Hunter introduced an interesting issue in his previous post. My thoughts on the subject are too long for a typical "comment," so I'll share them here.
As many of you know, I’ve spent a good amount of time studying and researching municipal investment in sports facilities. I tend to be less skeptical of stadium subsidies than most academics who study the issue; in part because I’m a sports fan, and in part because I believe that sports teams can produce some community benefits (mostly the intangible quality of life kind). That being said, I’m having a hard time finding the merit in the idea of building a new Liberty Bowl.
Generally, the findings of empirical research on the subject can be summarized in three words: not worth it. Most of this research has focused on the ability of professional sports facilities to serve as economic catalysts. A slew of studies that compare cities with new stadiums to those without, or examine the economic performance of cities before and after they build a new stadium, have shown that sports facilities have little or no effect on local jobs or income levels. There are several reasons for this, but the main one is that sports venues do not bring much in the way of “new money” to the local economy. While a lot of money changes hands at a sporting event, the vast majority of the wallets in the stadium belong to local residents. A sports venue gives these resident another leisure option, but it does not increase their leisure budget, which means that most of the spending that occurs at the game is substituting for spending that would have occurred elsewhere in the local economy in the absence of the sporting event (the movie theatre, the bowling alley, etc.).
For these reasons and others, I’m glad to see that, so far, the Liberty Bowl rebuild/repair debate has been addressed as a quality of life issue, not an economic development one. But in the case for new Liberty Bowl, the quality of life argument doesn’t seem to hold much weight either. Compare the development of a new Liberty Bowl to that of the FedEx forum. The Forum was a requirement for luring an NBA team to Memphis. The simple fact that Memphis is home to an NBA team improves the welfare of some residents – it makes them happier and better off than they were without the Forum. Even if they don’t attend a single game at the Forum, fans might enjoy reading about the home team in the paper, listening to sports talk radio, and discussing draft picks around the water cooler. Even non-fans benefit if they feel that having an NBA team is good for the city’s image or civic pride. (In economic terms, then, sports teams create positive externalities and possess the characteristics of a public good.) These public consumption benefits are worth something, and are not captured by ticket prices.
So, to some extent, I buy the quality of life argument for the FedEx forum investment. By contrast, a replacement Liberty Bowl would not bring anything new to the city of Memphis. And there is certainly no concern that the city is going to lose the main user of the current facility; it’s not like the Memphis Tigers are threatening to move to Little Rock. (A new stadium might help the U of M with recruiting, and a team that wins more could increase the welfare of some Memphians, but I think the magnitude of such benefits would be quite small in comparison to the cost of a new stadium.) Factor in recent reports that the organizer of the Southern Heritage Classic seems quite content with the current facility, and building a new Liberty Bowl seems even more frivolous.
A couple of years ago I conducted a study to project the potential quality of life benefits that would be associated with attracting a Major League Baseball team to Portland. The analysis was based on a survey that asked residents about their willingness to support a referendum for increased taxes of various levels to fund construction of a required stadium. In that survey, 85 percent of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement, “Portland has more pressing social issues that should be addressed before public money is spent on a sports stadium.” My analysis showed that this belief had a large and significant negative impact of the tax level that respondents were willing to support. The results of the Portland survey are not transferable to the Memphis population, but I think it’s safe to say that if there are more pressing social issues than professional baseball in Portland, there are more pressing social issues than college football in Memphis. Perhaps my feelings will change when (if?) detailed building and financing plans are unveiled, but for now I believe that allocating significant time and resources to this project sends the wrong message.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An exploration of the relationship between city planning, public finance, urban economics, and the fiscal health of communities. Hosted by the Graduate Program in City & Regional Planning at the University of Memphis.
1 comment:
The case of the Liberty Bowl might be different in some respects from other instances of sports facility replacement, insofar as there is a need to meet ADA requirements, but the manner in which this controversy is being played out is evident of a common pattern: new stadiums are better than old stadiums.
I would imagine that there are only a few legitimate reasons for construction of a replacement stadium: failing structural integrity with enormous repair costs; new facilities to lure a prospective team (or keep an existing one); and increase capacity.
With the average lifespan of a sports venue decreasing, it seems that there should be some measures taken to ensure that a stadium can have lasting value, especially considering the enormous pricetag on new sports venues, which often is paid for, in part or in whole, by public finances. The ability to update internal facilities like locker rooms and luxury boxes should be integrated into the building plan to hopefully extend the lifespan of the building.
Perhaps the addition of some kind of unique architectural characteristics might add to the lasting value of the building. Lasting stadiums can foster greater civic pride if they are well-maintained, unique, and in use. Let's take a case in Memphis, for example. The Pyramid had at least one of these characteristics, uniqueness, but look at it now. Just 16 years old, the most interesting building on the Memphis skyline already sits vacant... except for the one time a year when Bob Seger rolls through town! Not much to brag about... unless you love Bob Seger.
Long story short, if sports venues were built with both indentifiable character and the ability to be updated, they would become buildings worth protecting in the long run.
Post a Comment