March 11, 2011
Falcons stadium site is bleak, uninviting
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which is doing a great job of actually researching the Atlanta Falcons' $700 million stadium proposal instead of just reprinting what the team and elected officials say like so many papers do, takes a look today at whether the stadium would be a catalyst for the surrounding neighborhood. Verdict: Not too likely, mostly because it's not much of a neighborhood to begin with:
Once pedestrians pass the restaurants and a few converted condos, however, the area becomes less inviting. Train tracks cut through the area, pushing low-slung, two- and three-story vacant buildings right up to the sidewalk. Walking is hazardous. Uneven pavement juts up in places and the sidewalk becomes increasingly narrow. The NFL has few such uninviting thresholds.
The AJC cites local urban designer Cassie Branum as saying that successful entertainment districts near baseball parks usually feature strong transit, viable community leadership, and walkable blocks. All of which is true, but another commonality is that they were almost always at least partially developed before the stadium came into being. The number of "just add stadium and stir" entertainment districts can be counted on the fingers of ... let's see, how is that D.C. entertainment district coming? Anyone? Hallooooooo?
March 01, 2011
Economists: Falcons stadium would benefit only Falcons
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Sunday polled several economists on the likely economic impact of a new Atlanta Falcons stadium, and found pretty much what you'd expect:
- "Economists have studied the economic impact of stadiums to death, and the clear consensus is that there is no positive impact," said author and sports economist J.C. Bradbury of Kennesaw State University. "Economists don't agree on a lot, but right wing, left wing, they all agree on that."
- "The team gets to keep the lion's share of local revenue. That's why they want a new stadium," said Dennis Howard, professor of business at the University of Oregon and an expert on sports financing. "My question would be, 'What's in it for the state of Georgia? What's in it for the city of Atlanta?'"
- Hotel tax collections could be going to everything from schools to public safety officers to road repairs, said Victor Matheson, economics professor at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. "It is basic human nature that people tend to be cavalier with 'free money,'" he said. "You win $1,000 in Vegas and you spend a bunch of money on things you never otherwise would. Hotel taxes seem like free money to municipalities because no voters are paying for them. Thus, this money is more likely to be wasted than taxes that you had to 'work' for. Doesn't mean that this is smart economic policy, however."
A new stadium would presumably be far more lucrative to the Falcons, though the AJC article doesn't say; it notes that the team was worth an estimated $831 million in 2009 (team owner Arthur Blank bought the Falcons for $545 million in 2002), but not how much that would be affected by a new stadium.
AOL News, meanwhile, has a decent summary of the AJC findings, though it then adds this about the Braves' stadium across town:
While the downtown Denver area got a boost from the opening of Coors Field, Turner Field has not spurred development. The Braves like it that way. They do not want fans spending money on high end restaurants outside the gates of Turner Field. They want that money spent inside.
Actually, construction in Denver's LoDo area peaked before Coors Field was built, and then leveled off thereafter (no link to the actual development timeline handy — I think I have a paper copy somewhere &mdash but here's a summary of the effects). Nobody wants fans spending money outside the gates, which is why even teams with stadiums in thriving neighborhoods want to add more inside-the-gates buying options. At taxpayer expense, preferably.
February 23, 2011
Falcons, stadium authority start talks
The Atlanta Falcons and the Georgia World Congress Center Authority say they've entered into a memorandum of understanding about building a new $700 million stadium just north of the authority-owned Georgia Dome. Unlike some MOUs, though, this one apparently just means they're officially beginning negotiations:
The next step, officials said, will be for Falcons and GWCCA leaders firm up plans for the facility, iron out revenue sharing, work out how much the state and the Falcons will pay toward construction and determine lease terms.
Also in the mix could be naming rights for the facility, the field and the scoreboard.
Mere details!
Authority officials said initial plans are for taxpayers to kick in about half the construction cost, though obviously a ton depends on whether revenues like naming rights count towards the public's share or the team's share. The Georgia Dome would remain standing, which seems fair enough since it would only be 25 years old when the new stadium opens in 2017 as currently planned; still, does any city really need two football stadiums half a mile apart? Even if you accept the argument that the city needs a dome to host the occasional NCAA Final Four, that's going to make for an awful lot of maintenance costs to be paid for with a tiny handful of events. Yet another reason not to take this too seriously until we see the actual numbers.
November 18, 2010
NFL actually shuns "elements" for Super Bowls
Political blogger Kyle Wingfield ("The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's 30-something conservative" — when he turns 40 does he have to quit, or just get a new tagline?) notes some curious history to the NFL's statements on the Atlanta Falcons stadium dispute: Namely, whereas last week commissioner Roger Goodell declared that the Falcons need a new open-air stadium because the Super Bowl was "meant to be played in the elements," back in 1989 the initial push that got the Georgia Dome built was in part because, as then-Atlanta Super Bowl committee chair Norman Braman put it, "No dome, no Super Bowl."
