This week we talk urban redevelopment. In the last ten years, a glut of new sports stadiums and ballparks and arenas have been built around the country. Some have been financed by the city, some by taxpayers and the rare few by the actual owners of the sports teams. But does this investment actually lead to urban redevelopment or just another string Starbucks and Chipotles? And is that such a bad thing? Read on…
Greg: How do you feel about the new wave of downtown ballpark construction around the country as a tool for urban renewal?
Mike: I like it. I think its a good way to stimulate OTHER business to build there. I’m glad the Royals and Chiefs chose to stay where they were and we will upgrade the current stadiums. They will be pretty great I think. Though I’m glad that the rolling roof proposal didn’t pass…I thought it was lame and unnecessary and really ugly design.
Greg: Yeah I agree I think. I got into a big argument/discussion with my cousin last night about downtown ballparks and was just curious what you thought. In terms of if it’s an appropriate/effective way to redevelop a city?
Mike: I know lots of people in KC who would love a downtown ballpark. But I’m not sure its feasible considering the layout of KC and the lack of public transport. In other cities I think its a decent way to start growth (not the end all) and sometimes it simply serves as a catalyst. The Verizon Center here in Chinatown of DC really helped this area not be ghetto areas anymore. Within the last seven months even, I have seen all sorts of things go up here.
But for KC to expect that to happen here w\o developing a light rail or surrounding areas to create city density in downtown it might be foolish. Thing is, KC has all the suburbs that sprawl out forever, and then these little pockets here and there — 18th & Vine, Plaza, Crown Centre, Westport, Downtown, City Market, the stadiums etc…but there is nothing to tie them together. I think the Sprint Arena is supposed to spawn some activity downtown along w\ an entertainment district but we’ll see.
Greg: The Verizon Center… what is it? What does it look like?
Mike: Its the arena where NBA & NHL and concerts happen… Its like a huge box.
Greg: I have a more specific question I’m slowly working towards. Here’s kind of what I’m getting at and trying to figure out:
1. Do large scale redevelopment plans (i.e. downtown ballpark stadiums) create a genuine community (genuine is puposfully vague)?
2. How do large scale redevelopments compare to urban areas that develop more naturally, such as artists buying up depressed areas and slowly making them trendy?
3. Worst case scenario, the baseball stadium brings in a crowd to downtown on game nights and spinoff restaurants/bars/retail are busy those nights…. is that successful? I’m really not sure.
Mike: A couple things: I think you need a mixture of large scale and organic development methods. Its a macro and micro level idea of defining the city. The large scale things such as commercial entertainment districts such as theatres, movie theatres, shopping, chain restaurants and stadiums\arenas etc have the appeal to the normal person both in the city and people outside.
The normal person is looking for that kind of entertainment, and honestly sometimes I want that too, especially in sports going as I am a fan of mainstream sports. The stadium being built potentially is a draw to the area, and if there is adequate parking and public transport so people can easily get there and back, then it is something that will draw lots of people and then potential business to the area.
Many businesses see this as a macro level way to serve as a catalyst for growth and development. It also helps when the team is popular (and good)…a new park has shown even to help draw more fans to games which in turn makes the team better because more money is coming in.
Greg: Does that last long term?
Mike: As far as natural organic growth (i.e. people buying low rent and making it the new trendy residential area) I think that can only happen if the basics are taken care of elsewhere. I think once people have the basics they seek out the more fringe (and often better) places to eat and shop and drink… This brings as much worth to a city as the arena but they go hand in hand.
A residential city area needs things to do to make demand for people to want to live there. Bt for businesses to want to set up shop there, they need the reassurance that people are there creating a demand for the restaurants\bars\shops etc.
I’m not sure how sustainable any of this is…its all very fickle based on what the lifespan is and how high the rent is for the developments and the turnover rates of the businesses surrounding the residential and commercial and entertainment districts.
So in theory, a place can be there forever as long as people make it part of the city and the rent doesn’t rise too high, but the trendy stuff might fizzle out when its not the trend anymore…most restaurants not part of a chain turnover about every 2years…if you make it past that then you are golden, from what I’ve read. What do you think?
Greg: I’m not sure, all around… in a lot of ways I think the fantasy of going downtown and watching a baseball game and the stadium itself risks being Disney-fied and kind of fake.
Mike: It is at times, but once inside the stadium, the game and the atmosphere is what matters the surrounding landscapes of Gaps and Starbucks and Chipotles that are safe developments around there are needed for the common person, but it leaves something to be desired for others plus that stuff generates money to help develop housing, keep the stadium rent etc.
Greg: And I have that fantasy too, I mean i think it would be great to go downtown, have a beer and watch the game. But what will this be like in 15 years when the paint is chipping? A lot of the design of these urban renewal stadiums is retro, in the vein of the old stadiums. But it’s kind of a fake charm. It’s almost like living in a sentimentality like Leave it to Beaver or something.
