Guess Sports DO make a big contribution to an area's energy and economic vitality

[iheartthed]

You mean the hotels that were supposed to all be on the river and twice their actual size?

What does that matter? The casinos did not want to build them at all, nor did they need to. You missed the point if you ever thought that hotels were part of the casinos business model. They only were built because the city had them under contract to build. The Super Bowl was only given to Detroit once they were able to demonstrate that they had the hotel space to accommodate the event, which is what the city wanted out of legalized casino gambling to begin with.

[bailey]

What does that matter? The casinos did not want to build them at all, nor did they need to. You missed the point if you ever thought that hotels were part of the casinos business model. They only were built because the city had them under contract to build. The Super Bowl was only given to Detroit once they were able to demonstrate that they had the hotel space to accommodate the event, which is what the city wanted out of legalized casino gambling to begin with.

I don't know how to say this more clearly... The casino hotels were not part of the hotel package presented to the NFL. Neither they nor the Book were open for the Super Bowl.

The Super Bowl isn't coming to Detroit without Ford Field being built no matter how many hotel rooms there are in the city.

[iheartthed]

The casino hotels were not part of the hotel package presented to the NFL. They were not open for the Super Bowl.

I'd be very surprised if the casino hotels weren't part of the presentation since the temporary casinos opened a year before...

[Detroitnerd]

If you have a really high occupancy rate in an area, it would seem that private developers would be lining up to buy land and build without waiting for subsidies and abatements. Is there any evidence of these high rollers in the CBD or mid-town just waiting to buy land and build classy condos and apartments?

When the facts are against you, argue circumstances...

[bailey]

I'd be very surprised if the casino hotels weren't part of the presentation since the temporary casinos opened a year before...

I don't know what to tell you. It was well reported. The possibility of them was touted, but not factored into the room requirement as they didn't even know when or where they'd be built.

In any event, end of day, no ford field, no superbowl.

[Detroitnerd]

Bailey, any chance you're a sports fan?

[Wesley Mouch]

Cities are organisms that need constant flows of residents and businesspeople and shoppers and diners. Destroying an entire corner of downtown to build a multi-billion dollar theme park, and surrounding it with parking lots, destroys the inherent sense of place, scale, history, and cohesiveness--the very things that make Detroit. The kinds of places being destroyed for Ilitch's theme park are exactly the kinds of places young, educated, tax paying people seek when they get out of school and establish careers. No, it is not reasonable to think that a million people are going to flock back to Detroit. But, as the vacancy rates show, people are willing to move to Detroit where quality places exist. They're not going to move to Detroit [[or anywhere else) for the theme park vibe.

i lived downtown in the 80s 90s 00s. Very little was destroyed. Although I do miss the Elizabeth St. cafe. We lost the Y, and got a new one. I don't like a lot of what's happened, but fairly little was lost.

But out more to the point, it seems to me that the migration to downtown disproves your point. More people live downtown BECAUSE of the stadia and the associated activity.

[bailey]

Bailey, any chance you're a sports fan?

I'm a big fan of things that bring 50-70 thousand people [[who otherwise wouldn't be there spending their money) downtown on a regular basis.

[emu steve]

i lived downtown in the 80s 90s 00s. Very little was destroyed. Although I do miss the Elizabeth St. cafe. We lost the Y, and got a new one. I don't like a lot of what's happened, but fairly little was lost.

But out more to the point, it seems to me that the migration to downtown disproves your point. More people live downtown BECAUSE of the stadia and the associated activity.

And this arena deal is apparently causing a mini-real estate rush near the arena site. Read below:

P.S. IF anyone says that this parcel would have 'developed anyway [[without the arena)' I might throw my mouse at my monitor in frustration and agitation...

Without the arena maybe we could grow corn in that area... Lol. Hell no one really even wanted it for surface parking...

****

“That deal is well north of $1 million,” said Robert Slattery, president of Midtown Development Group. In the Cass Corridor, he added, “There are much smaller buildings that are asking $700,000, $800,000. Really, the atmosphere right now is crazy, the limit hasn’t been set yet on price.” [[emphasis mine).

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2iSjnm0MI

[ghettopalmetto]

i lived downtown in the 80s 90s 00s. Very little was destroyed. Although I do miss the Elizabeth St. cafe. We lost the Y, and got a new one. I don't like a lot of what's happened, but fairly little was lost.

