Which cities have benefited significantly more from new downtown stadiums?

As everyone knows, over the last 15 years or so there has been a significant building boom in new pro sports (MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL) stadiums in the downtowns of our nation’s major cities. The benefit from these stadiums can be measured in many ways, including economic “spin off” in the form of new construction, new businesses, and an improved downtown identity.

This is not meant be a discussion on whether the benefits were “worth” the costs, as that is an entirely different argument all together. Rather, please focus the discussion simply on the comparing the benefits created by stadiums in different cities, and discuss which cities “did it right,” or have received significantly more benefit from the construction of their new downtown stadiums.

Pictures are welcomed.

SAN FRANCISCO: revived the Giants as a franchise (literally turned them around); gave SF something it still another tourist attraction with its unusual bayside location. Helped promote Soma as a neighborhood and extension of downtown

DETROIT: both Tigers and Lions made a statement about the city and with events like the All Star Game (and WS) helped showcase new Detroit

ST. LOUIS: it's in the future, but new Busch Stadium is genertating still to be developed Baseball Village

SAN DIEGO: Petco serving a similiar role in SD

BALTIMORE: Camden Yards is a perfect compliment to the Inner Harbor

Adding to that Edge, you have to include Los Angeles. Staples Center is the main reason that Downtown LA has had this tremendous turnaround. Along with a few other developments (Disney Hall, Cathedral, Rail into DTLA, Traffic), Staples was the linchpin for all these Condo Towers, rehab of old building, Cleaning up Skid Row, the new parks, Convention center hotels, restaurants, everything. I think the amount of development spurred on by Staples Center easily tops 10 billion dollars in DTLA alone, and that was not a typo.

STL won a World Champion series in the brand new Busch Stadium... The Rams won big in their new "Dome"... There is a $850 million Casino and residential area under construction next to the riverfront.. and a Ballpark
Village guaranteed to rise this spring..! Plus the so many lofts and condos
that have been revitalized from neighboring warehouses that add that
somethin' special!

Adding to that Edge, you have to include Los Angeles. Staples Center is the main reason that Downtown LA has had this tremendous turnaround. Along with a few other developments (Disney Hall, Cathedral, Rail into DTLA, Traffic), Staples was the linchpin for all these Condo Towers, rehab of old building, Cleaning up Skid Row, the new parks, Convention center hotels, restaurants, everything. I think the amount of development spurred on by Staples Center easily tops 10 billion dollars in DTLA alone, and that was not a typo.

of course, LASF. I guess for me, for some visual reason, the NBA/NHL type of arenas don't quite hit at the way the MLB parks and NFL stadiums do; they probably don't register with me the way they should.. But they really are just as important.

STL won a World Champion series in the brand new Busch Stadium... The Rams won big in their new "Dome"... There is a $850 million Casino and residential area under construction next to the riverfront.. and a Ballpark
Village guaranteed to rise this spring..! Plus the so many lofts and condos
that have been revitalized from neighboring warehouses that add that
somethin' special!

STL, will this pull the focus of downtown southward?

STL has prospered thanks to the new stadiums and arenas! World Class.!

With Qwest and Safeco, Seattle got much nicer and better looking venues for events that were mostly held at the Kingdome in the same neighborhood. The teams have benefitted of course.

The Excel Center in St Paul has really helped the downtown a lot, bringing new life to West 7th street in the form of bars and restaurants. At times downtown doesn't even look like it is in a coma anymore.

It can be debated as to whether it was worth the price tag.

Washington is using stadiums as the centerpiece of its redevelop plan in the area around the Anacostia River. Right now the National's new stadium is under construction and there are proposals for a new soccer stadium for DC United right across from the National's Stadium. There are also rumors of a new Redskins Stadium to be built on the Anacostia as well, although I don't see why we need it, our 10 year old 96,000 person stadium is doing just fine in Lanham, Maryland.

Its not even a MLB stadium, but it could be argued that all of Louisville's DT development is now a result of the boom that started with Louisville Slugger Field.
This was one of the first venues that started bringing people from around the suburbs into DT and showed people that there is, in fact, something special and beneficial about a strong and central downtown area.
Slugger Field, combined with Waterfront Park, has spurred somewhere around 2 billion dollars in DT investment. Not bad for a little AAA team. :okay:

There is a proposal to build a new stadium in Downtown Hartford, to lure an NHL team.

I'd like to make the point that while some have benefitted more significantly than others, stadiums rarely live up to their hype of the kind of impact they are going to have their respesctive downtowns. That's why they are almost always known as White Elephant projects. In fact, some have made good arguments that the benefits pale in comparison to all of the costs.

I'd like to make the point that while some have benefitted more significantly than others, stadiums rarely live up to their hype of the kind of impact they are going to have their respesctive downtowns. That's why they are almost always known as White Elephant projects. In fact, some have made good arguments that the benefits pale in comparison to all of the costs.

that seems to happen by degree. there is virtually no economic benefit from football stadiums: they play few games, Sunday morning is a slow period, people tail gate rather than use local restaurants, stores, etc.

I think NBA/NHL arenas are a mid-ground here. They may get people downtown who weren't coming otherwise and they may get them out to dinner in the city.

MLB is the top of the list. Lots of games. Ocurring in summer, they encourage a longer stay downtown. They integrate with their surroundings the best and encourage spending money outside the park on food and retail. An intangible: by their unique shape and outfield openess to views, they serve as an advertisement for their cities in ways that football stadiums cannot.

That said, in these times, we've gotten to a point where we're past the insanity of depending on local gov'ts to build these structures. IMHO, the best of the new ball parks is Current-Telephone-Name Park in San Francisco (ok AT&T); it is unusual because it was privately financed and so it was completely designed by the Giants themselves without the perhaps less baseball oriented influence of the city fathers.

I want to clarify that no downtown's resurgence can be attributed to a stadium, a mall, a casino or any other big-ticket project. Rather, these developments are a result of organic growth that is already happening. I do not believe any stadium ever saved a city. They are just another component of progress. I'd much rather see housing, retail and basic amenities in my downtown than shiny new projects with a corporate name on the top, but there is plenty of room for both and it's always nice to see them coexisting harmoniously.

While downtown St. Louis has three major sports stadiums within about a mile of each other, I don't think they are great examples of urban-friendliness. The TWA Dome (now Edward Jones Dome) promised to bring more development to the north side of downtown, which we have yet to see. Kiel Center (Savvis, Scottrade- where the Blues play) is also autonomous and has not been a catalyst for much peripheral development either. Busch Stadium will hopefully change all that, although it hasn't yet. But even with Ballpark Village well in the works, it will be a more contrived, artificial "neighborhood" in comparison to authentic ones (i.e. Wrigleyville). Nevertheless, I'm so happy downtown St. Louis will have a new and different destination.

btw, I liked the old Busch Stadium MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better than the new one. Ballpark Village is the only real advantage to the new one, but I still don't see why it couldn't have been built around the old stadium. But alas, it's done. Sorry to digress here.

that seems to happen by degree. there is virtually no economic benefit from football stadiums: they play few games, Sunday morning is a slow period, people tail gate rather than use local restaurants, stores, etc.

I think NBA/NHL arenas are a mid-ground here. They may get people downtown who weren't coming otherwise and they may get them out to dinner in the city.

MLB is the top of the list. Lots of games. Ocurring in summer, they encourage a longer stay downtown. They integrate with their surroundings the best and encourage spending money outside the park on food and retail. An intangible: by their unique shape and outfield openess to views, they serve as an advertisement for their cities in ways that football stadiums cannot.

That said, in these times, we've gotten to a point where we're past the insanity of depending on local gov'ts to build these structures. IMHO, the best of the new ball parks is Current-Telephone-Name Park in San Francisco (ok AT&T); it is unusual because it was privately financed and so it was completely designed by the Giants themselves without the perhaps less baseball oriented influence of the city fathers.

I agree completely. Baseball fields also benefit from being much larger than Basketball arenas, they are unique structures that expand the skyline while most arenas just look like regular buildings on the outside. The new Nationals stadium hopefully will revive SE DC to a degree.

Also, google 3d warehouse has a pretty sick version of AT&T park:
Google Sketch (http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=1933f060194b3cd9c7fa50fe5624075)

The Verizon Center in DC was also privately financed and did contribute a bit to the revival of the area. It has a metro stop underneath, and one of the good things about arenas is that they can also host other events like concerts, ice capades or monster trucks. I think baseball stadiums can do a great job, but I don't know if it necessarily does the best of nba,mlb, and nfl at reviving a neighborhood. They're larger scaled than arenas definitely, so usually they need to be in a lower developed or run down area in order to secure the land for a reasonable price, so in that sense, baseball stadiums are in the situation to help a crappy neighborhood more often than any other type. Arenas can be packed neatly into the normal street pattern w/ little fuss. Lastly, I do agree that more often than not, their effect is overrated, that's why it needs to be carefully done with leadership who understand how urban planning works.

wow...I am surprised that Indy wasn't mentioned before me...

Indianapolis built a downtown arena in the 1970's for the Pacers (Market Square Arena) and then started building the Hoosier (RCA) Dome without even having a team. (The Colts did move to town before it was completed). Eventually Conseco Fieldhouse would be built for the Pacers and now a new Stadium is going up for trhe Colts.

Downtown Indianapolis was a ghost town before the Colts and Pacers moved downtown. The stadiums coupled with the convention center are the catalyst for the vibrant downtown that Indy has. So, certainly, Indy has benefited tremendously from building stadiums downtown.

btw, I liked the old Busch Stadium MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better than the new one. Ballpark Village is the only real advantage to the new one, but I still don't see why it couldn't have been built around the old stadium. But alas, it's done. Sorry to digress here.

Someone else agrees. The Old Busch was so... iconic. I remember watching a Tigers game there. Hell, it was only built in the 60's. It couldn't have been outdated; if Fenway can still function then anywhere can function. Busch looked like the Colosseum from the inside with its distinctive design. WHo could forget that place when McGwire was lighting it up in 98?

The new Busch, while not bad at all from what i've heard or seen, just seems like every other new stadium out there. Big scoreboard, big field, cookie cutter seating. It's main draw is the view from the seats, which is very nice. Now some stadiums just become in dyer need of a replacement, like Tiger Stadium, with all of the obstructed views and rotting infrastructure. However, the Old Busch was only, what, 40?

I agree completely. Baseball fields also benefit from being much larger than Basketball arenas, they are unique structures that expand the skyline while most arenas just look like regular buildings on the outside. The new Nationals stadium hopefully will revive SE DC to a degree.

Also, google 3d warehouse has a pretty sick version of AT&T park:
Google Sketch (http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=1933f060194b3cd9c7fa50fe5624075)

adjoutz, that's what happens when you don't have a rectangular playing surface, can design the playing field to your specification in both outfield and foul territory, and have the ability to open up your outfield to eye popping view. you can say what you want about which sport is best, but baseball blows the others out of the park (pun intended) when it comes to setting.

btw, I liked the old Busch Stadium MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better than the new one. Ballpark Village is the only real advantage to the new one, but I still don't see why it couldn't have been built around the old stadium. But alas, it's done. Sorry to digress here.

hey, jive, StL invented the cookie cuter, built the best one of the bunch, but believe me: you can't beat a ball park built for baseball alone. No matter how much you liked the old Busch, let's not forget that circular shape kept a lot of prized seating real estate unavailable for fans (particularly in the upper deck). And despite the fact when the Big Red left and the outfield seating was removed in most places, you still have virtually no sight lines to the city, save for the top of the arch and some of the taller buildings.

In other words, you ARE better off than you were before.

Speaking of STL, how much impact does the new Busch actually create over the existing? And the reason I say that is, the new park was basically built at the same location as the old one. And with less seats, does it reduce impact?

Granted Ballpark Village isnt open, and cant be factored in yet, so that may change things, but just an observation/question. Further, I would argue the creation of the old Busch, Busch II, was one of the first examples of downtown ballparks that, as a pro stadium, helped to improve downtown.

As a Tiger fan, I was very sad to see Tiger Stadium go. But I cannot argue that Comerica Park in Detroit has been a huge spur for downtown developement. And the main reason, in Detroit anyway, has been psychological. It makes a lot of people, who thought otherwise, think that downtown is a cool place to go. And that is a huge, huge first step that most economic models overlook.

People who post on this board will go to the downtowns of our cities anyway, because we are curious and want to. But we have to consider those not like us, and I strongly argue that a new ballpark does create that first step for those people, and is a step they might not otherwise take.

^I don't think it's done jack shit, other than to lure more people to see it for the first time.

On The New Nets Arena

NEW YORK (AP) -- The planned Brooklyn arena that will house the New Jersey Nets has a new name: The Barclays Center.

The British bank, hoping to expand its profile in the United States, signed a 20-year deal to slap its name on the new 18,000-seat facility when it opens late this decade, the bank and the project's developer announced Thursday.

The company and Forest City Ratner, the builder of the arena for the current New Jersey Nets, would not immediately disclose the price for the naming rights.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Barclays would be investing more than $300 million in the marketing partnership over the next 20 years. "This is going to benefit Brooklyn and the city for many years to come," he said.

The deal was expected to help defray building costs on the 22-acre site, which will include a $4 billion mini-city atop what is now a rail yard and a mix of residential and industrial blocks. The development, dubbed Atlantic Yards, faces fierce opposition from some Brooklynites who say the collection of high-rises will overwhelm what is now a neighborhood of brownstones, brick townhouses and small shops and restaurants.

Sports marketing deals are nothing new for Barclays, which is the leading sponsor of Premier League soccer in England. Other recent deals for naming rights rose above the $100 million mark.

Prudential Financial Inc. announced this month that it would pay $105.3 million over 20 years to put its name on the New Jersey Devils new arena in Newark, N.J.

Royal Philips Electronics paid $185 million in 1999 to put its name on Atlanta's Philips Arena, home of the NBA's Hawks and the NHL's Thrashers.

Just out of curosity..! Has any stadiums or arenas hurt the progress of the
city or metro area.? Seems like alot of wasted money.. It does take time
to pay for itself! The stadiums and arenas usually stick around for a "lifetime".
It's these new corporate logos that come and go! I think the best benefit
to a city is something that reflects the city!

And the reason I say that is, the new park was basically built at the same location as the old one. And with less seats, does it reduce impact?.

kavok, virtually all new MLB parks had smaller capacities than their predessesors (particularly those in shared baseball/football stadiums). the smaller capacity normally works for increased, not decreased attendance because it places a demand for tickets

STL had a record year in their new smaller park..! Attendance was another
record for the new Busch Stadium.! ...Another record for all of MLB...
STL has gained $millions off of the stadiums and arenas locale.!

kavok, virtually all new MLB parks had smaller capacities than their predessesors (particularly those in shared baseball/football stadiums). the smaller capacity normally works for increased, not decreased attendance because it places a demand for tickets

Actually, they have less general seats because they take up a significant amount of those seats with the luxury box seats which more than pay for the loss of general seats. It doesn't have much to do about increasing demand for general seating. If the stadiums could get away with it, they'd install even more box seats, and, if you, you see this happening at some stadia and arena around the country, particularly college venues (i.e. Spartan Stadium, Michigan Stadium, and the list goes on and on...)

Here in Seattle Qwest Field and Safeco Field are ok when filled but most of the time through the year they lay vacant. Sometimes I kind of wish they were further out in the suburbs somewhere.

In Baltimore, both stadiums have been beneficial to downtown. Camden Yards was first. With more baseball events, its effect is probably more important to supporting bars, etc but the M & T stadium of the Ravens also perks things up on those Sundays. I can't say that either makes downtown work by itself, but both help to create more of a critical mass. You can see it on game days, more people out and around, especially important since most games on not during work hours.

I don't think either has prompted the building of hotels since they are adjacent to hotels that exist for the convention center and most fans don't stay in hotels. In particular, the area around Camden Yards is forming a critical mass with the convention center and Inner Harbor. The huge old 19th century railroad warehouse building next to the stadium that has been rehabbed into offices is the longest office building in the country and certainly one of the most unusual. It's worth noting that Camden Yards was the prototype for many other baseball stadiums, the first of the neo-traditional, brick, close-in, medium sized stadiums.

Just out of curosity..! Has any stadiums or arenas hurt the progress of the
city or metro area.? Seems like alot of wasted money.. It does take time
to pay for itself! The stadiums and arenas usually stick around for a "lifetime".
It's these new corporate logos that come and go! I think the best benefit
to a city is something that reflects the city!The Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis has done nothing for the city and is a bit of an eyesore. When it was built it was intended to breathe new life into the rather vacant and sleepy east side of downtown.:ohno: That end of downtown probably won't reach it's full potential until the dome comes down.

Every city has its slow times... and banner years..! The Metrodome is a nice-looking stadium..! Every city usually has Big stadiums, arenas and theatres to
compete.. They're all usually worth the economic and entertainment value...

well, last night during the AFC title game, downtown Indianapolis was packed. Actually, all weekend the DT was crowded. The RCA Dome is also the smallest venue in the NFL. Restaurants and hotels were full, not a parking spot to be found. I couldn't imagine the Dome being located out in the 'burbs (like Glendale, AZ) where there is nothing. All of those people with no benefits to the economy.

Some will say downtown, others the burbs... It kind of depends on the
geography of the city! If your city is in a pennant or series or championship... Fans will travel to any tailgate party, parade or celebration!
Just being a work of art will draw fans anywhere.!

Some will say downtown, others the burbs... It kind of depends on the
geography of the city! If your city is in a pennant or series or championship... Fans will travel to any tailgate party, parade or celebration!
Just being a work of art will draw fans anywhere.!

The Washington Redskins are a mediocre American football team based in the Washington, D.C. area.

The team plays at FedExField in Landover, Maryland, in Prince George's County, Maryland. The team's headquarters and training facility are at Redskin Park in Ashburn, Virginia, a community in Loudoun County, Virginia near Dulles International Airport. They are members of the Eastern Division of the National Football Conference (NFC) in the National Football League (NFL). According to Forbes Magazine, the Redskins are the most valuable sports team in the United States, valued at approximately $1.423 billion, and have been the most valuable sports team in the U.S. for seven years running. They are the wealthiest and most profitable team in the NFL, generating over $300 million in revenue and netting over $100 million annually. They also rank No. 1 in average attendance per game in the NFL and have broken the NFL's mark for single-season attendance six years in a row.

I wish the Skins were that good. Despite being perennial losers located in a suburb (lol the wikipedia article even called us "mediocre"), they keep on breaking attendence records and are pinched out of every penny. Dan Snyder is a jackass. If we just actually used the draft instead of overpaying players who had career years before tanking we would have much better off. We are like the Knicks of the NFL. Although I think getting Randle-El was pretty good, Brandon Lloyd and TJ Duckett was just retarded.