Urban Regimes, Sports Stadiums, and the Politics of Economic Development Agendas in Chicago

Abstract

Sports issues have increasingly become prominent items on the urban policy agenda. Most demands for sports-related policies have been woven into the general fabric of economic development in the community. in this article, the authors examine the issues surrounding sports stadium development in Chicago from 1985-90. An urban regime framework, based on the notion of governing coalitions, is used to analyze the incorporation of stadiums into Chicago's policy agenda during these years. The article is instructive of the way in which progressive city administrations have used the regime to mediate corporate demands for the often intangible benefits of sports. Copyright 1991 by The Policy Studies Organization.

Stakeholder Management and the Public Subsidization of Nashville’s Coliseum

“…Bredesen (1995) stated that the stadium would serve the public's interest with a range of economic and non‐economic benefits. Critics implied that Bredesen was attempting to use the stadium issue as a springboard for the gubernatorial race in 1998 (Woods, 1996c; see also Kalich, 1998) while, consistent with urban regime theory, others suggested that the stadium served the corporate community's interest in the continued growth of the downtown core and redevelopment of the city's image (Lavey, 1996; see also Pelissero, et al, 1991). While determining Bredesen's ultimate aims are beyond the scope of this research, we identify Bredesen as the focal stakeholder and through stakeholder analysis attempt to evaluate his management of the different groups within this particular issue of stadium construction.…”

Subsidizing Entertainment Projects As A Strategy For Urban Economic Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis Of Miami’s American Airlines Arena

“…Noll and Zimbalist, 1997). The use of sport in the entrepreneurial strategy of urban development has been widely documented (Curry, Schwirian and Woldoff, 2004;Delaney and Eckstein, 2003;Fort, 2003;Rich, 2000;Noll and Zimbalist, 1997;Shropshire, 1995;Euchner, 1993;Pelissero, Henschen and Sidlow, 1991). Previously in this section, I noted the increased pace and magnitude of public expenditures on sports facilities, as well as the tendency toward building such facilities in or near the central business districts of American cities.…”

“…A growing body of research argues that local actors coalesce around stadium subsidy proposals to achieve their individual goals, which may overlap, diverge or be completely disconnected (Delaney and Eckstein, 2004;Curry, Schwirian and Woldoff, 2003;Foreman, 2003;Keating, 1997;Pelissero, Henschen and Sidlow, 1991). This research also finds that the prevailing socio-political and economic context of the city modifies the interests and actions of influential local players related to professional sports facilities (Delaney and Eckstein, 2004;Curry, Schwirian and Woldoff, 2003;Foreman, 2003).…”

“…Other studies have focused on the political costs and benefits of stadium construction (Johnson and Sack, 1996;Pelissero, Henschen and Sidlow, 1991), finding that in most cities substantial political capital is expended to persuade voters to approve subsidy deals for teams and stadiums. Politicians may damage their reputation with residents who are not likely to reap the benefits from such projects, such as low-income minorities in central city neighborhoods, or exacerbate divisions along racial, class or other lines over the issue to subsidize a sports facility (Smith and Ingham, 2003).…”

“…The rationales used to justify stadium and arena subsidy plans often neglect important principles in economic impact analysis, such as the substitution effect of fan spending (Chapin, 2002;Noll and Zimbalist, 1997;Siegfried and Zimbalist, 2000); the leakage of revenue outside the local economy (Baade, 2000;Howard and Crompton, 1995;Hudson, 2001;Siegfried and Zimbalist, 2000); and the opportunity cost of public investment (Chapin, 2002;Delaney and Eckstein, 2003;Eisinger, 2000;Hone, 2005;Hudson, 2001;Hunter, 1988;Noll and Zimbalist, 1997;Zimmerman, 1997). Further, the methodological challenges of measuring the intangible qualities of urban life, such as "civic pride" or the value of living in a "major league city," make it difficult to capture the non-economic costs and benefits of publicly financed sports facilities (Alexander, Kern and Neills, 2000;Johnson and Sack, 1996;Pelissero, Henschen and Sidlow, 1991).…”