News & Insights
Photo courtesy of: Greg Land
Why transit-oriented venue development is the real test of a sports and entertainment district
Some of the more useful hours of my career have been spent standing in parking garages after the final whistle, watching people try to go home. It is not glamorous work. But twenty minutes in a stairwell at 10:15 on a Saturday night will teach you more about how a district was designed than a week with the site plan.
Opening night won’t tell you much, because everybody is happy on opening night. Neither will the rendering with the sunset and the glowing plaza. What tells you something is the departure: twenty thousand people leaving at once through the same three or four signalized intersections, a couple thousand of them opening a rideshare app inside the same few minutes.
A venue can deliver a terrific game, a sold-out concert, and a premium experience worth every dollar, and still send everybody home irritated. Traffic locks up. Pickup zones jam. The garage takes an hour to empty. The walk to the transit station is dark, and nobody is confident it’s the right way. Meanwhile, the people who live three blocks over are sitting in the same mess, and they didn’t even go to the game.
The temptation is to file all of that under operations, something to be smoothed out later once the building is open and the staff has a season of practice. In my experience, it does not get smoothed out later. Most of what determines how an event night ends was settled years earlier, in the site planning, the parking count, and the phasing.
I have worked on and off with a Big Ten campus in the upper Midwest since 2009, and I have been there for more than a dozen games. Parts of it work very well. Staff load the campus parking facilities in a deliberate sequence before kickoff, and you can see the payoff in how quickly the lots fill and how quickly they clear afterward. Rideshare pickup and drop-off is the opposite. It was never really designed. It arrived after the campus was already built, and it has to operate on streets laid out for a place that grew one building at a time.
Some of that cannot be undone now. That is exactly what makes a new district an opportunity: the same problems are inexpensive to solve on a plan and very expensive to solve once everything is poured.
Venue districts have taken on many new jobs. Restaurants, hotels, offices, apartments, retail, public space, programming on nights when nothing at all is happening in the bowl. That is the whole point of the model, and when it works, it is genuinely good for a city.
It also compounds the site’s hardest problem. A stadium or arena produces a demand curve unlike almost anything else in real estate: tens of thousands of people arriving inside a narrow window, then trying to leave inside a much narrower one. Layer residents, hotel guests, restaurant patrons, delivery trucks, and the several hundred people who work in the district onto that curve, and you have a lot of competing claims on the same street network in the same hour.
The reflex is to add parking. Parking matters, and I say that as someone who has spent a career on it. But a garage is an expensive answer to a question that often has cheaper ones, and every space carries a cost that long outlives the decision to build it.
The gap between the two is bigger than most people expect. A surface space costs somewhere around $6,000 to build. A structured space above grade costs five or six times that. WGI’s 2026 Parking Structure Cost Outlook puts the national median at $33,300 per space, up six percent in a single year, and that is hard construction cost only. Add the 15 to 25 percent that soft costs typically run and $35,000 a space is a realistic planning number. On a 1,500-space deck, that is a $50 million decision before anyone has parked in it, and not one dollar of it is operations.
Surface parking charges you a different way. It is cheap to pour, and it is land you cannot use for the next phase, or the housing, or the park. None of that is an argument for building nothing. It is an argument for knowing what you are buying.
Transit-oriented venue development is really just planning the whole trip rather than the last mile of it: transit, parking, walking, biking, shuttles, rideshare, accessible drop-off, and the curb, where all of those end up fighting over the same forty feet. It is less a philosophy than a way of not being surprised.
When I start a mobility conversation with a venue client, I am not especially interested in the average event. Averages are comfortable and they hide everything.
I want to hear about the worst night on the calendar. The sellout that lands on a Thursday in the middle of commute hours. The arena concert that lets out while the ballpark across the street is emptying. The night the transit system is already at capacity, it starts raining, and rideshare pricing triples at 10:40.
Those nights find the weak points, and they find them while there is still time and money to do something about it, which is to say before the garage gets built.
A plan worth having does not assume everyone arrives the same way at the same time. It gives people real options and then makes those options obvious. Sometimes that is rail or bus. Sometimes it is shared parking across the district rather than a dedicated deck per building. Sometimes it is remote lots with shuttles that actually show up. Often it is something much cheaper than any of that: a walking route from the neighborhood that people will trust after dark, or information delivered early enough to change a decision someone has not made yet.
It also has to be honest about the market. A downtown arena two blocks from a rail station has a completely different menu than a college football stadium drawing from four counties. “Transit-oriented” was never supposed to mean “transit-only.” It means the access strategy fits the place, the crowd, and the calendar you actually have.
A lot of the worst failures happen in very small spaces.
A rideshare driver stops in a travel lane because the pickup zone is around a corner he cannot see. Or a shuttle cannot reach its own loading area. Guests cut across traffic because the signage stopped forty yards short of where they needed it. Deliveries, police access, drop-off, and pedestrians all end up negotiating the same stretch of curb, usually without anyone having decided in advance how that negotiation is supposed to go. You can have enough parking and a station at the edge of the district and still lose the night in the last five minutes of the trip, because nobody staffed a corner or hung a sign.
So the curb deserves the same attention we give a main entrance. It needs rules, defined locations, and the ability to behave one way at noon on a Wednesday and a completely different way at 10 p.m. on a Saturday. The same goes for the walk. Guests have no idea where the city right-of-way ends and venue property begins, and they should not have to care. They experience one route. If part of it is dark or confusing, the whole route is dark and confusing.
The venues doing this well have stopped treating transportation as instructions issued after purchase. They treat it as something that shapes the decision before anyone leaves home.
Sometimes that is straightforward: put parking reservations, transit information, rideshare guidance, and walking directions inside the ticketing flow, instead of three clicks deep on a page nobody visits. Sometimes it is pricing, making early arrival cheaper than showing up at kickoff. Sometimes it is simply giving people a reason to come at 5:30, eat in the district, and skip the rush altogether.
Climate Pledge Arena in Seattle includes a public transit pass with every publicly ticketed event, and puts transit, parking, monorail, rideshare and bike information in one place. That specific program leans on Seattle’s transit network and will not transfer everywhere. The underlying idea does: the trip is part of what you are selling, not homework you assign the guest after checkout.
This pays off well beyond event nights, too. A district with a real mobility strategy uses its parking harder and needs less of it, which frees land for uses that generate more value. Its restaurants do better because getting there on a Tuesday is not a chore. Its residents and employees stop resenting the event calendar.
Owners spend enormous energy on what happens inside the building: the bowl, the premium spaces, the food, the technology, the show. They should. That is the product.
But the decision a fan makes happens earlier than that, and it is rarely about the show. It is whether the whole evening, door to door, is worth it. Ninety minutes in the car and forty dollars in a garage, weighed against a couch and a very good broadcast, is a closer call every year. That is the real competition, and it is not the team down the road.
The districts that hold up over twenty years will be the ones that treated mobility as a financial and development question rather than an operational one, and that planned for the peak without building a place that only makes sense sixty nights a year. Whether they got it right is a question I would rather answer in the garage at 10:15 than in a boardroom.
Eric Haggett is B&D’s Director of Parking & Transportation. He advises public- and private-sector clients on parking and mobility planning, operations, management and financial impacts. His clients include municipalities, airports, event venues, hotels, hospitals and mixed-use developers.