Furthermore, notes Wingfield, even when the NFL has a choice, it steers clear of those pesky elements:
Twice the Super Bowl has been played in a stadium with a retractable roof. On neither occasion was the roof kept open for the game. (During one of them it was raining, but rain must represent the wrong kind of "elements" for championship football.) Three of the next four Super Bowls, the only future games whose sites have been determined so far, will be played in stadiums with roofs.
Wingfield's reasonable conclusion: "It's fairly obvious that the NFL's 'elements' talk is all about boosting the Falcons' bid for a new home." What, league commissioners changing their arguments depending on the situation? I can't imagine that happening.
November 16, 2010
SD columnist: If you build it, Super Bowls won't come
San Diego Union-Tribune columnist Tim Sullivan, who I've cited (and has cited me) before, picks up the issue of Roger Goodell's attempted Super Bowl extortion plot today and runs with it:
As San Diego wrestles with the question of how much to prostrate itself for the preservation of pro football, Atlanta's experience ought to be instructional. The notion that building a new playpen for the Chargers will ensure multiple Super Bowls in reasonably short order is neither guaranteed nor probable. Too many other cities are chasing that plum to expect that the NFL would confer special status on any second-tier market, however wondrous the weather. ...
Nailing down a couple of Super Bowls would be nice, but protecting the taxpayers should be paramount. Much as pro franchises are prized, a city must be prepared to say no when a team's demands become excessive.
Exactly where that point falls is subjective. But when an 18-year-old stadium is too old, we're probably in the ballpark.
My only gripe: Sullivan stole my line about the Georgia Dome being "older than Miley Cyrus." Dude.
UPDATE: Sullivan just emailed to inform me that he actually came up with the Miley Cyrus comparison independently. Apologies to him for any aspersions cast, and you know what this means: It's not plagiarism, it's a meme.
November 15, 2010
Goodell to Atlanta: No Super Bowl without new stadium
I was asked by a reporter on Friday whether, given the economy and its effects on public treasuries, the push for taxpayer financing for stadiums and arenas wasn't in the process of fizzling. It's a question I get a lot lately, and I always have to patiently explain: What, you think just because banks were failing during the Depression that people stopped trying to rob them?
If you need evidence, look no further than Atlanta, where the Falcons are continuing their drive to replace the 18-year-old Georgia Dome on the grounds that, well, it's 18 years old, and other newer stadiums are newer. Just listen to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell explaining on Thursday that he'd be happy to let Atlanta host a Super Bowl, just as soon as it does something about that embarrassing stadium that's older than Miley Cyrus, fer chrissakes:
"I think this is a great community," the NFL commissioner said. "But as I mentioned to the people earlier today, the competition for the Super Bowl is really at an all-time high, in a large part because of the new stadiums.
"The provisions that they have for a new stadium in this great community, I think that's a pretty powerful force. We have a history of going back to communities when they have those new stadiums."
Backers of the new-stadium plan say that it "won't cost taxpayers because it will be paid for visitors through the hotel/motel taxes," according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Though, of course, there's still the opportunity cost: If you don't raise hotel/motel taxes for a stadium, you can do it for something else; or don't raise them, and allow your local hotels and motels to be more competitive and draw more visitors. The AJC also claims that when Atlanta hosted the Super Bowl in 2000, it "had a reported economic impact of of $292 million," though other estimates show the city actually losing money.
Noah Pransky at Shadow of the Stadium notes that Goodell's statement is a classic "non-threat threat," in the fine tradition of the Vercotti Brothers. Pransky also observes that if the Georgia Dome is being marked for death now, Raymond James Stadium in Tampa could be next:
It seems from the arguments put forth that the Falcons aren't worried about losing money on their billion-dollar franchise, but simply think they deserve to make more because other teams in the league are making more...
Furthermore, one can only wonder if Goodell will imply Tampa needs a new stadium down the road if it wants to host another Super Bowl. Raymond James Stadium, after all, has 7,000 fewer seats than the Georgia Dome. It opened in 1998, six years after the Georgia Dome, and it will be paid off on Jan. 1, 2027, also six years after the Georgia Dome.
Goodell's exact words on this subject on Thursday: "The bar has been raised because you're getting great facilities around the country in great communities." In other words, every new stadium that opens is an argument for building more new stadiums. Now there's a business model — at least until you reach the stadium event horizon.
September 30, 2010
Falcons stadium talks still ongoing
If you were wondering whether the Atlanta Falcons still want a new stadium, the answer is: You betcha.
"We're meeting about every three weeks with the Falcons," Georgia World Congress Center Executive Director Frank Poe told the Chronicle. "One of the key position points for them is really understanding when. When is that point in time that they need to have a new facility available for them. They're working through their own decision processes to reach that point."
Poe said that the Georgia Dome could be upgraded for $400 million, or a new stadium (presumably open-air) built for $800 million. An extension of the hotel/motel taxes that are being used to pay off the Georgia Dome (through 2018) could help pay some of the cost of a new stadium — though given that the Dome cost only $214 million when it was built way back in 1992 (my god, Designing Women was still on the air!), not a whole heck of a lot of it.