But the thing is with my complaints is that I’m not sure what I’m complaining about is really a bad thing at all…see that’s the thing… I know you are right. The national chains are safe…they’ll stay.
Mike: For sports architecture that retro thing is more than just fake…baseball in particular is alway respectful of the past, the game itself and its relationship with your family memories of baseball— going to games with Dad. Its classy somehow with the brick and steel. As contemporary architecture, sports stadiums do leave something to be desired though.
Greg: Well… but it was classy. The old stadiums are classy…classy in their tradition and history.
Mike: But generally I can choose not to eat at those chain places if I want…and usually I don’t at all. But its good to have that stuff because it, in a way, helps the area. For example, my first place in DC was a ‘developing area’ but totally in the ghetto and 5yrs removed from probably being totally safe neighborhood. People were buying the cheap property and redeveloping, but there was no infrastructure there (no businesses at all) to make you feel safe. My new place has a nearby Whole Foods market and honestly having something like that, as much as I hate to admit, helps the neighborhood develop the metro stops help and so on.
Greg: Sure that’s true. It gives you an indication of the safety, quality of a neighborhood well if there’s a Whole Foods here it must be relatively safe…and really, like Starbucks, although it is a national chain, basically created a market that has allowed local coffee shops to thrive they created the coffee culture.
Mike: I mean, to some, that ‘homogenizes’ the area. But for others, its a great thing. We all want that ‘authentic’ feeling but I’m not so sure that always exists, sadly.
Greg: Well, in my mind there is a huge difference between a giant Home Depot at 119th and I35 than a Whole Foods in the city…not sure why.
Mike: Sometimes I think that ‘gentrification’ isn’t always a bad thing. Its just a key word that people throw around. Having a Starbucks would be the greatest sign of development and stability in some areas… So I get the idea that these large corporations often do take the flavour out of a place in a way to Disney-ize, but I think these days we need a mixture of both this and small businesses. As long as there is a corporate responsibility to not drive out the existing residents and local businesses with soaring rents.
Greg: I definitely agree… it’s good to see both types of businesses succeed side by side.
Mike: As much as I hate Starbucks on some level (their coffee kinda sucks and they will never recreate the community feel of a local store), you have to respect their business practice on another of having a solid product (and sometimes, a lifestyle) that people want. Granted its oft at the expense of these real and comfortable coffee shop community, (I sorely miss Radinas and Westport Coffee House) but they give most people what they want. And somehow starbucks do it without the Walmart and McDonald’s method of bad customer and employee relations.
Greg: Exactly…Chipotle, too doesn’t have that problem.
Mike: AND they are half-owned by McD’s
Greg: I know! Funny.
Mike: We are living in a material world, and we are that material girl.
Greg: Basically, the chains lend safety, reliability, the local places quality, uniqueness, diversity.
Mike: This is probably the most rational things I have seen about this issue. Its totally symbiotic.
Greg: Yeah. In the end, chains are an easy target but they have a lot of good things about them too… This story I think is relevant to the conversation. I personally am waiting in anticipation for the Chipotle to be done outside my office (close to my office) because let’s face it, they make damn good burritos. That I am craving now.
Mike: I was thinking that too actually of going there for lunch…strange…we are quite alike sometimes. Scary.
Greg: I know…funny.
Mike: I guess the marketing has worked on us.
Aryn: Hey guys, just saw this post and wanted to chime in with a few thoughts. First off, Chipotle is no longer owned by McDonald’s, the owner bought his share back. They were only a part of McDonald’s to help with distributions.
But as for my opinion: I think its a good way to rehash interest in a city. I think we are seeing a natural gravitation towards urban living, with all of the suburban kids growing older (like us) and wanting to live somewhere that is not so sterile. This of course may change when we get to the kid making part of our lives, but for now we want to be (at least I do) somewhere that I can walk, use public transportation and have different options than the cookie cutter box stores.
But neighborhoods have a natural sea change, they start out with the poor, the artists can afford , then the richer kids want to move in cause they are trendy, then the richer yuppies move in cause they think they are trendy, then its gets to be too expensive for people. Things settle and either find a balance or decline waiting for the process to happen 50 years down the line. It is quite apparent here.
In Chicago, you have Wicker Park (super trendy) which is way too expensive for the poor artists so they are moving to places like old town (where Sue works) and Pilsen (where the largest Hispanic population in the us lives) and systematically making the places nicer (= more expensive) and driving the “poories” out. But thats natural, I am not sure that there is another way to do it. But I think that stadiums can give that process a kick in the ass, if there is a location that is beyond crappy, it will create that security for business to invest in the area and brighten it up.
So what do you think? Email us at [email protected]
Coming up NEXT WEEK: The last and final hello.column of season one.