Do sports stadiums really revitalize neighborhoods?

[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?

[Coldrsx]

Depends on how you do it.

S.D., Columbus, K.C. Winnipeg, Edmonton... yeah, I think so.

http://oneproperties.com/ice-district/

[LA21st]

Staples surely did. I remember what that neighborhood was before. It was depressing, massive parking lots and so, so empty. Granted, I believe it's the busiest arena on earth (or something iike that) so it's not a typical arena. Pre Covid, that whole area is alive with sports fans at all the restaurants, and not just LA Live either.


It's kind of crazy, I remember when this small building became lofts and the Palm Restaurant opened up. It was a huge win in those days.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0429...7i16384!8i8192

That area was completely dead in the 1990s.

[Steely Dan]

What's kinda funny is that we haven't been able to test the theory in Chicago for nearly a century now.

All 4 major league stadiums in Chicago are located where they have been for at least 90 years, or are located across the street from the original in the case of the two rebuilds.

Sox - Comiskey II (1990) built across the street from Comiskey I (1910)

Cubs - Wrigley Field (1914)

Bears/Fire - Soldier Field (1924) majorly rebuilt/reconfigured in 2003.

Hawks/Bulls - United center (1994) built across the street from Chicago Stadium (1929)



Of the 4, only Wrigley sits within, and is an integral part of, a vibrant urban neighborhood.

Soldier Field sits in parkland along the lakefront. It's kinda downtown-adjacent in a peripheral sense, but it's not really "in" a neighborhood.

Comiskey II and the UC sit within parking lot moon-scapes on the south and west sides, respectively, as they have for decades.

[LA21st]

Wrigleyville is pretty damn special, and you can't really copy it.

[dave8721]

In South Florida-
Marlins Stadium: No, still a poor area, pretty much the only part of the core not to revitalize
Hard Rock/Dolphins/Pro Player/Whatever Stadium its called today: still the same inner burb working class African-American neighborhood, no change for the better or worse in the 30 years of stadiums existence.
Whatever the Panthers arena is called these days: No, still the edge of suburbia. Getting high rises but mostly do the mega-mall regional draw next door.
American Airlines Arena: Not really. The neighborhood revitalized but not really due to the Heat.

[homebucket]

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 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?

Petco Park in SD and AT&T Park, now Oracle Park, in SF definitely did.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Petco Park in SD and AT&T Park, now Oracle Park, in SF definitely did.

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.

[SIGSEGV]

I think a multi-use small stadium might (if people are going to games all the time there, it can help start an entertainment district), provided it's not a sea of parking lots. The key is having events often enough to actually be able to activate a district.

A football stadium no. There are what, 10 home games a year? That's not enough to sustain anything.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I think a multi-use small stadium might (if people are going to games all the time there, it can help start an entertainment district), provided it's not a sea of parking lots. The key is having events often enough to actually be able to activate a district.
.

The good side of an arena like Chase Center is that San Francisco didn’t have a large venue for concerts, things like boxing championship events or any large scale events. The Opera, Symphony Hall and Civic Auditoreum all hold a couple of thousand only. Even Moscone Convention Center has a low ceiling not really ideal for such as political conventions (the old live kind). So Chase will have many uses beyond basketball when allowed to reopen. That it could have some kind of event most days of the year is why the neighbors weren’t thrilled about it coming to the site, even though it has NO parking lot (light rail stops right out front).

[Will O' Wisp]

In general, no. I think the important part is forcing the developers to include housing, non-event related restaurants, and other items to keep them from just building a stadium surrounded by parking lots. That said, it can work sometimes. In San Diego Petco Park successfully revitalized a disused part of downtown

[bobdreamz]

^^^ Those before and after shots of San Diego are impressive.

[Crawford]

I don't think anyone seriously believes this, no.

Sports stadiums don't revitalize neighborhoods. They're often situated in neighborhoods that revitalize, but they aren't the causal factor.

People mentioned Petco Park, to take an example. I have no doubt that if there were no Petco Park, that corner of downtown San Diego would have developed in roughly the same manner as with the park. People didn't buy condos because a baseball team played nearby. People generally didn't stay in convention hotels and eat in touristy restaurants because a baseball team played nearby.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think anyone seriously believes this, no.

Sports stadiums don't revitalize neighborhoods. They're often situated in neighborhoods that revitalize, but they aren't the causal factor.

People mentioned Petco Park, to take an example. I have no doubt that if there were no Petco Park, that corner of downtown San Diego would have developed in roughly the same manner as with the park. People didn't buy condos because a baseball team played nearby. People generally didn't stay in convention hotels and eat in touristy restaurants because a baseball team played nearby.

Crawford, I know you said generally but there are people that have stayed in nearby hotels and are in the restaurants because they were there to see a Padre's game. The development of Petco Park may be the only example since Wrigley Field where it was complimentary to the surrounding urban environment.

I know of at least one academic paper that looked at the issue when it comes to stadiums in urban areas. IIRC, only baseball stadiums stood a chance at revitalizing an urban community due to the number of games they played per week. Football stadiums were the worst because they only played one game every other week.

The Superdome really didn't do much for its immediate surroundings, which is a pity. It has the potential to be better integrated into the surrounding communities.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think anyone seriously believes this, no.

Sports stadiums don't revitalize neighborhoods. They're often situated in neighborhoods that revitalize, but they aren't the causal factor.

