Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Millhouse, post: 934024, member: 78"]
that study isn't very good.  you can't simply measure development around the stadium and assume that it didn't crowd out development elsewhere in the same city.

"Within in a year of Coors Field’s opening in 1995, housing units in LoDo doubled and there was also a significant growth in area restaurants and retail stores, which many say Coors  Field had a large part in. "  Oh, well, "many say"

"Both developers behind such projects and San Francisco city officials directly cite AT&T Park as a very important reason development occurred in the Mission Bay neighborhood. (Swift 2007; Gordon 2004) "  again, no discussion of counter factual. (what and where would they build if the money hadn't been spent on the stadium)

If this is the research you actually read (vs just quickly googling, which i suspect is what happened), you need to read some better sources.

You say that I dismiss the project out of hand but that's not true.  In other threads, plenty of us discussed the cash flow assumptions that would justify that kind of cost

It's hard to even justify the 100 million private investment without additional guarantees.

500 million, forget it.  At a 10% discount rate (appropriate given flux derisk green shoot uncertainty, right?) over 30 years (conservative given that knuckleheads will want to build something else sooner than that) you're going to need 53 million a year of net benefits to break even.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?