WHY STUDY THE ISSUES
CONCERNING STADIA?
It might be argued that
stadia represent rare occurrences in the history of most cities.
Most large cities have only one or maybe two stadiums, therefore
understanding the issues surrounding them is not a very high
priority. Further, some may suggest that stadia represent a very
small investment for cities when viewed in the larger scheme of
total public expenditures. Consequently, they might ask: Why
should we study stadia? How would understanding the issues
surrounding these facilities help cities and city planners?
In framing a response I
would begin by citing the wide variety of stadia across the
country. At first blush, it appears that stadium issues pertain
to only the largest cities in the United States and Canada. At
present there are only a total of sixty Major League Baseball and
National Football League teams. This number represents only a
small proportion of the cities in North America. Therefore this
suggests that stadium issues are important to only a handful of
large cities. However, this line of argument simply does not hold
true.
Cities of all sizes, in
all areas of the country build stadiums to host sporting and
community events of all types. For example, there are well over
one-hundred minor league baseball teams alone that require stadia
to house them. These stadia are located in places as diverse as
Buffalo, New York (1990 population 328,123), Augusta, Georgia
(1990 population 44,639), and Everett, Washington (1990
population 69,961). Further, universities across the country need
stadia to house the large crowds attending football games and
other events. In sum, issues concerning stadia are salient in
thousands of communities of all sizes across the United States
and Canada. While it is certainly true that these smaller areas
are not building 50,000 seat mega-structures, they are spending
substantial amounts of money on new stadium complexes. For
example, a 1995 ENR cover story notes that Erie, Pennsylvania
(1990 population 108,718) has recently spent $8.7 million on a
new baseball stadium complex to house a minor league baseball
team. (Korman, 1995)
In monetary terms, the
total estimated expenditures upon stadia in the United States in
recent years is staggering. The Korman ENR article estimates the total expenditures on
stadia and arenas to be almost $1.4 billion for 1994 alone.
Estimates from figures in his article place the average
expenditure at over $600 million per year since 1985 and this
figure has been increasing since 1991. Also, if the discussed
stadia in only half of the cities mentioned earlier were to be
built in the next five years, that would amount to well over $1
billion in mostly public expenditures. These figures suggest that
there are clear economic reasons for coming to understand the
rationale and decisions behind these tremendous public
investments.
The tremendous amount of
money spent in 1994 also signals another important reason for
research into stadia: the increase in the number of stadia being
built. In recent years there has been a tremendous upsurge in
stadium construction. In his article Korman states that the
baseball stadium development in Erie symbolizes the wave of
sports-related construction that is sweeping over North America,
leaving the continent studded with a fresh generation of arenas,
ballparks, gymnasiums... (p. 22)
To illustrate this point
further, I looked at the year of opening for all current stadia
for teams in Major League Baseball and the National Football
League. While these data are far from representative of all
stadia, they do illustrate the growth in the number of large, new
stadia in recent years. Figure 1 illustrates the opening year for
all current stadia in five year periods since 1950. Most
noticeable in this graph is the recent growth in the number of
new stadia opening. For example, the period 1991-1995 has had
eight stadia openings compared to a total of eight in the
previous fifteen year period (1976-1990).
Also of note in Figure 1
is a suggested cyclical pattern of stadium construction.
Note that the later 1960's and early 1970's saw a boom in stadium
openings for these two leagues. There were eight stadium openings
per five years for 1966-1970 and 1971-1975. After a substantial
drop in stadium openings from 1976-1990, there was a return to
eight openings in the 1991-1995 period. This would suggest that
these leagues are currently experiencing a second-wave
stadia boom that will continue until at least the end of the
century and possibly to the year 2005.
Figure
2 also underlines
this point by illustrating the cumulative number of stadia
opening by year between 1956 and 1995. This method of
illustration, first utilized by Bale (1993) to depict the recent
wave of football (soccer) stadia construction in England and the
rest of Europe, reveals the later 1970's and most of the 1980's
to be periods of little stadia construction. This figure shows
that since 1990 there has been an increase in the slope of the
cumulative year of opening line reflecting the recent increase in
stadium construction. Also note that between 1974 and 1990 there
were few stadium openings. This down period reflects the
decreased numbers of stadia openings because of the intensive
building boom in the 1965-1975 period.
What of this cyclical
nature of stadium construction? What are the causes? While this
is not the place for a comprehensive discussion, I will suggest
three reasons for the boom periods in the 1965-1975 era and
1991-1995 era.
