Do sports stadiums really revitalize neighborhoods?

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Just wondering what your experience is. These stadiums are often built at an immense expense to the municipalities that pony up to fund them, yet only helps liven up area so much if at all. NFL stadiums are the worst in this regard, only hosting 9-13 games (including pre- and post-seasons) per year typically.

Houston has two in Downtown with only marginal improvement to Downtown residency, pedestrian traffic, new businesses lured and opened, etc... The neighborhood NRG/Reliant Stadium is in is not bad but doesn't evoke development spurred on by a new stadium. The Astrodome, within the same complex, also did not spawn an amazing neighborhood surrounding it in the first place.

So is building sports stadiums and arenas worth the expense and alteration of city blocks/neighborhoods?

I think in Houston's case, its downtown stadiums helped but wasn't a major cause. Houston's Downtown Living Initiative (subsidized residential) and investment into the convention district (which straddles both stadiums) were bigger factors. I think Houston has underrated sports tourism due to the central location of its stadiums/arenas.

[mrnyc]

actually the opposite in some instances. the browns stadium has taken up valuable lakefront property and been a hindrance to development (that why its called the mistake on the lake).

and while its much better to have the cavs in downtown than out in suburban richfield, the cavs arena and indians ballpark took out the historic central market area.

cleveland has been struggling to rebuild around these facilities, with some success and more planned to come, but as with everything around there its a long road.

no san diego condo boxes popping up around them.

[urbanadvocate]

I think it depends on the type of stadium/arena. Football stadiums are soooooo massive with so much parking needed regardless of incorporation into public transit, on top of they are not used much other than a handful of days that they really don't help the urban fabric.

Basketball stadiums are much smaller and I think LA and Sacramento are good examples of revitalization and I will be curious what happens in SF.

Soccer stadiums are the same as BB--both are used more often than football and much smaller. Sacramento and a handful of other cities making the jump to MLS will hopefully be good examples of urban revitalizations.

Baseball is somewhere in the middle. Almost as large as football stadiums but used much more often.

[Nomad9]

As others have indicated here, baseball stadiums seem to be the best bet. They have frequent games from April-September, and there’s something inviting or more leisurely about a baseball game. It’s long, slow, outdoors (usually), and seems to lend itself better to enjoying food and conversation with friends. I.e., like going to a big restaurant patio or beer garden. This contrasts with football, basketball, and hockey, which are faster/louder/more intense. For that reason baseball generally fits better in a neighborhood setting.

Specifically, I think minor league parks can be really good at this. They’re a bit smaller in scale and they often feel like a community park more than corporate mega-entertainment.

[mhays]

They can be good for turning marginal/underused areas into more active areas, particularly if you can fill a large percentage of the calendar by combining multiple sports and other events. But there are tradeoffs and challenges.

Seattle's example combines football, soccer, baseball, occasional concerts, and exhibition hall events such as boat shows in a fairly small area where the Downtown edge meets industrial/rail areas. It works to a point. The bigger events tend to overwhelm everything else. On game days, you don't want to buy a rug in Pioneer Square. Restaurant crowds on game nights tend to be crushes followed by nothingness during the game and not much after.

Of course sports should be near good high-capacity transit and take up as little land as possible.

[Austinlee]

No they don't revitalize areas. They can be a large amenity for that area but with all the traffic headaches and noise and I don't think people generally want to live next to that.

[kingkirbythe....]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Nope. And it is a fucking crime when taxpayers pay for the shrines of millionaire athletes that play on teams owned by hard-ball brinkmanship billionaire owners, run by monopoly leagues, charging eye-watering ticket prices.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...cities/576334/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/s...orth-the-cost/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonno.../#49a9ebf66fb9
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...ports-stadiums
https://dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.co...for_Stadia.pdf
https://www.vox.com/2019/1/31/182044...ayers-billions
http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/classe...20Atlantic.pdf
http://media.clemson.edu/economics/d...ports_pork.pdf

Fuck you, Jeffrey Loria. Fuck you forever, you fucking fuck. I'd tear him a new asshole but he is already 100% asshole. There are no unasshole parts left. He is just a fucking huge fucking gaping fucking asshole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Loria

Ditto

[JManc]

What Molson said..

