Category: vaportecture

NYCFC releases more pretend stadium images, pretend public cost numbers

access_time personNeil deMause

New York City F.C. officials held a press event last week to promote their new stadium set to open in 2027, let’s see how that went:

Okay, yes, that’s a new rendering. (Or a “model” as the New York Daily News caption puts it.) It’s not exactly an improvement on the last round of vaportecture, given that the entire surrounding neighborhood (plus the Mets‘ stadium across the street) appears to have been demolished and replaced by a gray void featuring only some kind of elevated highway called the “Queens,” but maybe they just wanted people to stop clowning on it as “Naming Rights Sponsor Stadium.” (Team officials said they hope to have a naming rights deal in place by the end of the year, at which point people can clown on it for that name.)

And what about details regarding the possibly $700 million in tax kickbacks and infrastructure spending this all will cost New York City taxpayers?

“When [Mayor Eric Adams] got into office, that’s when the project really started getting some legs, because we were able to present what we really believe is a transformative project for Queens,” [NYCFC CEO Brad] Sims said.

“He was able to say, ‘100% privately financed [stadium]. The city’s in a housing crisis right now. [This is the] biggest affordable housing project that the city’s seen in four decades.’”

I mean, he was able to say “100% privately financed.” He wasn’t able to actually mean it, but he was able to say it. Somebody else — say, a sports economist, the city Independent Budget Office, me — could have told the Daily News otherwise, but as the Daily News didn’t speak to anyone not employed by the team, its readers will never know.

Share this post:

Browns owners want $1.2B+ for Brook Park stadium, or renovations to current stadium as Plan B

access_time personNeil deMause

Yesterday, one day after the NEOtrans blog reported that Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam were set to announce a $3.6 billion domed stadium complex in Brook Park requiring upwards of $1.1 billion in public subsidies, Browns management issued a long letter to fans that said, well, let’s let it speak for itself:

With Mayor Bibb releasing the City’s latest proposal for a renovated stadium last week and the increased community dialogue around our stadium future, including the possibility of a dome stadium in Brook Park, we feel it is the appropriate time for us to communicate directly and share an update on our stadium process.

Do tell!

We do not take the stadium decision lightly, and have been working diligently with city, county and state officials to consider all opportunities.

Undoubtedly. So what’s the update?

We need to be bold, we need to be innovative, and we need to take advantage of this unique moment to create a transformational project not only for our fans, but for Cleveland, the Northeast Ohio region and the State of Ohio.

Uh, sure, okay. And that project is?

While we have considered numerous sites throughout Cleveland and the region, our focus has been on two potential paths for the future of our stadium.

And the winner is…

While significant work remains, the more we have explored the Brook Park option, the more attractive it has become, and we are excited to share the current vision with you.

It’s Brook Park! Or at least it’s renderings of Brook Park:

That definitely looks like a domed something, somewhere! And only most of the fans came to the game with their identical clones! So how much would it cost exactly?

As demonstrated in other markets, a project of this magnitude only realistically works through a public-private partnership. We have approached this as a 50-50 partnership on the stadium, excluding cost overruns, which we would cover. … The proposed $1.2 billion+ private investment in the stadium is unprecedented and would be the largest private per capita stadium investment ever in this country.

So a 50-50 partnership with a $1.2 billion+ private investment means $1.2 billion+ in public money too?

Importantly, we are not looking to tap into existing taxpayer-funded streams, which could divert resources from other pressing needs. We are instead working on innovative funding mechanisms with local, county, and state officials that would leverage the fiscal impact of the project and the unprecedented private contribution to support the public investment and generate a substantial return for Brook Park, Cuyahoga County, and the State of Ohio. While still in progress, our funding model also contemplates setting aside future dollars generated by the project for stadium repairs and maintenance to help ensure long-term sustainability of the building well beyond the initial lease term.