But out more to the point, it seems to me that the migration to downtown disproves your point. More people live downtown BECAUSE of the stadia and the associated activity.

Or maybe those people live in downtown and midtown because they can *walk* to stuff: work, class, restaurants, bars, theatres, museums and such. I don't know anyone who buys or rents real estate due to its proximity to professional sports venues. If that were the case, wouldn't there have been a lot more residential development around Tiger Stadium and the Silverdome in decades past? Sure, maybe there are a couple die-hard Tigers season ticket holders who got tired of paying for parking, but it's disingenuous to attribute all of this to the stadium itself. I mean, why not cite the casinos or Campus Martius or the Hudson's demolition as reasons for increased residential growth? Correlation isn't necessarily causation.

Like bailey, I too am a fan of having 50,000 people downtown. But what is more beneficial to the city: 50,000 people who live there full-time, patronize local businesses, and pay taxes? Or 50,000 people who park the car, show up for 4 hours [[on less than half the calendar days in the year), maybe grab a meal and a beer, and leave? Which, do you think, generates more business and higher tax revenue? If you think they're the same, then compare the area around Ford Field to Center City Philadelphia, which has 57,000 residents in its two square miles--it's no contest which area is economically healthier [[and Center City has *zero* professional sports facilities).

Again, this is the time-honored question of For Whom Is Detroit Supposed to Work: its residents who live and work there every day, or suburbanites who need to be entertained a few hours at a time?

But hey, if Bar Louie and Hooters are what Detroiters think is the epitome of successful economic development, then I'm sure the Ilitchville Parkingplex/Mall will be just fantastic. Just make sure you're getting your tax dollars' worth.

[ghettopalmetto]

And this arena deal is apparently causing a mini-real estate rush near the arena site. Read below:

P.S. IF anyone says that this parcel would have 'developed anyway [[without the arena)' I might throw my mouse at my monitor in frustration and agitation...

Without the arena maybe we could grow corn in that area... Lol. Hell no one really even wanted it for surface parking...

No kidding. You think they know that Mike Ilitch sits on a pile of cash???

[Wesley Mouch]

Or maybe those people live in downtown and midtown because they can *walk* to stuff: work, class, restaurants, bars, theatres, museums and such. I don't know anyone who buys or rents real estate due to its proximity to professional sports venues. ...

Palmie... the point of this thread is that the sports venues provided the confidence and critical mass to bring the work, restaurants, bars and more into the central city.

I agree with you that its bad development policy. I don't like government picking winners and losers. I don't like using tax money to give to friends and family -- which no doubt happens often when you give public officials discretion like this.

Back to my main point.... Ghetie --- the townhouses north of Fisher Fwy on Woodward... were build 100% because of the stadium development to the south. Cheli's Chili was built 100% to capitalize on the new ballpark.

These two points demonstrate directly that stadiums drive development. I don't like it -- but its true. Stadiums and that investment provide a similar spark to mass transit. It provides the guarantee to incoming retain development that activity will be found nearby for years to come.

[Detroitnerd]

I'm a big fan of things that bring 50-70 thousand people [[who otherwise wouldn't be there spending their money) downtown on a regular basis.

I think you're dodging the question to avoid admitting you are a sports fan. Is that true? It's not really so bad to admit that you are a fan, but is it awful to conjecture that maybe, just possibly, this colors your attitudes about the subsidy and gives you some rose-colored glasses with which to view its rather limited multiplier effect?

[bailey]

I think you're dodging the question to avoid admitting you are a sports fan. Is that true? It's not really so bad to admit that you are a fan, but is it awful to conjecture that maybe, just possibly, this colors your attitudes about the subsidy and gives you some rose-colored glasses with which to view its rather limited multiplier effect?

um, ok, well, I'm not a hockey fan[[I'll go if the tickets are free). Not really a fan of baseball... although I do enjoy a day a the park and will watch it on TV when the Tigers are in the playoffs. Prefer College football to the NFL and I loath Pro-Basketball [[could not pay me to go to the Palace for any piston's game).

I really don't think any of that is relevant though. I've also never been a fan of going to the mega concert events that happen in any of these spaces. But I can appreciate that sell out crowds will pay insane prices to sit in nosebleed sections to see Justin Beiber or whoever. I'd like to see all those people doing all of that it Detroit rather than Auburn Hills.

