Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
Both the Alamodome and Toyota Field have been economic generators.
The Alamodome was paid off within a couple of years. You don't think all the Final Fours, Bowl Games, baseball games, boxing matches, concerts, conventions, etc, etc haven't brought money to the city?
The same for Toyota on a much smaller scale.
Seriously, they may not have hit their intended purposes (yet) but to call them non economic generators is incredibly incorrect.
|
If you would do a quick google search for "economic impact of sports stadiums", I think you would find that about 90% of the articles in the first five pages at the very least suggest the results are mixed. This Marketplace article is a good short summary:
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/bu...winners-cities
What did the Alamodome bring to its neighborhood? Even when the Spurs were there, St Paul's Square was pretty much a ghost town 90% of the time. Or, an even better example, what about the AT&T center? I'm not saying we shouldn't have built those buildings, stadiums have benefits beyond economics (as any loyal Spurs fan can attest). But to argue for a baseball stadium on purely economic grounds is voodoo economics.
A new stadium certainly wouldn't be a negative, but surely there are better things we could spend our money on towards the end of making downtown a more attractive place?