“Leverage the fiscal impact of the project” doesn’t really mean anything, but presumably this would be some kind of kickback of “stadium-generated” tax money, which usually means money that may or may not be newly generated but which team owners can claim is attributable to the stadium. This is what NEOtrans reported, though “setting aside future dollars generated by the project” is a new twist, as it suggests a grift-that-keeping-on-giving plan where addition future tax dollars would be set aside for future upgrades, a la the Atlanta Falcons “waterfall fund.”

But hang on, I feel like we skipped over something:

We have invested heavily in exploring this path and remain engaged with the City of Cleveland regarding a potential renovation plan, but it remains a complex and challenging proposition.

So: The Haslams would rather get a $1.2 billion check (or more) to build a new Brook Park stadium, but “remain engaged” with Cleveland on renovating their current stadium as a Plan B. That’s not so much a decision as a strategy, but I guess is an update of sorts. Plus, didja see the renderings?

Why are all the fans signaling for a touchdown when the Browns appear to be on defense at midfield? Actually, both teams appear to be on defense — what kind of screwy rules changes does the NFL have in store before this stadium opens?

Will future Browns fans really be purchasing en masse jackets and sweatshirts with the Browns logo on the back, not the front? Will anybody anywhere be going to sporting events wearing that hat? Does the woman with her hair pulled back know that stadium security is never going to let her in with that enormous purse/bowling ball bag?

These are all good questions, or at least enough to distract us from the one about where $1.2 billion in public money will come from, which is the whole point of releasing vaportecture renderings.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Kansas-Missouri stadium border war gets hot, yet another non-economist cited as economics expert

access_time personNeil deMause

Happy heat dome Friday! Hope those of you in the parts of the U.S. that are broiling are staying inside watching soccer tournaments and cranking the air-conditioning and … okay, maybe that isn’t the best plan. We’ll try to come up with a better one before the Paris Olympics, which will once again provide athletes from around the world with the opportunity to compete for medals and maybe die of heatstroke. (Or mutant sharks. But more likely heatstroke.)

Where was I? Oh, right, stadium and arena scams, plenty of those to go around while we wait for the world to boil:

  • Missouri elected officials are up in arms over Kansas elected officials’ passage of legislation to allow selling billions of dollars of tax-funded bonds to lure the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals across state lines, and are also prepared to work on their own stadium subsidy legislation in response. “Today’s vote regrettably restarts the Missouri-Kansas incentive border war, ” said Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas, adding, “We remain in the first quarter of the Kansas City stadium discussion.” Missouri House Majority Leader Jonathan Patterson, calling the Kansas stadium bond legislation “a wakeup call to Missouri,” said he expects his state to put together its own legislation later this year. It’s all going according to plan!
  • Meanwhile, some developer dude took it upon himself to hire an architecture firm to design a rendering of a Royals stadium on the Kansas-Missouri border, with most of the stadium in Kansas but the right field wall in Missouri, that wouldn’t cause any problems figuring out which state would collect sales taxes to then kick back to team owner John Sherman. Lots of nice fireworks and people flinging their hands in the air, though.
  • WTOP reported Wednesday: “The projected benefits of a new Washington Commanders stadium being built in D.C., which were detailed in a report the city released last week, are largely honest and reasonable, according to a University of Maryland economist who reviewed it.” Unfortunately, three sentences later the radio news station revealed that Michael Faulkender is actually a finance professor, not economics, which is not the same thing at all. The University of Maryland does have an economist who’s an expert in stadium deals, but WTOP didn’t ask him for his opinion, they must have wandered into the wrong classroom building, that probably happens a lot.
  • Facing a vote on whether or not to commit to spending $775 million in public money on upgrades to Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan’s stadium, the Jacksonville city council yesterday pushed back — on spending $94 million on affordable housing and homelessness prevention as part of an accompanying “community benefits” package. The council says it’ll still come up with the money after taking “some time this summer to work on this,” and it doesn’t affect the $150 million from Khan for community benefits (over 30 years, so really only worth about half that amount), so nothing to worry about, elected officials never go back on their promises!
  • Charlotte was apparently “working on [a Carolina Panthers stadium] deal for a year and a half” before letting the public in on the details, yeah, that might be a story.
  • I personally prefer not to get my news in video form, as you’ve no doubt noticed from the endless scroll of plain text that is this website, but if you do, this report from More Perfect Union on “How Sports Team Owners Scam Communities Out of Billions”  is worth checking out: It has me in it, and also an A’s fan organizer saying “we’re all about kicking John Fisher in the nuts,” what’s not to like?
Share this post:

Kansas legislators’ plan to funnel $2B+ in sales taxes to Chiefs, Royals stadiums is dead — for now

access_time personNeil deMause

At last word last night, the Kansas legislature was set to vote on a bill to provide $2-3 billion in sales tax kickbacks toward potentially two new stadiums for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals. How did that work out?

Renderings from Manica Architecture show a potential domed-stadium for the Kansas City Chiefs

Thanks, don’t really want to see renderings right now. Did the bill pass or not?

Stadium architect shares renderings hoping to bring Chiefs to KCK

The funding bill. What happened to the funding bill?

Here’s what a Chiefs stadium in Kansas could look like, and some necessary context

Didn’t anybody go to the last night of the legislative session? ESPN, whatcha got?

An effort to help the Super Bowl champion Chiefs and the Royals finance new stadiums in the state fizzled over concerns about how it might look to taxpayers.

Okay then!

The failed bill was what’s called in Kansas a STAR bond, but is broadly known as a STIF, or sales tax increment financing. The idea would be that all new sales tax revenue from in and around each stadium would be kicked back to pay the teams’ construction costs. Crucially, the state of Kansas can issue STAR bonds without a public referendum, so the legislature could have approved it without any risk of it failing at the ballot box like happened across the border in Jackson County, Missouri.

How would the math have worked out on raising $2-3 billion just from new sales tax revenues? Really, really badly, according to University of Colorado Denver economist Geoffrey Propheter:

Expanding all those abbreviations: If Kansas spent $4 billion on stadiums including infrastructure, the state’s annual debt service on bonds with a 4.5% interest rate would be $250 million a year. For the state’s sales and use tax to cover those debt payments, each and every Royals fan who showed up in a given year would have to spend $700 on taxable goods; each Chiefs fan, because they sell fewer tickets per year, would have to spend $2,100. And, Propheter notes, that might not even include tickets, since there’s been no indication of whether sports tickets would be exempted from the sales tax, or other lease details like whether the teams would pay rent.

But anyway, the legislature has now adjourned for the year without voting on the stadium bill, so we don’t have to worry about — oh, what now?

Lawmakers expect [Democratic Gov. Laura] Kelly to call a special session of the Legislature to try to get lawmakers to pass a tax plan that she will accept — and they could consider the stadium financing proposal then.

“We just need a little time on it. We’ll be OK,” said Senate President Ty Masterson, a Wichita Republican. “I mean, we’re serious about trying to incentivize the Chiefs to come our direction.”

Masterson later said he didn’t call for a vote on the bill because of “concern” about not passing income, sales, and property tax cuts for Kansas residents before “what appears to be corporate welfare,” showing an admirable ability to say the quiet part loud.

So, we know nothing just yet, other than that a plan to funnel as much as $3 billion to Chiefs and Royals stadiums remains on the table, or in legislators’ pockets, or somewhere in the state halls of power. Fine, let’s look at some renderings:

I mean, that looks like a football stadium, yes. Not sure why everyone in the stadium thinks that they need to put the flashes on for their phones while taking pictures of a game hundreds of feet away in broad daylight under a translucent roof, but then, this is a rendering drawn by an architect not connected in any way with the Chiefs, so it means even less than the usual vaportecture. Hey, maybe we could adapt that term for bills that haven’t been voted on and don’t have real details: vaporslation? Gotta workshop that to be ready for the Kansas special session.

