When teams try to get ballparks built, they claim that a new stadium will generate jobs and improve the local area. Do you think stadiums can do this, or are local officials and team owners expecting too much?

When teams try to get ballparks built, they claim that a new stadium will generate jobs and improve the local area.  Do you think stadiums can do this, or are local officials and team owners expecting too much?

Let's get right to the point, why don't we??

 

You have asked two economics of sports questions in two days. What gives? What are you researching? Give us more specifics and it is easier to answer than generalities that may vary from city to city.

When teams try to get ballparks built, they claim that a new stadium will generate jobs and improve the local area.  Do you think stadiums can do this, or are local officials and team owners expecting too much?

Just curious are you using us as research for a paper or something??? All of your posts have related to the business end of baseball, specifically new stadiums

 

are you Abe Pohlan?

 

--------------------

 

New stadiums do create jobs -- someone has to build/design the stadium -- New stadiums also tend to have more amenities which require more workers i.e. more consessions, vendors, etc.

New stadiums can improve an area -- Though the stadium will no accomplish this on it's own. A broader plan than just a new sports facility is needed to regenerate a depleted nieghborhood.

Let's get right to the point, why don't we??

 

You have asked two economics of sports questions in two days.  What gives?  What are you researching?  Give us more specifics and it is easier to answer than generalities that may vary from city to  city.

Rex you're just quicker than me --- Damn telephone at work.

When teams try to get ballparks built, they claim that a new stadium will generate jobs and improve the local area.  Do you think stadiums can do this, or are local officials and team owners expecting too much?

First off, wanted to say welcome aboard.

 

Personally I think that the ballparks do increase revenue for the city in the sense that more people will travel to the city (how much more, I have no idea). Those people traveling will buy food, buy clothes, spend money on hotel rooms which helps all those businesses and as a result, those businesses will pay more taxes which goes back to the state and then gets divided back into cities and what not depending on how it works.

 

You also have increased revenues from the stadium since the new stadium will draw better (most likely) the first few years then the previous stadium.

 

I do believe that what baseball people say is probably an overstatement. Plus, you have the fact that it may just be a positive thing to do for your city.

Just curious are you using us as research for a paper or something??? All of your posts have related to the business end of baseball, specifically new stadiums

 

are you Abe Pohlan?

 

--------------------

 

New stadiums do create jobs -- someone has to build/design the stadium -- New stadiums also tend to have more amenities which require more workers i.e. more consessions, vendors, etc.

New stadiums can improve an area -- Though the stadium will no accomplish this on it's own.  A broader plan than just a new sports facility is needed to regenerate a depleted nieghborhood.

Phoenix is a perfect example. I think they've finished building the new hockey stadium near a brand new housing area (Glendale I think it's called). There's also plenty of restaraunts and cafes nearby etc. so yeah it's created a lot of new jobs. I think they will be buildin the new football stadium near there too.

A major league baseball team does, in fact, contribute to the financial health of a city. Is it enough to justify the taxpayers footing the bill for the construction of the ball team's place of business? Only if the the taxpayers can return a profit on their investment.

Stadium do not create any more jobs than would already have been created. This has long been the sports team arguement that they brought 100 million into the local economy, however the vast majority of the is in entertainment dollars that would have been spent anyways. If you don't have season tickets for baseball, you buy season tickets to the opera instead, and use restaurants and all that other s***. Sports tourism is a model that is exremely flawed, there is an ecomomic number generated, but not near what is normally presented.

Stadium do not create any more jobs than would already have been created.  This has long been the sports team arguement that they brought 100 million into the local economy, however the vast majority of the is in entertainment dollars that would have been spent anyways.  If you don't have season tickets for baseball, you buy season tickets to the opera instead, and use restaurants and all that other s***.  Sports tourism is a model that is exremely flawed, there is an ecomomic number generated, but not near what is normally presented.

That is a tough economic arguement to make. You are assuming that if they don't go to a baseball game, that they will go somewhere else and spend just as much money as they would have.

That is a tough economic arguement to make.  You are assuming that if they don't go to a baseball game, that they will go somewhere else and spend just as much money as they would have.

That's not tough at all because everyone spends money on entertaiment.

That's not tough at all because everyone spends money on entertaiment.

It is a tough arguement because of a few reasons. One, like I said you are assuming that those all of those dollars get spent elsewhere. I know if I don't go to games, it doesn't make me more likely to go to a movie instead. Two you are talking about extra dollars. They essential monies you are saving, they are discressionary. The savings rate comes from discressionary money. You would be more much more likely to turn the money you don't spend at the ballpark into savings.

Stadium do not create any more jobs than would already have been created.  This has long been the sports team arguement that they brought 100 million into the local economy, however the vast majority of the is in entertainment dollars that would have been spent anyways.  If you don't have season tickets for baseball, you buy season tickets to the opera instead, and use restaurants and all that other s***.  Sports tourism is a model that is exremely flawed, there is an ecomomic number generated, but not near what is normally presented.

One variable is the tourism aspect of it.

Some teams have a much larger out-of-town contingent than others, but every team has some travelers amongst their fan base.

Hell, some SlackHawks fans STILL make the trip to St. Louis and Detroit!!

Let's get right to the point, why don't we??

 

You have asked two economics of sports questions in two days.  What gives?  What are you researching?  Give us more specifics and it is easier to answer than generalities that may vary from city to  city.

I am working on a paper for a graduate class about baseball economics and fan opinion. I'd appreciate any help you guys can give me. Though I realize situations vary from team to team and city to city, I'm just looking for general opinions. Most books focus on owners and politicians and not the fans. The fans matter. That's the focus of my paper. Thanks.

The correct answer to your question is ...it depends. I believe that new stadiums built in the midle of no where are a waste of money (ie. US cellular, Miller Park). The more successful new parks typically are key components of larger urban planning efforts and closer to downtown locations, such as Camden Yards and, Coors Field (and I believe the futue Cardinal stadium). These latter examples are tied into other urban redevelopment projects such as urban waterfront redevelopment, the introduction of infill retail and residential, and, other major entertainment attractions such as restaurants, clubs, theatres, etc. The term that urban planners use here is 'Critical Mass'. It means that in order to have a successful vibrant urban environment, you also need to have in close proximity, a multitude of land uses that will contribute to the vitality of the area and feed off of each other.

 

The mistake that is often made in the siting of new stadia is that the cheapest site is selected in order to keep project cost down. As we have discovered with some of the more successful projects, and the poorer ones, it's well worth the extra money for that prime location.