I'm not saying that the new hockeytown or any stadium will solve every issue facing detroit. I'm saying its about the only option on the table that will have ANY real multiplier at all. and it has the added benefit of getting the stupidly located JLA off the riverfront..which I personally think is worth a subsidy in and of itself.

I'm looking at the reality on the ground, today. Not the mistakes and stupid choices that got us here. Today there are vast tracts of the CBD that are, rightly or wrongly, empty or derelict and are going to be,or are now, in the hands of guy that has set his sights on a new sports and entertainment district. It's going to happen. and if it doesn't, nothing else is. Sucks, but that is the reality of it.

We don't have an Ivy League and 10 other well regarded 4 year institutions located in the city to generate the 10 job to every student multiplier that cities that are compared to Detroit have. GM is not moving it's Tech Center from Warren. QL is probably as big as its going to get. Compuware is going to be sold off for it's parts no too long from now. Ford is not moving from Dearborn, Chrysler isn't moving from Auburn Hills. The BigLaw Firms arent going to fold all their Troy & Bham locations back into their Downtown ones. Masco isn't' coming back from Taylor. There is no Hudson's downtown, nor will there be ever again...etc.

Having the stadiums downtown forms a nucleus to rebuild that get people there and give people a reason to open a business or rent a place or buy a place in Detroit vs. Random Corner of Exurbia. It contributes to the perception that Detroit is a "real" vibrant city with "stuff" to do.

You can not tell me that what has happened over the last 10 years downtown would have had the Tigers not moved, the Lions stayed in Pontiac and the Wings not been talking about moving for years. Heck, M1 doesn't even get proposed if the Tigers are at OTS and the Wings are at the Joe and the Lions are at the Silverdome. If M1 ever does get built, my hope is that when it's serving as a parking shuttle for suburbanites, it raises the question; "hey, why doesn't this go to B'ham so I don't have to drive halfway here?"

[ghettopalmetto]

Palmie... the point of this thread is that the sports venues provided the confidence and critical mass to bring the work, restaurants, bars and more into the central city.

I agree with you that its bad development policy. I don't like government picking winners and losers. I don't like using tax money to give to friends and family -- which no doubt happens often when you give public officials discretion like this.

Back to my main point.... Ghetie --- the townhouses north of Fisher Fwy on Woodward... were build 100% because of the stadium development to the south. Cheli's Chili was built 100% to capitalize on the new ballpark.

These two points demonstrate directly that stadiums drive development. I don't like it -- but its true. Stadiums and that investment provide a similar spark to mass transit. It provides the guarantee to incoming retain development that activity will be found nearby for years to come.

Confidence? How do you measure that? Developers are numbers guys...where does "confidence" show up in the numerical analysis?

Cheli's Chili, for one, was built to capitalize on the ballpark. But, instead of laying out 1/3 the cost of Comerica Park, wouldn't it have been far cheaper to just give Chris Chelios the money to build his restaurant?

Claiming that the townhouses in Brush Park were built to "capitalize" on the ballpark is disingenuous, and there's no factual evidence to support that claim, other than a correlation in the timeline. I mean, next you're going to tell us that Quicken Loans moved downtown to be near the ballpark too, or that Ancient Rome blossomed because of the Colosseum.

Sure, you might get a couple blocks of new development surrounding a ballpark/stadium, primarily in the form of bars and restaurants. But are the City and State supposed to fork over hundreds of millions in subsidies every time they want to develop a couple of blocks? I mean, if stadiums are the way to go, then wouldn't the South Bronx and Flushing, Queens be in better shape than Manhattan? Wouldn't smaller, non-major-league cities be Dead on Arrival?

Other things drive development too. Like an increase in the number of jobs and residents. And good transportation infrastructure. These metrics have been true since the dawn of time. So why Detroit insists on resorting to specious and expensive gimmicks, with questionable [[at best) Return on Investment, time and again is beyond me.

There's all this talk about "vitality". Well, someone please go on the street outside Comerica Park or Ford Field right now, and take some photographs. Let's see how much "vitality" and how many "things to do" are in that area on an ordinary Wednesday afternoon. I think we can all agree that, outside the few hours where an event is scheduled, the entire area is a megablock of dead zones. There's no reason to think the new hockey arena is going to be different.

[ghettopalmetto]

Having the stadiums downtown forms a nucleus to rebuild that get people there and give people a reason to open a business or rent a place or buy a place in Detroit vs. Random Corner of Exurbia. It contributes to the perception that Detroit is a "real" vibrant city with "stuff" to do.

