Stadiums can be anchors for related development, say newspapers in search of cheap headlines

You know what I missed while I was away? Having the time to read long, misinformed articles about new stadium projects and how they’re just totally different from those old bad stadium projects of a couple of decades ago. Got anything like that for me, Google News?

With the era of standalone, isolated stadiums largely over, sports team owners increasingly are taking on the role of developer and using their stadiums as anchors for entertainment districts or retail and residential developments.

Oh, yeah, that’s the stuff.

The article in question is from the Tampa Tribune’s Christopher O’Donnell, and argues that this newfangled stadium-plus-other-development model being used by teams like the Atlanta Braves and Detroit Red Wings (or “Redwings,” as he calls them) could be used by the Tampa Bay Rays for a new stadium as well. It ignores the fact that these stadium-plus projects aren’t especially new, going back well over a decade (the St. Louis Cardinals‘ “ballpark village” was one of the earlier ones, but I’m sure I’m forgetting others), and mostly ignores, aside from a comment by stadium architecture consultant Philip Bess (who O’Donnell calls “Phillip” — fired all the copy editors, did you, Tampa Tribune?), the problem that if development around a stadium were profitable enough to pay off a stadium, teams would be able to pursue this strategy without public subsidies. Not to mention that if stadium-related development is profitable it could be pursued without the money suck of a new stadium attached, that it could just end up displacing development that otherwise would have taken place somewhere else in town, that development around stadiums has typically appeared years late when it shows up at all, etc., etc.

Anyway, good to see that these articles still pop up every once in a while for me to throw rocks at, and — whoa there!

The new Minnesota Vikings football stadium, to be completed a year from now, is helping draw nearby office towers, upscale housing and other developments, according to its supporters.

Guys! One article at a time, please! I’m still getting back up to speed here.

2 comments on “Stadiums can be anchors for related development, say newspapers in search of cheap headlines

  1. They’re still flogging that near-dead horse here in Hartford. Now the developer of the ancillary stuff–housing, retail, office–around the “Yard Goats” future stadium is reneging on the promise that it would all be built with private money: he’s gone a-begging to the state for help, aided and abetted by our city’s piss-poor excuse for a mayor. The developer has also pushed back the date for building the housing by 1-2 years; no fool, he. Oh, and the brewery-cum-brew pub deal for the site is on life support; the owner is also begging for state and city money.

    The best part of all of this is that the stadium is the number one bone of contention in this year’s upcoming mayoral election. There are 6 other candidates running against the incumbent–“Done Deal” Segarra–and it’s been a hot topic in the half-dozen debates and forums that have been held so far. Personally, I’m campaigning for candidate Judge Robert Killian, who has said “The minor league baseball stadium is an insult to the people of Hartford”. And he also said “I’m not against development…I’m against STUPID development!”

  2. Neil,
    Christopher O’Donnell spelling Phillip Bess’s first name with one ‘l’ is hardly worthy of your very snarky comment. Look, at the bright side – The Tampa Tribune is not yet a ‘pay-wall’ site, so maybe they decided to fire copy editors to keep access free, which make me all for an occasional ‘typo’.

    And continuing to look on the bright side – no mention was made that Hillsborough County has 80% more citizens than Cobb County, so we did not read about Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken Hagan extrapolating that if the taxpayers of Cobb County can pay $300 million, then the taxpayers of Hillsborough County can pay $540 million.