Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="cuseinchina, post: 932308, member: 3079"]
Rubin is correct when he points out that Syracuse is getting the shaft relative to the type and scale of investment going into Buffalo and Albany.  Albany has the advantage of being where the purse strings are held, and Buffalo is a larger city with greater capacity to benefit from a resurgence in American manufacturing that is slowing taking shape.   People should be upset that Syracuse I taking it in the no 2.

That said, to presume that stadiums don't encourage related development and provide a solid ROI is to focus on the failures and ignoring the successes.  Stadiums work when they are knitted into the fabric of a downtown with stuff to do - the stadium and the surrounding area feed off one another.  They work when they are the only show in town as is the case with SU sports.  They work when they can be monetized as venues for non-sporting events because there are limited alternative venues in the area.   All of these things are true for Syracuse.  It was true of Baltimore which is the city that got the stadium financing boom started.  Compare that to what they did in Philly - they built 3 new stadiums right next to each other in an area that is filled with lower middle class blue collar housing and just about nothing else.  yeah those didn't do much for development.      Specifics matter when it comes to any investment.     Generalizations are fodder for internet controversy and herding the sheep.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?