[Buckeye Native 001]

Initial thought is no, and I'm fourthing Molson (look up Mike Brown, Cincinnati Bengals owner), but there's exceptions and it depends on the design and how well it integrates with it's surroundings. Having visited Nationwide Arena in Columbus this past February, it's really amazing how well it blends in with the rest of the Arena District (then again, the site was formerly a prison so they had a blank slate).

Football stadiums, typically no. Lambeau might be an exception? Miller Park is the only baseball stadium I've been to where baseball tailgating actually works and makes sense. I never got to attend an Orioles game (much less ever been to Baltimore) but their old stadium appeared to be in the middle of a neighborhood.

And then you have places like Dodger Stadium. Gorgeous ballpark, but the city displaced/destroyed a neighborhood to build it. Don't get me started on the lack of access into Chavez Ravine besides two roads. The reputation of LA fans showing up late and leaving early is somewhat undeserved if you've ever tried to attend a Dodgers game on a weeknight.

FC Cincinnati is building a new stadium in the West Side neighborhood, will be interesting to see how that plays out.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Football stadiums, typically no. Lambeau might be an exception?

Lambeau isn't located in what could be called a vibrant/urban neighborhood. it's ~2.5 miles outside of downtown, which in a small town like green bay, is pretty damn far outside of the core.

its surroundings are pretty generically bland/suburban, and the stadium itself is surrounded by the standard moat of parking lots for tailgating.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4884.../data=!3m1!1e3

[Buckeye Native 001]

Yeah, I guess it was just more the fact that it's in the middle of a random neighborhood (albeit surrounded by parking lots). For whatever reason, it amused the hell out of my dad when he did the stadium tour when he lived in Madison.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Nope. And it is a fucking crime when taxpayers pay for the shrines of millionaire athletes that play on teams owned by hard-ball brinkmanship billionaire owners, run by monopoly leagues, charging eye-watering ticket prices.

San Francisco has pretty much avoided that. It did donate land for the Giants Stadium (Oracle Park--formerly AT&T Park) but the construction was paid for by the team. The Golden State Warriors paid for their new arena (Chase Center) all by themselves.

Oracle Park

https://www.sftravel.com/article/cel...-baseball-2018

Chase Center

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick.../#1da428c2a261

Note: In the Chase Center photo, you can see Oracle Park in the background (they are on the same--the T-Third--LRV line). They are both in an area known as Mission Bay which is still a work in progress. The large areas of brown dirt visible in the Chase photo are being developed--the one immediately adjacent to the arena on the bay will be a park and the one in the distance, across a channel from Oracle Park, is known as Mission Rock and will be office and residential towers (site prep in progress).

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Staples Center in Los Angeles has been a huge catalyst for Downtown LA, especially the South Park neighborhood, which was basically a run down area full of 1 story warehouses and is now full of high rise towers, hotels, restaurants, condos with dozens more on the way. Its also the busiest arena in the world since it hosts the Lakers, Clippers, Kings, Sparks, Grammys and dozens of concerts a year. I believe they average something like 250 - 275 events per year, so you can see how valuable that is with 20,000 people attending every night. Additionally, no public financing is ever used in building arenas or stadiums in California, so thats another win.