People mentioned Petco Park, to take an example. I have no doubt that if there were no Petco Park, that corner of downtown San Diego would have developed in roughly the same manner as with the park. People didn't buy condos because a baseball team played nearby. People generally didn't stay in convention hotels and eat in touristy restaurants because a baseball team played nearby.

I think they can be a catalyst for revitalization, even if it may have occurred on a slower timeline sans stadium. Stadiums provide a baseline level of activity that can support more restaurants, bars, hotels, etc. almost immediately, as opposed to a natural gentrification process that creeps in from bordering neighborhoods.

I think it's also more effective when you're talking about a true greyfield development in an urban dead zone as opposed to a fringe inner-city neighbourhood that had strong potential by itself. The land that Edmonton's ICE District is built on wasn't going to end up looking like that SD photo. It still won't be the same given the nature of a more master planned community, but it's been a solid shot in the arm to a neglected part of the downtown.

Whether the public money put into these projects is justified is a different question. It's been proven time and time again that public stadiums are almost always economic losers. They should probably be considered costs and not investments.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by C.

Crawford, I know you said generally but there are people that have stayed in nearby hotels and are in the restaurants because they were there to see a Padre's game.

Right, no doubt there's business from the stadium, but my point is that the stadium isn't the causal factor for the neighborhood's revitalization.

If there were no Petco Park, there would be something else (condos, offices, hotels, etc.) on the site and the alternate uses would likely generate similar or greater activity. Stadiums are just dead spots most of the time. Even with baseball, you're talking a few hours of activity 81 times a year. A condo or hotel tower takes up much less space and generates constant activity, with less need for parking.

I stay in that neighborhood every year, for a convention, during the baseball season, and the neighborhood is active whether or not there's a game. San Diego has a huge convention center and a bunch of big convention hotels surrounding the Gaslamp, as well as a number of nearby tourist attractions.

[thoughtcriminal]

On their own, stadiums do very little for their neighborhoods - in some cases, they make those areas even less desirable. For example, Subaru Park in Chester, PA, where the Philadelphia Union soccer team plays. Chester is a very depressed smaller city south of Philly. When the stadium was proposed, the governor of pa at the time (Ed Rendell) promised that the stadium would revitalize Chester, bringing all kinds of economic development with it. It has not occurred, 10 years later. No one wants to be near the stadium on game days, with tailgating and drunken fans everywhere. (I am a huge soccer fan, and have been to many Union games, but would not want to live near the stadium.) Other than one supermarket that has been built in the 10 years since the stadium was completed, there has been no economic development there because of the stadium. The stadium provides a few part-time game day jobs, but very few of those jobs have gone to local Chester residents.
It was a huge waste of tax dollars to build that stadium there. Empty promises. The Union are the only Philly area major league team that don't play their home games in the South Philly Sports Complex. They could, and should, play at the Linc, where the Eagles play. They would easily get 30,000 fans at a game in my opinion, enough to fill the lower bowl, whereas the Chester stadium only has a capacity of 18,500, and they don't reach that capacity very often. That would justify to a greater extent the tax dollars spent on the Linc, which only gets 8 Eagles home games (10 if you count preseason games), 7 Temple University home games, a handful of concerts (2-3 at most) and a few other special events. It is in use less than 50 days a year. Having soccer there on a regular basis would more than double its usage days for sports events. And there is more development going on in the Sports Complex area - including a 10-story office building and a video gaming arena, in addition to the casino being built a few blocks away.
So one stadium has done little for one community, but having three in one complex is doing more for another. But the South Philly complex has been there for a long time*, and is only now showing signs of fulfilling its economic potential. There is a residential neighborhood just north of the complex, but it does not really engage with the complex at all, certainly not the way it happens in Wrigleyville. The complex's economic potential comes not from being in a neighborhood, but being separate from it.
*- JFK Stadium was the first stadium built there in 1926, but as a complex (ie, more than one stadium), 1968 saw the Spectrum built, and 1971 the Vet was completed. 2 years later, the Broad Street subway was extended to the complex. In the 1990s, JFK was demolished and the Wells Fargo Center was built on that site. Then in the early 2000s, Citizens Bank Park and the Linc were built a few blocks east. At its peak there were 5 stadium/arena structures in the complex, for a short time, until the Spectrum and Vet were demolished.

[ardecila]

I think the possibility exists for stadiums to do this. As mentioned before, baseball (ballparks) or basketball/hockey (arenas) are better than football or soccer stadiums since they host more events over a longer season. Arenas are probably the best since they have a compact footprint and the indoor venue is better for year-round use for concerts, etc.

Redevelopment can happen, but the planners need to prioritize it, either with direct funding/developer partnerships or at least new zoning. Then the city's economy has to be growing as well, to find people to fill all those new apartments and offices.

Camden Yards in Baltimore was a well-designed urban ballpark with good transit access, which could have spurred nice mixed-use development, but the city made a bunch of mistakes. They put huge roadways and expressway feeders on three sides, severing the ballpark from Ridgely's Delight and Federal Hill. The one urban connection was on the north side, but they filled that area with ugly, fortress-like convention hotels.

[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

[McBane]

Boosters always want to cite places like Wrigley and Fenway. But those are special places wherein the neighborhood grew around the stadium organically over a long period of time, rather than the other way around and surrounded by parking lots and chain restaurants. Also, those fans have, over time, developed a culture for taking transit to the stadiums, minimizing the need for parking. You can't just recreate that, even if you connect the stadium with good transit options. Fans who are used to driving will continue to expect to drive; and surrounding any stadium or arena with a moat of parking around it will make it a challenge to connect to and revitalize its surroundings.