You can not tell me that what has happened over the last 10 years downtown would have had the Tigers not moved, the Lions stayed in Pontiac and the Wings not been talking about moving for years. Heck, M1 doesn't even get proposed if the Tigers are at OTS and the Wings are at the Joe and the Lions are at the Silverdome. If M1 ever does get built, my hope is that when it's serving as a parking shuttle for suburbanites, it raises the question; "hey, why doesn't this go to B'ham so I don't have to drive halfway here?"

The "reality on the ground" is that no business owner in his right mind can survive by making money only a few hours a day for 25% of the year.

[Detroitnerd]

You can not tell me that what has happened over the last 10 years downtown would have had the Tigers not moved, the Lions stayed in Pontiac and the Wings not been talking about moving for years. Heck, M1 doesn't even get proposed if the Tigers are at OTS and the Wings are at the Joe and the Lions are at the Silverdome. If M1 ever does get built, my hope is that when it's serving as a parking shuttle for suburbanites, it raises the question; "hey, why doesn't this go to B'ham so I don't have to drive halfway here?"

Well, sure I can. Because it has happened in cities across the United States without any stadia or big-ticket developments in their downtowns. It happens for a lot of reasons. But stadia are not one of them. If you think it's hard to prove, look at Corktown. It's blowing up, and it LOST its stadium.

I think you are a local guy, and you likely have a lot of the engrained local beliefs that never are examined. It's called "popular wisdom," but it doesn't have to be true. Bear in mind, we've had decades of big-ticket, silver-bullet projects attempting to draw people downtown and midtown: Hart Plaza, the Civic Center, the Cultural Center, Wayne State University, Cobo Arena, JLA, the Millinder Center, the Ren Cen, etc. It didn't work, did it? None of them really clicked.

What did it was changing national tastes about lifestyle norms, millenials, a few ambitious real estate people trying to flip downtown by flooding downtown with office work, subsidies from large institutions and, yes, walkability and bikability. Look at the people new to downtown. I know many of them. The folks I know could give two bits about the sports teams or the stadia. They'll never go there. They are there for the work and for the restaurants and bars.

You say, without proof, without research, without anything to back it up other than an anecdotal news story written by a 25-year-old reporter that stadiums represent "about the only option on the table that will have ANY real multiplier at all." That's totally not the case, and a few minutes of research would bear that out. Light rail is acknowledged as the greatest tool for spurring reinvestment in downtowns across the country. It has an insane multiplier effect. So instead of allocating $400 million or so for big Mike, this should be going to infrastructure in the form of rail-based transit.

It's great that you're excited about BBW and sports, and entertainment is an important part of a mix that makes downtown attractive to younger residents right now. It's just that, well, I have to agree with the other people on this thread: You are pushing for a poor policy decisions based on faulty assumptions and a paucity of research.

[Spartan]

Confidence? How do you measure that? Developers are numbers guys...where does "confidence" show up in the numerical analysis?

Cheli's Chili, for one, was built to capitalize on the ballpark. But, instead of laying out 1/3 the cost of Comerica Park, wouldn't it have been far cheaper to just give Chris Chelios the money to build his restaurant?

So you give a guy a couple million to open a new restaurant where he'll blow it all because there are no people to eat there and you think that's a GOOD economic plan? You can't say "let's give developers millions to put up apartments, restaurants, etc" and expect them to succeed. There has to be reasons for them to be there.

Now I understand the argument that building 2-3 fail-jail-Gilbert-type complexes instead of giving the stadiums money, but stuff like that is fairly rare so it's hard to make an apt comparison. You can't just say, let's give 5 restaurants a few million so they can build where there's no customer base though.

[ghettopalmetto]

So you give a guy a couple million to open a new restaurant where he'll blow it all because there are no people to eat there and you think that's a GOOD economic plan? You can't say "let's give developers millions to put up apartments, restaurants, etc" and expect them to succeed. There has to be reasons for them to be there.

Now I understand the argument that building 2-3 fail-jail-Gilbert-type complexes instead of giving the stadiums money, but stuff like that is fairly rare so it's hard to make an apt comparison. You can't just say, let's give 5 restaurants a few million so they can build where there's no customer base though.