Share this post:

Arizona Cardinals renovation plans break new ground in catering to rich people

access_time personNeil deMause

The Arizona Cardinals ownership announced a bunch of stadium renovation plans yesterday, and since the only outlets reporting on it were the tattered remnants of Sports Illustrated and The Athletic and they pretty much just reprinted the press release, there’s no way of knowing how much the work will cost or who will pay for it. So for the moment, let’s just enjoy some of the more bonkers aspects of the renderings, because there are plenty.

First, though, let’s visit part of the press release, which is bonkers in its own way:

Last year, the Cardinals had the least expensive gameday experience in the NFL according to Team Marketing Report’s 2023 Fan Cost Index and affordability will remain in 2024. In addition, those fans seeking an unparalleled, upscale way to enjoy Cardinals games at State Farm Stadium will have an array of breath-taking new options starting this season.

Translation: “We’re charging our fans less than any other team! We want to keep things affordable, but we also want to charge as much as possible to people who can afford it, so here’s some stuff we think we can get away with charging through the nose for!”

Like what? Like this:

This is being dubbed a casita, or mini-house, which in this case means ripping out the seats behind the end zones and replacing them with tiny lounge areas with seating outside of and on top of it, to be enjoyed by … I’m sorry, what are these people wearing to a football game? Is there a heterosexist business executive cosplay convention in town? That would explain why there’s no one else at all in the stadium, though it’s left to the imagination what everyone here is watching if it’s not a football game.

Not to be confused with the casitas is the Casita Garden Club, which has no actual casitas, but does offer the chance to take photos of the Cardinals players while they … taunt you? I honestly can’t figure out what’s going on here, but I do wholeheartedly approve of the choice to show one of the clip-art fans facing away from the players she or her corporate employer paid so much for her to be near, the better to use them as a backdrop for her selfie.

Then there are the “field seats” built right out onto the field, or at least into the sideline area. Again, this is an extremely poorly attended game, despite the opportunity to, apparently, walk right up to the visiting team as they take the field, or even go on the field yourself, not like there’s a barrier or anything stopping you. Maybe this will be the ultimate premium experience, where if you pay enough for a ticket you can actually be a part of the game? In that case these fans are definitely dressed all wrong for it, at least one of the guys in the second image is wearing a souvenir jersey — and, it appears, possibly souvenir shoulder pads — so he might last a few seconds before going down with a traumatic brain injury.

All this, plus “an array of all-inclusive high-end menu offerings and handcrafted cocktails, beer and wine,” can be yours for only … okay, pricing isn’t available yet, but just put down a $10,000 deposit and we’ll start there. If these plutocrat pens can pay for themselves, more power to the Cardinals for identifying a market, I guess, but it’s absolutely a sign that income inequality is way out of control.

Share this post:

Ex-Jazz owners propose Salt Lake development with MLB stadium that would cost (checks notes, coughs uncomfortably, looks down at shoes)

access_time personNeil deMause

One day, I try to take one measly day off of posting, and then this goes and happens:

The Larry H. Miller Company intends to put at least $3.5 billion into a mixed-use development on Salt Lake City’s long-overlooked west side, including a potential Major League Baseball stadium.

Blah blah, “transformational,” “catalytic,” “once-in-a-generation opportunity,” what’s the public price tag, I don’t got all day here, Deseret News:

Thursday’s announcement didn’t include specific details about the proposed ballpark. Big League Utah recently said it envisions a year-round, multiuse stadium for all kinds of events from sports to concerts to community celebrations.

Construction of a ballpark would likely include some public investment. State government officials are averse to diverting taxpayer dollars directly but have acknowledged tax increment financing or a public-private partnership could be options.

Reading between the lines, that comes to “It wasn’t in the Miller Company’s press release, and we didn’t take the time to ask.”

But look, there’s a rendering!

Not a whole lot of detail there, though it has one of those translucent roofs that are all the rage, revealing some kind of fan concourse above the top level of seating and with no actual concessions or even restrooms? Also lots of umbrella tables on the outside of the stadium for fans to sit at during games, this must be in the Stadiums Pro 2024 Clip Art package, because everybody sure is using lots of them.