Of course, thats not par for course for most other situations. I think Petco Park in SD was a great boost, as was the Rockies stadium in Denver, AT&T in SF, and possibly a couple others but for the most part, its not a panacea for most cities, especially smaller cities.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

San Francisco has pretty much avoided that. It did donate land for the Giants Stadium but the construction was paid for by the team. The Golden State Warriors paid for their new arena all by themselves.

chicago has had mixed results on that front.

the Cubs self-financed the recent $600M in renovations to Wrigley Field.

the Bulls/Blackhawks self-financed the construction of the United Center back in the early 90s.

but.....

the Bears demanded hundreds of millions in public subsidies for the big Soldier Field rebuild back in 2003. the stadium is technically owned by the chicago park district, the Bears are merely a tenant, so this was used as one of their arguments for public money ("hey, we don't own the stadium; we shouldn't have to pay for it all by ourselves").

the Sox threatened to move to florida (where there was an empty stadium waiting for them in Tampa) back in the late 80s unless the city/state ponied up money to help them build Comiskey II. the city/state gave in.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the Bears demanded hundreds of millions in public subsidies for the big Soldier Field rebuild back in 2003. the stadium is owned by the chicago park district, the Bears are merely a tenant, so this was used as one of their arguments for public money ("hey, we don't own the stadium; we shouldn't have to pay for it all by ourselves").

the Sox threatened to move to florida (where the was a stadium waiting for them in Tampa) back in the late 80s unless the city/state ponied up money to help them build Comiskey II. the city/state gave in.

The 49ers wanted all sorts of public money including substantial public investment in a new San Francisco stadium and the city effectively handed them their walking papers. So now they have a new stadium in Santa Clara paid for by the taxpayers down there.

San Francisco sued them to block them from using the name of the city in their new, rather distant, location but lost.

Levi Stadium (with lots of parking lots)

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/Sa...s/newindex.htm

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The 49ers wanted all sorts of public money including substantial public investment in a new San Francisco stadium and the city effectively handed them their walking papers. So now they have a new stadium in Santa Clara paid for by the taxpayers down there.

at least they stayed in the region.

in the case of the white sox, i honestly do believe that they would've moved down to tampa if they didn't get their new stadium on the southside.

and while i fully agree that giving public money to multibillion dollar sports industries so that they can build palaces for themselves is really stupid policy, in the case of the white sox, i am selfishly glad that they stayed.

chicago is the only city that has retained its two old school MLB teams in their original locations, which is cool from a history perspective.

if only reinsdorf had rehabbed old comiskey instead of ripping it down..... if only......


i will forever hate that man.



old comiskey. so many great memories!


source: https://www.horschgallery.com/chicag...-park-panorama

[Buckeye Native 001]

29 years later and it's still an absolute fucking travesty.

[suburbanite]

San Francisco has two of the best arena deals in major sports. To be fair though, the Chase Center is a no-brainer investment for the Warriors' ownership group given the even higher prices they can now charge for suites, and the concert schedule they'll be able to put on with the new venue. They will likely make more in the long-run than if they had strictly leased a new arena from the city. That thing is a license to print money, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the most profitable arena in the country.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Nomad9

As others have indicated here, baseball stadiums seem to be the best bet. They have frequent games from April-September, and there’s something inviting or more leisurely about a baseball game. It’s long, slow, outdoors (usually), and seems to lend itself better to enjoying food and conversation with friends. I.e., like going to a big restaurant patio or beer garden. This contrasts with football, basketball, and hockey, which are faster/louder/more intense. For that reason baseball generally fits better in a neighborhood setting.

Specifically, I think minor league parks can be really good at this. They’re a bit smaller in scale and they often feel like a community park more than corporate mega-entertainment.

yes good call and that is interesting when you get away from the major leagues.

for ohio the minor league ballparks in akron and toledo are fit into their sites excellently and into their downtowns well enough to draw some walking distance spillover activity in the surrounding neighborhoods. the new clippers ballpark in columbus is much more connected to the city than the old one was, too. the dayton ballpark not so, people tend to come and then leave, there isnt much to do walking distance, but it does have by far the highest attendence of any minor league park since it was built. all of them are a great time and have livened up their downtowns at the least.

and btw the two nyc minor league ballparks are kind of like the dayton version. they are a great time, but not really any nearby spillover effect that wasn't or would not be there anyway (ie., empire outlets mall and coney island).



akron rubber ducks canal park





toledo mudhens fifth third field





dayton dragons fifth third field




columbus clippers huntington park

[suburbanite]

I love minor league downtown ballparks. Such quintessential Americana.