Is that really true? A downtown with 50,000 workers and 10,000 residents is "no customer base"? Do you think a restaurant or bar could survive by opening for a few hours a day, 25% of the days of the year?

I think it's pretty clear by now that some people are just believing whatever Chamber of Commerce propaganda they want to believe.

[Detroitnerd]

I also think Ilitch is making use of a lot of metro Detroiters' outdated perceptions of downtown Detroit to make his case for the subsidies. I believe that Bailey is in earnest when he all but asks, "How can downtown compete with the exurbs?"

It shouldn't. Let the exurbs compete with each other for what will be a dwindling, aging, fleeing supply of people who can take on the debt necessary to live in that sort of arrangement. It's not rocket science. You provide good roads, good infrastructure and allow a city to be dense and urban and the development will expand. [[With things that will be infinitely richer than B-Dubs.)

[bailey]

The "reality on the ground" is that no business owner in his right mind can survive by making money only a few hours a day for 25% of the year.

Oh C'mon. Not one person is saying that Cliff Bells or Chelis or whatever is open EXCLUSIVELY to cater to sports fans, a few hours of the day 25% of the year.

Everyone... to include the people I know in the restaurant industry in Detroit, is saying that they wouldn't be there without them. The sports fan is their "black friday" not their entire gross revenue.

I think we can all agree that, outside the few hours where an event is scheduled, the entire area is a megablock of dead zones. There's no reason to think the new hockey arena is going to be different.

about 2 hours ago I was at an office in Ford Field. What was it prior to being ford field and 300k of class A office space? an empty building. Once CE completes its fit out and move, it'll be more full.

You say, without proof, without research, without anything to back it up other than an anecdotal news story written by a 25-year-old reporter that stadiums represent "about the only option on the table that will have ANY real multiplier at all." That's totally not the case, and a few minutes of research would bear that out. Light rail is acknowledged as the greatest tool for spurring reinvestment in downtowns across the country. It has an insane multiplier effect. So instead of allocating $400 million or so for big Mike, this should be going to infrastructure in the form of rail-based transit.

OMFG. Are you serious? I'm not relying on an article, I'm relying on people I know that run restaurants and businesses and work and live in the CBD.

Look, I don't know how to say this anymore clearly. I get that there are better ways to do this. I get that we're using public money to impart some private gain. My only point is I'd rather have most of something than all of nothing.

I'd rather see Illitch get his sportsplex, the JLA torn down which will open up more of the river, and get closer to an infilled CBD which keeps the positive momentum going downtown and up to MidTown than pretend like light rail is ever going to happen here or best practices in urban planning are ever going to be implemented.

Yes, it would be fucking stupendous if light rail was going to happen here. yes, it would bring tons of multipler. However, if the last 35 years hasn't shown you that light rail will never. ever. ever. happen here, and if the trolley we're getting which everyone insists on calling Light Rail hasn't reaffirmed it, then I don't know what to tell you.

[DetroitPlanner]

You say, without proof, without research, without anything to back it up other than an anecdotal news story written by a 25-year-old reporter that stadiums represent "about the only option on the table that will have ANY real multiplier at all." That's totally not the case, and a few minutes of research would bear that out. Light rail is acknowledged as the greatest tool for spurring reinvestment in downtowns across the country. It has an insane multiplier effect. So instead of allocating $400 million or so for big Mike, this should be going to infrastructure in the form of rail-based transit.

Thats not true having the density that supports higher level transit helps spur economic development. If you wanted to build a Light Rail System in the middle of the desert in a town of 100 people you won't do anything but waste your money.

You need to differentiate between the mode and the conditions.

[Detroitnerd]

Thats not true having the density that supports higher level transit helps spur economic development. If you wanted to build a Light Rail System in the middle of the desert in a town of 100 people you won't do anything but waste your money.

You need to differentiate between the mode and the conditions.

OK, DP, find me a downtown in the middle of a desert?

[ghettopalmetto]

With all the economic development know-how in Detroit, you'd think the City would be in better shape.

With that said, I suppose I should crawl back to my 85,000 person town in the middle of nowhere, with it's embarrassing lack of major league sports and casinos and "attractions", and tell everyone to just give up, because we don't stand a chance of ever having restaurants and bars, let alone a decent downtown that people will want to visit.

[ghettopalmetto]

OK, DP, find me a downtown in the middle of a desert?

Phoenix is in the middle of a desert. They have light rail. ;-)