Needless to say, Salt Lake City doesn’t not have a major-league baseball team, so this would presumably be a plan to keep in the Miller family’s back pocket should an expansion franchise become available, or maybe the Oakland A’s, who knows? But anyway, they’re undoubtedly hoping that “$3.5 billion in private investment” sticks in people’s heads for long enough that they won’t bat an eye when they see how many billions taxpayers may have to put up for the stadium part — umbrellas don’t actually grow on trees, you know!

Share this post:

Renderings for new White Sox stadium are wonderland of fall risks, hoverkayaks

access_time personNeil deMause

We got Chicago White Sox vaportecture renderings! Rack ’em up:

Credit where credit is due: Whoever drew these up used a ton of clip art people (“entourage,” in industry lingo), and that really makes the scene at the proposed South Loop site look super lively. Also, the rendering designers sure do like terraces, don’t they? There are terraced balconies on the building across the plaza from the stadium, terraced levels in the plaza itself, terraced picnic table areas on the outside of the stadium where fans can sit and watch the plaza. They’re extra-attractive thanks to the only guard rails being glass and maybe three feet high, but what’s a little risk of falling to your death compared to unobstructed terrace views?

Also a nice touch: Working the team name vertically into the design of the stadium exterior wall, though rebranding the team as the “Chicacago White Sox” may be slightly controversial among traditional fans.

A river view this time, the better to show off the classic Chicago practice of standing up in your kayaks — or hoverkayaks, since according to their reflections they’re suspended a foot or two above the water. On the big screen, we see that Michael Kopech is still pitching for the White Sox, which is bound to disappoint diehard fans who were hoping he would be somebody else’s problem by then.

On to the stadium interior!

Glad to see future sports fans are still following in the rendering tradition of throwing your hands in the air wildly to celebrate a key game event, which here is clearly a home run given that the center field fireworks are going off, while on the field … the batter is still in the batter’s box, but is also approaching first base, while another runner rounds second and a fourth stands watching from the cutout near third. Enough with the rule changes, Rob Manfred!

As for the stadium design itself, it can best be described as “terracey,” with a whole lot of levels, incorporating the current White Sox stadium’s least-loved feature, the glass-walled luxury suites that force the upper decks into the stratosphere. We’re not getting back the old, fan-friendly Comiskey Park cheap seats anytime soon, it looks like.

But what about the economic impact of all this, you ask? Could there possibly be renderings of that?

Those sure are some big numbers! Even the typeface is big! Would be nice if we got to see how they were calculated — maybe that’s included somewhere in the spiral-bound booklet this appears to be a page from — but it is considerate that they at least included the footnote detailing that this is only what will happen if the entire development is built out, which may or may not ever happen.

And finally, let’s check in on the site of the White Sox’ existing stadium:

It’s a soccer stadium! Or, well, part of a baseball stadium with part of a soccer stadium grafted on. There’s not really much reason to keep part of the old stadium around for soccer — the seats in one end zone would point in the wrong direction, and nobody needs those glass-walled suites — but I suppose it lets people pretend this is ecologically sound reuse, just put it in the PDF, you can always redesign it later.

All this, Chicago, can be yours, for only around $1.7 billion in public money! Kayaks sold separately.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: White vetoes Royals/Chiefs tax vote, everybody losing mind over White Sox vaporstadium

access_time personNeil deMause

Everybody’s talking about that new Chicago White Sox stadium proposal despite it not actually being a proposal yet, but first, potentially big news out of Kansas City:

  • Jackson County executive and eight-time Gold Glove winner Frank White yesterday vetoed the planned April vote on a sales tax extension to raise more than $500 million for the Royals and Chiefs, saying he won’t support it “without robust, binding agreements in place” on leases and community benefits agreements. The county legislature doesn’t have the votes to override it right now, and the deadline to make the April ballot is Tuesday, so expect a whole lot of frantic gamesmanship over the weekend — we’ll see if the teams actually commit to anything substantial, but props to White for trying, anyway.
  • Crain’s Chicago Business has investigated who would pay for a new White Sox stadium in the South Loop, and come up with a resounding ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Gov. J.B. Pritzker weighed in yesterday to say “I think you know my views about privately owned teams, and whether the public should be paying for private facilities” but also “there are things that government does to support business all across the state” and “we’ll be looking at whatever they may be suggesting or asking,” so somebody’s ready to haggle over the price. Crain’s does confirm that the site is in a TIF district that would get property tax kicked back to pay for construction, but also that stadiums are typically owned by the public so they don’t pay property taxes anyway, so lots and lots of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ here.
  • Somebody posted a bunch of renderings of a possible White Sox stadium of unknown origin that had previously been posted to Twitter then deleted, and yup, they look like generic renderings. NBC Sports Chicago complains that “the renderings have the stadium face the wrong way” and “it’s a no-brainer to face the stadium towards the river so (hopefully) White Sox players can hit home runs into the water” — can somebody please inform NBC Sports Chicago of how the sun works?
  • “Are we really talking about a new stadium for the White Sox when we still don’t know how two people got shot during a game at their current one?” Sure, that’s a take.
  • Oakland A’s execs are visiting Salt Lake City to see if its Triple-A stadium could be a temporary home until the team (maybe) moves to Las Vegas, after visiting Sacramento yesterday and probably other sites to come. Somebody has suggested an appropriate rebranding, all good, no notes.
  • Virginia probably isn’t going to consider building a Washington Commanders stadium while it’s considering spending over a billion dollars on a Wizards and Capitals arena, meaning new Commanders owner Josh Harris will have to settle for getting Maryland and D.C. to bid against each other, or else wait a bit until the arena issue is resolved, still plenty of options there.

There was other stadium-adjacent news this week — MLB TV carrier Diamond Sports cutting a deal with Amazon to escape bankruptcy, New York Knicks and Rangers owner James Dolan getting sued for sexual assault charges that somehow involve both Harvey Weinstein and the Eagles — but I’m still technically on vacation here. Have a good weekend, and we’ll return to our regularly scheduled outrage on Monday!

Share this post:

OKC approves $30m in tax money for overruns on shapeshifting minor-league soccer stadium

access_time personNeil deMause

The Oklahoma City council voted unanimously yesterday to approve using $30 million in tax money to pay for cost overruns on a new Energy F.C. soccer stadium, which isn’t exactly surprising since the council already discussed doing this two weeks ago. There are several amazing bits, though, that are worthy of note:

  • Amazing quote #1: “In the original plan for this stadium, there was no provision for land or funding for land, and we have a unique opportunity right now,” said Kenton Tsoodle, president of The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City. I’ve read this five times now, and can’t interpret it as anything other than the initial stadium plan neglected to budget for either land or the actual cost of stadium construction, now the public has the rare opportunity of being allowed to contribute another $30 million, which only really makes sense as an infomercial pitch.
  • Amazing quote #2: “We’re siting the stadium, which had no funding in MAPS, and we’re doing so with a donation, which is much appreciated and we thank the team for that pledge,” said OKC mayor David Holt. Thanking team owners for contributing anything to the cost of their own stadium is fresh rhetorical ground, but then this is the same guy who touted a plan to fund a Thunder arena with a $780 million “sales tax that will not raise taxes,” so words truly mean different things to Holt.
  • Amazing rendering #1:

    Why are they building a soccer stadium with a double deck at the end line, and only a tiny single deck along the side, where fans actually want to sit? Also why is one guy on the white team standing in an offside position way down the pitch, and does it have anything to do with the fact that it seems like three of his teammates have been red carded, leaving the team with only eight players on the pitch? And why does this entire design bear zero resemblance to:
  • Amazing rendering #2:
    This looks a little more like soccer at first glance, but there’s still a lot of weirdness: the number of people (mostly women) who are paying no attention to the match, the four women in identical red floppy hats and green scarves standing in the same row at lower right, the fact that one of the teams pictured on the video board (in black) appears not to be either team playing in the actual game (which features blue vs. white with a diagonal red stripe).