May 24, 2010
Everybody but Falcons still loves Georgia Dome
The Atlanta Falcons may insist that the Georgia Dome is lacking in "fan experience," but the 17-year-old stadium is getting plenty of love elsewhere.
Frank Poe, executive director of the Georgia World Congress Center that operates the dome, insists that it won't be torn down even if a new Falcons stadium is built because it would still be needed for college bowl games and NCAA basketball tournaments. That seems a bit dubious — can you really profitably run a stadium on a few college football games a year and an occasional basketball tournament? — but at least it's nice to see that somebody can run a dome without running up red ink just in operating costs.
Meanwhile, former Georgia Dome GM Khalil Johnson was even more blunt about the state of the Falcons' current home, and what he thinks of their demands for a new one:
Said Johnson, who now works out of Douglasville as a consultant regarding events and venues: "What's the pressing need? More money for the ownership. I don't know how that lines up with what the public wants ... I just question whether the public needs to give more when most of the benefits will go to a private owner."
About the Dome, Johnson said: "It may not be a great building but it's a damn good building. And improvements can be made … The bones of Georgia Dome are good. Ask anybody in the business, and they'll tell you that. It would make more economic sense to improve the Georgia Dome."
Falcons president Rich McKay says that the team is "extremely sensitive to the current economic environment" and that they hope to have a new stadium built in the "next six or seven years." Which should give them plenty of time to find a way to get Poe and Johnson to shut up.
May 20, 2010
Falcons want new stadium (repeat, 2009)
Throw another stadium demand on the fire: Atlanta Falcons team president Rich McKay declared yesterday that his team wants a new stadium to replace the Georgia Dome in the next ... hang on, didn't I write this story already? Wait here.
(Google google.)
Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank ... yesterday reiterated that he wants a new home to replace the 17-year-old Georgia Dome, ideally as soon as the dome's bonds are paid off, which could be as soon as 2015. "The Falcons are falling behind other teams in the NFL in terms of the experience for our fans," Blank told reporters.
The news here, I guess, if there is any, is that McKay said the Falcons want an open-air stadium now, saying a retractable roof would cost too much, and, well, they already have a dome. Not that this excuses USA Today for not even reading the fershlugginer Atlanta Journal-Constitution article they were ripping off before writing their headline.
October 23, 2009
Atlanta suburb votes down Falcons stadium before it's even proposed
Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank has barely even started his new stadium campaign, and already prospective sites are taking themselves out of the running: The tiny city of Doraville (best known, it appears, for being the birthplace of The Atlanta Rhythm Section) voted this week to oppose any plans to build a Falcons stadium on the site of the city's shuttered GM plant. "The county seems to think a stadium would be a wonderful thing," Doraville Mayor Ray Jenkins told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "Our citizens overwhelmingly are not for that." Not that anyone has actually proposed a stadium there — DeKalb County supposedly has a "conceptual plan" for one, but hasn't made anything public — but better safe than sorry.
October 09, 2009
Here comes the next stadium wave
Blame it on Cowboys Stadium, or blame it on Ed Roski, but there certainly seems to be a rush of teams looking to get back on the new-stadium line these days, despite having old stadiums that aren't even of legal drinking age.
The latest is Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank, who yesterday reiterated that he wants a new home to replace the 17-year-old Georgia Dome, ideally as soon as the dome's bonds are paid off, which could be as soon as 2015. "The Falcons are falling behind other teams in the NFL in terms of the experience for our fans," Blank told reporters, in what has to be an allusion to the Cowboys' new building. The Falcons owner was previously reported to be scouting sites around Atlanta for a new building; he says it would be paid for by a mix of public and private funds, which doesn't actually explain anything, but sounds good in the papers.
Also upping the ante: NFL VP Frank Supovitz, who the day before told the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce that the Miami Dolphins' 25-year-old Land Shark Stadium — don't worry, only a couple more months of this before we can go back to calling it Dolphins Stadium — may not be modern enough to host more Super Bowls after this season. "You have to look at what the other cities are offering in terms of comfort," said Supovitz, noting that in Miami fans and players are actually exposed to the weather. "I'm not going to have anyone rained on in North Texas. They're not going to get rained on in Indianapolis." Dolphins CEO Mike Dee said the team is "working with the NFL to see what should be done," which is certainly a nice way of casting the league as Bad Cop should the team demand a new or vastly renovated stadium.
Then there's Milwaukee, where the Bradley Center just turned 21 years old last week, and Ulice Payne, the chair of the arena's board of directors, declared Tuesday that the buildinghas only eight years left before it turns into a pumpkin. (Among Payne's complaints: Its scoreboard is 14 years old, and it has ceramic tiles, which are so 1990s.) Bucks owner Herb Kohl hasn't commented yet, but he's previously proclaimed his desire for a new, younger facility. As for Payne, he first got involved in sports as a member of Miller Park's board, which he then parlayed into a turn as CEO of the Brewers — so it's always possible he's just angling for a job in basketball this time.