And let’s see what’s in the papers today … hello, Oakland Tribune:
‘Stadium effect’ expected to spur office, retail, hotel development
That’s today’s headline about the new San Francisco 49ers stadium in Santa Clara, and is surprising, to say the least, given that pretty much any economist could tell you that an NFL stadium that’s dark 355 [EDIT: or 345 or 350 or whatever; see comments below] days a year is not going to encourage anyone to build much of anything nearby. (Or as the University of Chicago’s Allen Sanderson memorably put it, “There are only two things you do not want on a valuable piece of real estate. One is a cemetery, and the other is a football stadium.”) But the Tribune reports that “roughly $3 billion worth of office buildings, retail centers, hotels and residences are under construction or on the drawing boards in the vicinity of the stadium,” and that can only be because—
To be sure, some of that development would have occurred anyway because of the technology boom that has been underway for the past three years.
Okay, but really it’s because of the stadium, according to—
developers, realty executives and analysts say a considerable amount of the new activity is due to what they call the “stadium effect.”
“Developers and realty executives,” huh? What do economists, planning officials, or really anyone without a vested interest have to say about the cause of the planned developments? Reading the article all the way through … nothing. Oakland Tribune? Are you there? Are your emailing fingers broken? Hello?