Taken together, this all looks like OKC officials throwing out a whole lot of half-assed justifications and quarter-assed clip art in defense of spending $71 million on a stadium for a minor-league soccer team that hasn’t played in two seasons and only drew 2,200 fans per game the last time it did. Surely once they have a 10,000-seat stadium they’ll fill the place, at least once Holt gets funding approved for his floppy-hat clone army.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Bears rumors! Titans vaportecture! Coyotes still about to announce something, sometime!

access_time personNeil deMause

Another week in the books! Will “in the books” soon become an anachronism, once there are no more physical books to keep? Or will “books” just become a term for long documents, and future English speakers will wonder why the phrase isn’t “in the spreadsheets”? Has this already happened and I didn’t notice? Gen Z readers, say your piece!

Moving on to the news:

  • Chicago Bears president Kevin Warren said, “What intrigues me about downtown is I strongly believe Chicago is the finest city in all of the world,” and now everybody thinks this means the Bears would prefer to build a stadium in downtown Chicago rather than it just being a savvy negotiator trying to create leverage for a stadium wherever he can get one paid for by somebody else.
  • Virginia’s billion-dollar-plus subsidy for a Washington Capitals and Wizards arena in Alexandria may now turn on Metro public transit funding, as Senate majority leader Scott Surovell says “making sure Metro is fully funded is a precondition before we have any kind of dialogue about the arena” while Gov. Glenn Youngkin retorted that he wants to see a Metro business plan first because “they’ve got overhead levels that far exceed any of their benchmarks.” Hey, you know what would help fill Metro’s $750 million budget deficit? Here’s a hint, it rhymes with “bot giving a billion dollars to the local sports team owner,” hth.
  • New Tennessee Titans vaportecture! This time the (imaginary) camera moves but the (pretend) people don’t, so we get a horrorscape of fans frozen in place with their arms flung skywards for all eternity! All except for the rock band that is playing forever to a perpetually frozen audience, and the video boards that show moving replays of a forever-static game, this is the most terrifying Black Mirror episode ever.
  • Former Utah Jazz majority owner (and current minority owner) Gail Miller is buying up land around the site of her proposed baseball stadium for her proposed MLB expansion team, hey at least Salt Lake City has more TV households than Las Vegas.
  • The public cost of the new Chattanooga Lookouts stadium has soared from $80 million to $139 million in the last 17 months, which will be fine so long as an extra $500 million worth of development appears from out of nowhere and pays new taxes that won’t cannibalize existing ones, this is fine.
  • “The Orlando Magic are making millions by selling naming rights to a building the team doesn’t even own,” yup, that’ll happen.
  • “[Arizona] Coyotes on ‘precipice’ of announcing location organization will focus on for new arena,” reports an Arizona Sports headline, then the story itself doesn’t have anyone at all saying the word “precipice” with regard to anything, wut.
  • Baseball stadiums built since the early 1990s have crazy-far upper deck seats, reports Travis Sawchik for The Score, will that change with the latest wave of new buildings? Populous architect Zach Allee says there’s a tradeoff that’s “kind of like a balloon” where “if I say I want to be closer to the field horizontally, it ends up pushing the seats up higher,” which isn’t really how geometry or balloons work, and then Sawchik touts the Texas Rangers‘ new stadium for moving the last row of its upper deck 33 feet closer than the last row in its old stadium, but actually they did this by just removing the last 8,000 seats, this is actually a terrible article, I’m sorry I linked to it.

I’m traveling next week, posts may appear at sporadic and/or unexpected times. Have a good long holiday weekend, or as our Toronto readers know it, Monday.

Share this post: