evaluation Criteria

The Tampa Bay Rays sent St. Pete their outline detailing how they will evaluate possible stadium sites in Pinellas & Hillsborough counties.  You can read it at the bottom of this post.

It included:
  • catalyst for development
  • local authenticity
  • regional connectivity
  • site accessibility
  • size & geometry
  • financial feasibility & development readiness
The Rays also said they'd be focused on the "regional business centers," which could mean downtown Tampa, Westshore, downtown St. Pete, Mid-Pinellas/Toytown/Carillion, or any point in-between.  It most likely does not include the State Fairgrounds near I-4.

UPDATE: The Trib's Chris O'Donnell, whom I witnessed working a marathon day yesterday, adds "There is no mention of how much a new stadium may cost or how much the Rays will contribute" and the ConAgra site may be out of the mix because of the time it would take to turn over, while the Times' Charlie Frago and Rick Danielson write "taxpayer dollars a must" and the team is looking to create the next revolutionary stadium, like Camden Yards was in the early 90s.

The Rays meet with Hillsborough County's stadium search committee for the first time Friday morning.  Expect many smiles and vague press conference responses to follow!

“This process document contains the vision and criteria which will guide our search," said Rays VP Melanie Lenz in a statement.  "We look forward to taking a fresh look at all possibilities for our next generation ballpark.”
Document posted several different sizes for different platform users:

FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook


  1. When defining a vision or the "Guiding Principles", any projects will be influenced by the criteria that will established. Some sites are excluded "de facto" which could be see as a negative aspect of the process.

    One question that I have is which guiding principles are established by MLB vs which ones are specified by the Rays?

    Does the MLB have a larger set of requirements or constraints than the Rays?

  2. Noah - could you repost the document again? The right side is cut off and I would like to be able to read the entire document. Thanks for the great website of information.

  3. Interesting that Camden Yards is referenced, which was 96% publicly financed. I wish, instead, that they had referenced AT&T Park which was 0% financed by the public.

    1. I agree, but it can't be overlooked that AT&T Park, which represents the way stadium financing should be, is the exception to the rule of the 20some new ballparks built in the last few decades.