One possible
explanation could lie in the recent expansion of the
respective leagues. During these periods, both sports
expanded to new markets resulting in a need for new
stadia. (for example the Denver baseball stadium and
team)
A second possible
explanation is that the stadia built in the most recent
boom period are meant to replace the oldest stadia in
these leagues. (for example, the new Comiskey Park in
Chicago for the baseball club)
A last possible
explanation is that modern stadia have a life span of
20-30 years.
With technology and fan
preferences changing quickly we may be entering an era when
cities need new stadia every thirty years. (for example, the
current Seattle situation) As with most theories, it appears that
no single explanation accounts for the full range of occurrences,
suggesting that a combination of the three is best-fitting.
However, what is most
compelling about the recent boom period is the growing evidence
for the third possible explanation. Many cities that built stadia
during the 1960's and 1970's are currently considering or
actually building new stadia in the 1990's. Seattle, Houston,
Philadelphia, Washington D.C., and Cincinnati have all begun the
stadium provision process to replace stadia built during this
period. This evidence suggests that stadia construction may
indeed have entered an era of a limited life span.
Unlike the older era's of
stadium design that gave America monuments that lasted
decades, for example Fenway Park (Boston), Yankee Stadium (New
York), and Soldier Field (Chicago), the more recent era may have
provided disposable stadia that are functional for thirty years
and then are to be discarded. Only time will tell if the recent
era of stadia construction conforms to recent trends or whether
these new cathedrals will indeed last decades. My initial
thinking suggests the former.
I think I have
convincingly argued that the amount of public expenditure and the
likely continued public expenditure on stadia are compelling
reasons for understanding the processes that result in the
construction of these facilities. I want to briefly touch upon
another economic reason that also has important social
ramifications. There has been a trend in recent years to utilize
the construction of a stadium as a tool for urban redevelopment.
The most celebrated example of this trend is Camden Yards in
Baltimore. However, to understand this recent trend, I must
return in time to the 1960- 1977 era of stadium construction.
As shown above, the 1960's
and 1970's revealed a boom in stadium construction across the
country. The Kingdome in Seattle was built at the end of this
boom. Almost all of the stadia built during this period were
multi-purpose concrete bowls that emphasized function and low
cost above all else. These monstrosities were often placed in
areas, not as a means for redevelopment, but rather to minimize
the problems surrounding their occasional use. A prime example
was the construction of The Meadowlands in New Jersey to house
the New York City football teams. This sports complex was
literally put in the middle of a large empty field, adjacent to
an Interstate, so that fans could have easy access to and easy
departure from the stadium. Also, the placement of the complex in
the middle of nowhere minimized the nuisance factors of large
crowds. On the down side, the stadium is in many ways
inaccessible other than through cars and busses. Further, the
economic benefits resulting from the crowds attending games are
minimized.
Other than economic and
social isolation, these stadia also had the unforeseen problem of
creating a sport that was in many ways faceless and placeless.
The general layouts and dimensions of these stadia were
strikingly similar and these almost enclosed structures gave no
indication as to what city one was in. While attending games in
Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, or even Seattle, one would
never see the skyline or feel the heartbeat of the city.
This era of stadium design and location has been roundly
criticized by any number of architects, planners, and writers
because these stadia ignored and therefore minimized the economic
and social effects of these facilities as well as providing for
the viewing of sports in ubiquitous and antiseptic environments.
(See Richmond (1992), or Gunts (1992))
The construction of Camden
Yards signified the return to and the celebration of the urban
stadium. Camden Yards was built on the waterfront in downtown
Baltimore in a formerly desolate area that has been revitalized
by the stadium and the creation of the Inner Harbor, a public
shopping and dining plaza, several years earlier. Unlike the
mistakes of the 1970's, Camden Yards celebrates the city of
Baltimore, in part by offering fans a vista of downtown. Also of
note, the stadium was placed in the existing street grid, rather
than adhering to the 1960's convention of bending the street
pattern to fit the ideas of fanciful stadium architects. Lastly,
the design and character of the stadium was tailored to fit in
with the surrounding architecture and landscape. For example,
beyond the right field wall lies the old B & O Railroad
Warehouse which has been turned into a linear plaza. One author
has called Camden Yards arguably the most significant urban
design intervention in America of the last decade. (Prowler,
1992)
Camden Yards serves as the
perfect example of the positive economic and social consequences
that can result when stadia are well-placed and well-planned.
