Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
Interesting little vid from the Globe and Mail about the new Edmonton area deal. City council approved the construction of a stadium funded with large amounts of public money (including 40-some million in infrastructure money), despite a large provincial deficit. Pretty much every observer has decided that this was a profoundly stupid move, and this economics professor in particular suggests that arenas are not really all that effective at generating economic activity that offsets their huge cost (which is actually a pretty well-accepted reality that's been seen in lots of other cities in the past 20 years.)
It is funny that we see enormous support for stadiums and sporting projects, but arts funding gets crapped on endlessly, despite the fact that it almost always generates more economic activity, jobs, etc., on a per-dollar basis.
None of this is to suggest I'm anti-stadium, if the financials work out. I admit I haven't really followed the stadium discussion very closely, partially 'cause it's so complicated and nothing looks imminent. But I can envisage a scenario in which a consortium of developers and sports-industry types promises that a stadium will be some economic golden goose, and a government desperate for public support shells out big time for it, and we all get horribly burned when it ends up being an endless drag. (Hell, Hamilton has a CFL franchise, and the city is an economically depressed punchline. King Street makes Barrington look like Madison Avenue.)
I'd like a stadium, but A: It should pay for itself as much as possible, and B: Public funding for it shouldn't take precedence over smaller expenditures that have more direct and immediate impact (public-realm improvements, arts funding, seed grants for small business, and, on a larger scale, transit. Let me say that again: TRANSIT).
And, totally personal and irrelevant: I'd rather have an NHL team than a CFL team! |
Many cities are building iconic stadiums and arenas and I think in every case it is a mistake. So I don't disagree with all that you have stated.
However, you are using an extreme example to argue against a stadium whereas you could use the practical arenas and stadiums to argue in favour. (please don't respond with a list of expensive stadiums because I know there are many expensive, tax bleeding stadiums and arenas)
Practical Examples:
NHL: Winnipeg's 15,004 seat MTS Centre, which was built in 2004 for $133 million dollars -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTS_Centre. I think this is the right size for Winnipeg; they have a waiting list of people who want season tickets, which from an owner's perspective is better than having empty seats.
MLB: Boston's Fenway Park and Chicago's Wrigley Field - historic baseball parks that residents enjoy. The 20 year old Camden Yards in Baltimore is a fan favourite was a relatively low cost stadium. It started the retro stadium era in Major League Baseball.
MLS: (Major League Soccer) - most stadiums are well enjoyed and are built in a low cost manner - an example is Toronto's BMO Field.
NFL: Buffalo's Ralph Wilson Stadium is one that I enjoyed attending a game in and is a practical design but there aren't many low cost examples in the NFL (Los Angeles said NO to the NFL and their extravagant stadium demands).
CFL: Calgary's McMahon Stadium and Montreal's McGill Stadium.
The CFL is a relatively low budget league (which I think is good) and is best compared to Major League Soccer not the NFL or NHL. However, CFL stadiums must be designed differently than MLS stadiums with more seats along the sidelines. In reality, it is probably not possible to present a business case in favour of a stadium; it is more of a public amenity like a library than a money-maker. However, if Halifax ever decides to build a stadium then low cost stadiums such as Akron's InfoCision Stadium are very enjoyable stadiums, just as enjoyable or even more so than the extravagant, iconic, expensive ones.
Regarding this TRANSIT first argument which keeps coming up, the budget for Metro Transit for the current year is 101.5 million dollars and about $68 million of that is subsidized by tax payers -
http://www.halifax.ca/budget/documents/15Done2012-13MetroTransitBusinessUnitBudget.pdf (it appears as though only $33 million comes from fares and advertising). How much more would you like tax-payers to pay? In the case of transit, I think the best thing is to rationalize it and get the best bang for the buck, not throw more money at it.
Prev
Linear Mode
