Do sports stadiums really revitalize neighborhoods?

[samne]

Went to a baseball game in Detroit on a saturday night. Downtown was vibrant pre and post game. It appeared like alot of spill over from the game.

I saw the old location of Tiger Stadium outside the downtown area. In this case and this point in time, I think the new location is a benefit.

Fenway is fantastic. Something special in the neighbourhood.

As for Toronto. The new hockey/basketball arena arguably spurred the south core development of surrounding offices and condos.

The Dome for baseball started the City Place developments. We can argue the design merits all day.

The key aspect of the stadiums and their adjacent developments in Toronto is its access to transit. Union Station which is steps away to the subway and the GTA commuter rail hub.

[MolsonExport]

Me thinks that the 150K people moving to the Toronto area each year were more of a catalyst. Besides, the CN tower, Union Station, and the Exhibition Centre were already there.

[itom 987]

It all depends on what kind of stadium is being built. If the stadium is surrounded by parking lots and has no pedestrian friendly features around it's perimeter completely isolating it from the neighbourhood it is in. That neighbourhood will not change for the better. If the stadium is built without surface parking and has commercial retail units and other pedestrian friendly features along its perimeter and the neighbourhood is welcome to urban renewal the surrounding area will benefit.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by 10023

It depends on the sport as well.

A baseball stadium can certainly do so, especially with the “retro-style” stadiums that have come back into fashion after the horrible monoliths that were build from the 1960s-90s. But that’s because they play 80+ games per year.

An NFL stadium where they play every other Sunday, and then hosts events in the off-season, does almost nothing for the surrounding neighbourhood.

Football also has such a strong tailgating culture that it's hard to square with an urban location, transit use, etc. Many cities have tried but few have succeeded. At least the high cost of parking near some NFL stadiums does force people to carpool at decent rates, but most downtown NFL stadiums are a drag on their surroundings. Most of them try to make it work with an "urban side" facing the skyline/downtown core and a " fan side" facing the required huge array of parking lots (USBank Stadium, Lucas Oil Stadium, Heinz etc).

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think Staples Center certainly injected some new life into DTLA in the sense that it made it more visible on people’s radar and gave them a reason (three-peat Lakers) to visit. But I hesitate to say that it was a direct catalyst for bringing new development and amenities to South Park beyond LA Live. The mini-boom that South Park has experienced is merely part of a larger DTLA revitalization trend taking place over the course of two decades, Staples Center being but one component. South Park still has yet to undergo a true boom like Chicago’s River North or even Portland’s Pearl District. It still feels sparse and spotty, and the much higher-quality proposals we’re now seeing prove that there are better days ahead.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Double L

I reject that Minute Maid Park and the Toyota Center didn't have an impact on Downtown Houston. There used to be nothing over there and now along with help from the George R. Brown Convention Center and Discovery Green Park, there are residential high rises, hotel high rises, office high rises and retail. It's one of the best revitalization's that have happened in the city. Although Minute Maid Park and Toyota Center didn't do it alone, I've always considered them to be a huge success

Some of that was coming with or without TC and MMP.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by samne

Went to a baseball game in Detroit on a saturday night. Downtown was vibrant pre and post game. It appeared like alot of spill over from the game.

But this isn't the question. I think everyone agrees that stadia offer some degree of varying economic benefit. The question is more around the opportunity cost.

For example, no one would dispute that Madison Square Garden delivers economic benefits in its current location. But the site has development rights of six million square feet, directly above one of the busiest transit hubs on earth. This is why there's been a push, since the 1980's, to relocate it to a less prime location. But there are sizable tax writeoffs specifically baked into the present location, complicating the matter. And ownership still insists upon a Manhattan location, which is almost impossible.

[mhays]

The type of parking is part of it...the volume is another. A stadium on the fringe of a downtown should rely heavily on transit PLUS existing garages within a 10-minute walk or so. There should be hordes of pedestrians walking to the stadium.

As for tailgating, it's certainly not necessary. Seattle is an example where there's not much of it, as surface parking is relatively minimal. People do go to bars before Seahawks games though.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Oracle Park arguably did it because it was first to come to an area that was an undeveloped brownfield but Chase Center, down the road, came to an area nextdoor later when that same area was already booming with development and it was opposed by some (especially UCSF staff) as a negative factor, bringing traffic and congestion to the area.

The Washington Nat's stadium did it similar to Oracle Park.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Tailgating might not be a big thing in Seattle, but for a lot of other football teams, it's part of the game day experience (both in the NFL and in college football). For that reason, I kinda sorta understand the sea of parking lots surrounding most football stadiums, but then again, a lot of them aren't in/near the center of town.

Just so long as it doesn't devolve into whatever the hell Bills Mafia does on game days, we're good. That's some straight up Mad Max/Thunderdome shit where apparently Zubaz never went out of style.

[lrt's friend]

Lansdowne Park in Ottawa, which includes a hockey arena and football stadium was redeveloped in the last 10 years eliminating the surface parking lots and replacing it with a mixed use community and a real public park. This has generally considered a success and integrates well with the neighbouring urban community. Access to major events is mostly by public transit or on street parking and free public transit is included in ticket prices. Major events have supplementary transit service, which is very popular.

