As I hope to have made
abundantly clear, little is known concerning the location of
sports stadia in metropolitan areas in North America or
elsewhere. Most research into stadia has instead relied upon an
economic perspective of these special activity generators.
These studies have focused upon the profitability of a stadium
for a city (Baim), studies of minor league baseball and its
effects upon small towns (Johnson), and case studies and a
general review of the stadia debate (Euchner). These pieces have
primarily served to enlighten and spark the debate in the
academic realm, yet few politicians are aware of or subscribe to
the conclusion these books reach.
Dean Baim'’s
dissertation turned book The Sports Stadium as a Municipal
Investment (1994) investigated whether or not sports stadia
resulted in a profit in fifteen American cities. He discovered
that only one stadium, Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, resulted in
a net return for the government. The remaining fourteen operated
at a loss over the various periods studied. Despite this finding,
Baim is cautious in concluding that stadia are poor investments
because his research was aimed primarily at determining direct
costs and benefits. In his analysis, Baim did not consider
indirect benefits accruing to a city from increased economic
activity in an area. Similarly, he also did not factor in costs
accruing from increased congestion near stadia or indirect
infrastructure or service costs.
In his book, Playing
the Field (1993) Charler Euchner reaches the conclusion that
Baim seemed reticent to make: that publicly financed stadia are
bad investments. Euchner suggests that, unless teams are willing
to finance a significantly greater proportion of the costs for
new stadia, then the city will certainly end up an economic
loser. Euchner summarily dismisses all of the talk of indirect
benefits and the economic effects of being a major league city.
These represent two of the
seminal works in the field of stadia research, yet each deals
with the location of stadia only very tangentially. Baim has no
suggestions as to the optimal location of a stadia to improve its
profitability. Similarly, Euchner suggests that cities simply
throw teams out unless they want to seriously help finance a new
facility.
I would suggest that,
while there may not be a single optimal site for a new
stadium, there most assuredly are specific attributes of sites at
which a new facility might fit both economically and
socially into a metropolitan area. These attributes must
certainly start with a minimum acreage. As with any facility, a
piece of must be sufficiently large to carry the facility once
completed. Just as you cannot build a sprawling apartment complex
on one acre, you similarly cannot build a stadium on three or
four acres.
Just as a minimum parcel
size is a necessity for a sports facility, I would suggest that
there are other attributes, some objective, some subjective, that
make for a best-fitting site for a new stadium. Before turning to
the limited research into this topic, I want to turn to one or
two theoretical questions surrounding stadia location.
The first question I would
pose is: At what level should the location of sports stadia be
studied? There are ramifications both at the metropolitan level
and at the local level when a new stadium is constructed. At the
metropolitan level the primary issue is one of accessibility to
the market. A stadium needs to be located so that a sufficiently
large fan base is attracted to and able to attend the various
events held at the facility. This fan base is usually drawn from
(at minimum) the metropolitan level, often extending into the
region as a whole.
At the local level the
issues are more related to existing and future land uses. A
stadium built in the center of an affluent suburban neighborhood
is likely to cause negative externalities for both the residents
and the stadium. Similarly, the location of a stadium next to a
paper mill might not be too significant of a problem for the
mill, but the stadium is likely to have attendance problems
because of the air pollution. In a bit we will turn to the model
laid out by Baade and Dye who suggest that stadia should be
located to maximize the economic returns for the municipality.
Drawing on the above
discussion, I would therefore suggest that there should be two
levels of analysis of stadium location:
The
Metropolitan Level: Where within the metropolitan
area have stadia been locating in the past? Are there any
discernible trends at the metropolitan level? Are there
underlying factors behind these trends?
The Local/Land
Use Level:Within a given area, where are stadia
located? Have cities placed stadia near commercial
centers? Industrial areas? What of links to
transportation?
Another intriguing
question from my perspective is that of governmental ownership
and the resulting effect upon location. For example, the Georgia
Dome (in Atlanta) was financed mainly with state funds. After the
allocation of funds the location of the Dome was debated, but
only as it related to sites within the city of Atlanta. Recall
that Atlanta is the capital of Georgia. I would suggest that,
because state funds were involved, locational options outside of
the city of Atlanta were not considered. Atlanta is the showcase
city for the state and, further, the state capital lies not but a
few miles from the Georgia Dome. Was the location affected by the
financier? Most certainly.
Another example of the
effect of ownership has been the recent push by numerous suburban
counties or cities to attract a franchise out of downtown stadia
and into new suburban facilities. This has been a trend
throughout the past thirty years (see the Pontiac Silverdome
outside of Detroit or the Meadowlands outside of New York for
examples). Recently Gary, Indiana, a suburb of Chicago, has made
a strong pitch for the Chicago Bears football team. They have
offered the team a new stadium, parking revenue, advertising
revenue, as well as a very small rental fee for the facility.
Clearly, Gary would not offer such a deal without the locational
movement of the Bears to their city. Once again, the purse
strings have an important locational affect.
These two questions
represent only the tip of a grand iceberg of possible research
into the location of sports facilities. Let us now turn our
attention to a brief review of the research that can be more
directly related to the location of sports teams and sports
stadia.
