San Francisco also had that setup as well. So did the Steelers. To be honest at some point all of them pretty much did it’s just some looked worse than others. Off the top of my head I can’t think of a franchise that had both sports and isn’t an expansion team that didn’t share a field besides the Cowboys. Maybe
@selmaborntidefan knows.
There's a key point to remember in the whole thing - baseball was more popular than football until 1965. Then the two sports traded off year after year until 1972. Football has been the most popular sport every single year the last 50 years - and that creation of revenue has made it more justifiable and feasible to have multipe stadiums.
It's not two stadiums that were the problem: the city of New York had THREE MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL stadiums from 1923 until the Dodgers and Giants left in 1958 - and then they turned right around and built another one (Shea) that opened in 1962. Boston had two stadiums as did Philly and Chicago. The only city that had two baseball teams but used only one stadium was St Louis - and in a cruel irony, the team that built it wound up losing it to the usurper (Cardinals) because that team became an NL version of the Yankees (to a lesser degree), winning World Series in 1926, 1931, 1934, 1942, and 1944 - and losing it three other times. It should perhaps also be noted in those days that the St Louis University football team used the same stadium.
Part of what kept baseball popular for so long is that as the population moved, so did teams. Boston, Philly, New York, and St Louis all lost one team - and when the St Louis Browns became the only one of those teams to move east (to Baltimore), the Senators moved west to become the Twins (which helped push the Braves out of Milwaukee and down to Atlanta).
The key point, though, was this: baseball stadiums were usually built in cheap sections of the city (not to sound racist but GENERALLY in areas with heavy concentrations of minorities who were displaced) - and prior to the early 1970s, it made absolutely no sense to have separate stadiums for football.
Why?
1) Football only played 14 games, so why build an entire stadium for use only 7 times in a year?
2) Baseball was still older and tended to have the stadiums already built - so it made more sense to find a way to accomodate football for those 7 games in markets. And it helped the baseball owners make more money for doing nothing more than renting out the stadium.
And that gave rise to the cookie cutter stadiums of the 1960s and 70s - Fulton County (Atlanta), Busch (St Louis), Veterans (Philly), Three Rivers (Pittsburgh), Riverfront (Cincy), Candlestick (San Fran), Oakland Coliseum, Jack Murphy (San Diego) and RFK (DC). In Kansas City, the expansion Royals (1969) and KC Chiefs (1963) played in the old Municipal Stadium that had housed the A's between their leaving Philly and arriving in Oakland. KC did it right, building a baseball stadium (Royals now Kauffman) AND Arrowhead for football. In Dallas, the Cowboys were there long before the Rangers arrived in 1972 and already had Cowboys Stadium open.
Of course then football got to where it could stand on its own. Their most important assets were that they understood how to show games on television (baseball took forever to figure it out), and Commissioner Pete Rozelle was a public relations wizard.
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION
None. Every single city that has both sports and is not a RECENT expansion team (e.g. the Houston Texans) has shared a stadium with a baseball team - except Dallas, and they don't count because the separate stadiums were already in existence when the Rangers moved to Arlington in 1972. Even had they moved earlier, the Cowboys played in the Cotton Bowl.