[The North One]

The answer in general is no, they do not.

But if it comes with mixed use development then kinda.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by samne

Went to a baseball game in Detroit on a saturday night. Downtown was vibrant pre and post game. It appeared like alot of spill over from the game.

I saw the old location of Tiger Stadium outside the downtown area. In this case and this point in time, I think the new location is a benefit.

I think downtown Detroit would be better off now if those stadiums had been put somewhere else. Comerica Park and Ford Field took out a pretty substantial swath of buildings in downtown Detroit, and indirectly led to a ton of other demolitions for surface parking lots. Not to mention that the area around the stadiums are complete dead zones for most of the year when there are no events.

Also, moving the Tigers to a stadium downtown was a devastating blow to Corktown, which existed around the old Tiger Stadium for almost a century.

[Buckeye Native 001]

However nice Comerica might be (never seen a game there) leaving Tiger Stadium/Corktown was just...wrong. I'm too sentimental, but how do you abandon a place that was once hugged by it's fans?

My dad and I went to a game there when I was nine (versus the Mariners, Ken Griffey Jr. in his prime). Enthralled by how close to the action we were, even in the upper deck. This was a huge revelation when my only frame of reference for baseball stadiums was cavernous Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati.

Plus, Sparky still managed the Tigers so it was kind of like watching an extension of the way-before-my-time Big Red Machine.

[badrunner]

Sofi stadium is going to have a huge impact in Inglewood, even though it's a football stadium with huge surface parking lots.

[PhillyRising]

Putting a stadium on the fringe of Center City Philadelphia as originally proposed for the Phillies 20 years ago would have been a flaming disaster.

Our sports complex may not be aesthetically pleasing or based on good urban planning principles...but it works for our region. It has a subway line to it so anyone can take mass transity and it sits at the junction of two major interstate highways.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

My dad and I went to a game there when I was nine (versus the Mariners, Ken Griffey Jr. in his prime). Enthralled by how close to the action we were, even in the upper deck. This was a huge revelation when my only frame of reference for baseball stadiums was cavernous Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati.

I never got to see a game at tiger stadium, but I believe it was the only major league stadium that had an upper deck section that actually hung over the playing field.

Pretty tough to get any more intimate than that, and the antithesis of modern ballparks where it feels like the upper decks are pushed WAY the hell back from the field.

[Comrade]

Salt Lake City built its two biggest stadiums/arenas in the early 1990s and I would say, for the most part, neither have generated much revitalization of their areas.

The Delta Center (now Vivint) opened in 1991 and was built west of the main area of downtown Salt Lake City. The area is now finally starting to see a significant amount of development but it's hard to really credit the arena, as the development came essentially a decade-plus after the arena's construction. The first of the development was Salt Lake's Gateway, but that was built in conjunction with the US and the EPA's Brownfields development - not the arena. So, the mall was built over an industrial wasteland, and railyard. Even still, the Gateway has been largely underutilized and struggles, even today, to succeed.

The second stadium was Smith's Ballpark, built for the AAA team in a residential neighborhood south of downtown. It replaced the rundown Derks Field. It has not had any measurable impact on the neighborhood. It's still significantly underdeveloped today - and the stadium opened in, I believe, 1994.

So, my answer, using Salt Lake, is a no.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by 10023

It depends on the sport as well.

A baseball stadium can certainly do so, especially with the “retro-style” stadiums that have come back into fashion after the horrible monoliths that were build from the 1960s-90s. But that’s because they play 80+ games per year.

The horrible monoliths were in use much more than that because they typically had more than one team playing there. That was the point: because tax dollars were used to build them, cities wanted to get the most for that money, so they built the multi-purpose monstrosities that were jacks of all trades, masters of none. The Vet in Philly hosted both the Phillies and Eagles, as well as Temple football and lots of concerts, other special events. So it was in use all year round and should have had a more consistent economic effect and driven more development in the area, but it didn't. It was famously reviled, and replaced with a retro baseball stadium and a contemporary football stadium, both in the same complex. Only now is there any kind of development going on, even though there is less real estate to do it on because there are two stadiums doing what one used to do.
So it has nothing to do with the architectural style of the stadiums.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Just wondering what your experience is.

Experience when it comes to soccer arenas in particular? At best, fans chanting and dancing.
At worst, riots and violence caused by hooligans from their frustration, that's basically hardly related to soccer.
As the most popular team sport in Europe, (men's) soccer has been like some kind of outlet to anything over here, whether right or wrong.
However, rugby, basketball and handball fans seem much much better educated and mannered. They never cause any trouble here.
Again, soccer is the most pop thing, so it draws all kinds of people, whether real soccer fans or violent frustrated jerks.

As for the urban fabric neighboring stadiums, it obviously all depends on the spot and general attendance, thus on the prestige of a given sport or team. If I remember well, the arena of Paris's top soccer team (the so called Parc des Princes) is surrounded by bars that are crowded and lively on game evenings.
Otherwise, the neighborhood is nothing much special. It is located on the edge of the central city in the 16th arrondissement, a district you probably can't afford to live in, unless you're a qualified millionaire or maybe a poor eligible for social housing. Though in the latter case, I guess you'd have to wait for decades to get your rental social apartment, lol.