The first piece I would
like to mention is a very contentious research note in Scientific
American. Author Gary Stix reported of a study done by Alan
Sager and Arthur Culbert that concluded that the primary variable
behind the movement of baseball teams from cities to new cities
or to new locations within cities was the evolution of the
stadium’s surrounding neighborhood from white to black.
Succinctly stated, race was the sole significant variable behind
the movement of baseball franchises to new stadiums in the
1950’s through the 1970’s. This finding was presented,
with little reaction, at the Cooperstown Symposium on Baseball
and American Culture in 1992. The authors note that this finding
is not likely to persist into recent years.
The significance of this
finding upon the location of stadia might initially be lost on
the reader. However, if this finding is indeed correct, this
suggests that race plays a factor in the location of teams. Taken
a step further, it stands to reason that race would affect the
location of a new stadium as teams might not wish to locate in a
predominately black area. I wanted to mention this study because
it suggests that there may be important factors behind the
location of stadia at the metropolitan level. These authors might
suggest race as a possible factor. I might suggest that income
level is likely an important variable in the location of new
stadia.
At the same time that I
want to bring forth the possible implications of this research
note, I also do not want to sound alarmist and start to suggest
that stadium location is racially motivated. The sample for this
study was quite small and it does not study recent team movements
or stadium locations.
The next piece I want to
mention is an article that was not written about sports stadia per
se, but one which is applicable to facilities like stadia.
Swallow, Opaluch, and Weaver’s 1992 article in Land
Economic entitled Siting Noxious Facilities, discusses the
policy approach to the location of facilities that generate
significant negative externalities. Traditionally noxious
facilities have been identified as uses like large landfills or
sewage treatment plants. However, a case could certainly be made
to suggest that stadia are noxious facilities because of the
large crowds they generate resulting in the significant traffic
congestion and the pollution.
Swallow et al present a
nice review of the literature before turning to their approach to
the siting of these facilities. They suggested a siting procedure
to determine the sire of a noxious facility. This three step
process is as follows:
Choosing a long
list of sites based upon certain minimum technical
standards. For a stadium these standards would include a
minimum parcel size, existing transportation and parking
infrastructure (or significant opportunities to achieve
this), and compatibility of neighboring uses.
The second stage
narrows the original site list by some social
standards. These social standards might include a
desire to revitalize downtown (i.e. Baltimore, Cleveland)
or a goal of integrating the existing stadium with the
convention infrastructure (i.e. Atlanta, St. Louis). This
process should narrow down the list of sites
significantly.
The third, and
final, stage has been labeled by the authors as Compensation/Community
Acceptance. Swallow et al clearly recognize the
implications of locating a noxious facility. The existing
community within which this landfill or stadium is to be
inserted is likely to be upset with this decision.
Invariably some form of negotiation will be required to
determine an adequate compensation for the community. For
examples, in Atlanta the siting of the new Olympic
Stadium in the same neighborhood as the existing Fulton
County Stadium required special concessions from the
Olympic Committee and the Atlanta Braves over parking
revenues and local hirings.
Swallow et al’s model
of facility siting is quite general, but a very important
illustrative tool. It illustrates the necessity to approach the
siting of a facility as a funneling process that will eventually
be resolved.
The final article I wish
to note is a seminal article by Robert Baade and Richard Dye of
Lake Forest College outside of Chicago. These authors have placed
themselves among the forefront of the stadium financing and
location debate. Their 1988 Economic Development Quarterly
article, Sports Stadiums and Area Development: A Critical Review,
has been one of the most influential on the stadium debate. While
the books by Baim and Euchner have largely been ignored, Baade
(in particular) and Dye have come to be associated with the
anti-stadium view.
In this piece Baade and
Dye argue quite vehemently against the financing of stadia by
local governments. They suggest that professional sports are not
the panacea that they are portrayed to be. However, the section
of the article I wish to focus on is their discussion of some
guidelines for the optimal location of stadia. The authors
suggest some important rules of thumb when locating a stadium.
These are:
Urban stadia
should be planned to include or incorporate ancillary
development. It is important to consider the relative
location of hotels, restaurants, and possible convention
facilities. Camden Yards in Baltimore is situated very
close to hotels, the Harbor Place, and convention
facilities.
Economic
benefits from sports facilities are a function of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Cities must
therefore design and situate the stadium so as to retain
this traffic. Jacobs Field in Cleveland is situated in a
pedestrian friendly environment near other interesting
uses like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
A suburban
ballpark model (easily accessible by car for suburbanites
with large parking lots and little ancillary development)
will tend to minimize the economic benefits. The new
Comiskey Park in Chicago is a suburban ballpark in an
urban setting. Fans stream to the game in their cars,
park in large decks, go directly back to those decks
after the game and depart directly for home.
These rules of thumb are
excellent examples of the social considerations discussed by
Swallow et al. They could very easily be utilized to narrow a
large list of sites to only a few. In sum, Baade and Dye suggest
that the best strategy for stadium location is to consider
optimizing the economic benefits above all else. Their rules
quite clearly suggest that an urban ballpark, with pedestrian
access and interesting and numerous ancillary uses create the
best locational choice for a new stadium.
SOME IDEAS ON STADIUM LOCATION