Countless articles have been written in architectural journals
(Architecture (July, 1992)), engineering journals (see Civil
Engineering (April, 1992)) and the more commercial press (Time
(1994) concerning the aesthetic and economic success of this
groundbreaking new ballpark. What I wish to emphasize with this
example is that the state of Maryland and the city of Baltimore
have utilized the stadium, not only as a means for redevelopment
of previously decaying area, but also as a means for attracting
suburbanites back into the city. This stadium alone has improved
the image of downtown Baltimore for local citizens and visitors
from other areas.
This trend towards a
return to the urban ballpark has brought back the old-fashioned
experience of attending a sporting event in the downtown and
reveling in the diversity and excitement that the location
provides. The positive example of Baltimore has not only spurred
similar baseball-only projects in other cities (notably Denver
and Cleveland), but it has also paved the way for football stadia
to return to downtown. For example, Charlotte's new football
stadium will be built at the edge of downtown. (Jensen, 1993)
Similarly, as of May the city of Boston announced plans to build
an intown stadium for the New England Patriots, a team currently
playing in a stadium in Foxboro, a suburb of Boston. Other cities
like Washington D.C. and Phoenix have plans for football stadia
that will also be located downtown.
The social consequences of
this trend cannot be understated. Stadia represent one of the few
significant land uses that are still purposely locating in inner
city areas. In an era when more and more companies move their
headquarters to suburban locations, planners should grasp at any
and all available projects that can boost interest about,
investment in, and the image of the inner city. Because of these
often overlooked social consequences I believe it is of the
utmost importance to understand the processes of stadia location
and construction so that these facilities can be utilized as
economic and social redevelopment foci for America's decaying
inner cities.
An undercurrent running
throughout my justification will serve as my last imperative for
understanding the stadium process. I have made mention of the
scarcity of planning- oriented articles concerning sports
facilities. Almost all of the articles cited in this paper come
from architecture and engineering journals. This is not the
result of a lack of effort by the author to find pertinent
planning/stadium articles. Rather, it is due, as far as I can
tell, to a lack of interest in stadia by the field of urban
planning.
What surprises me most
about this lack of interest is that planners have always embraced
a wide variety of redevelopment opportunities, be they housing
developments or civic buildings (like an opera house or district
courthouse). Yet scant attention has been paid to the subject of
stadia as a means for reinvestment in urban areas. I offer this
lack of interest as the final justification for research into
stadia. I firmly believe that planners must come to view stadia
as an opportunity to provide a community with a lasting economic
and social development focus. However, to truly understand this
potential, we must come to terms with the important issues
surrounding stadium financing, provision, and location.
In contrast to America,
planners in Europe have become more interested in this subject in
recent years. Most notably, John Bale has written several books
and articles on stadia issues, the most pertinent being a 1993
publication, Sport, Space, and the City. In this book,
Bale discusses important stadia issues such as their location and
the question of public provision and how these issues are
handled, primarily from a European perspective. One issue that he
pays little attention to is that of stadium funding. However,
this likely results from the different sports culture in Europe
compared to the United States. In Europe, sports clubs are often
left to finance new stadia themselves with little financial aid
from cities, although this is beginning to change.
I must note that much of
the recent interest in Europe concerning stadium issues has
resulted, not from a goal of improving the general understanding
these issues, but rather in response to a number of tragedies
that resulted from poor stadia design and poor stadia location.
More specifically, the Heysel disaster in Brussels in 1985 killed
24 people. and another incident in Sheffield, England in 1989
resulted in 95 spectator deaths. These incidents spurred
government interest in stadia issues, particularly in England,
that resulted in government financing of research into this
subject area. However, it must be said that despite interest in
stadia issues being generated for the wrong reasons, the
desired result of more research on this topic was achieved.
In conclusion, only
recently have planners from all around the globe become the least
bit interested in stadia issues. Surprisingly little is known
about these massive financial and social investments that many
cities, of all sizes, have literally banked their economic
development hopes upon. In Europe writers have recently begun
research in an effort to identify and then study the issues
concerning stadia. Their interest has spurred new research and
generated important new ideas concerning this subject area.
Academia has ignored many subjects over the years, often because
these subjects deserve little study. Yet the subject of stadia is
not one to be ignored. For municipal financial investment
reasons, for the recent growth in stadium construction, and for
the economic development opportunities that they present, stadia
and the issues surrounding them require serious and quality
research. This proposal represents only a first small step
towards understanding the dynamics underlying the creation of the
modern day cathedral.
WHY STUDY STADIA?