It should be about people
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 | Nathaniel M. Hood The author of this post, Nathaniel Hood, is a Strong Towns partner. In addition to contributing to this site, you can read Nate's work at his blog, Thoughts on the Urban Environment, and at the new Minnesota-based transportation site Streets.MN. You can also follow him on Twitter.
For a place to be successful, it needs people. All types of people. This is why the idea of creating “entertainment districts” might not be such a great idea.
Proposals for entertainment districts occasionally sprout up in City Councils meetings as the next big thing. While it certainly is tempting in its efforts to capitalize on people’s passion for retail, sports, food and drink; it is a development prospect that should be viewed with skepticism.
This is a rendering of one proposed Vikings stadium; one that was slated to be part of a “sports entertainment district” in downtown Minneapolis. Sports entertainment is a large element in selling these districts, and fair enough, sports are something we value in our culture and it makes subsidizing these projects somewhat more tolerable to the general public. But is it worth it for the urban spaces they create?
In Minnesota, “the best stadium site got snubbed,” at least according to Steve Berg in the Star Tribune:
Perhaps we’ve just witnessed the ultimate NIMBY encounter: America’s two most powerful religions squaring off against each other, with Christianity telling the National Football League: Not in my back yard! Build a Vikings stadium if you must, but not next door to the Basilica of St. Mary. [Star Tribune, January 26, 2012]
In the article, Berg’s arguments refuting Basilica of St. Mary’s Rev. John Bauer’s aren’t necessarily wrong. In fact, he points out holes in Rev. Bauer’s objections to the Linden Avenue site. Yet, none of this matters because Berg’s vision is, ironically, antithetical to his greater aspiration for Minneapolis urbanism.
Berg wants to create a sports entertainment district centered around Target Field, a new Vikings stadium and the renovated Target Center. This is a misguided effort to create a place not worth being in. In my opinion, instead of asking how we could fund an entertainment district, we should be asking ourselves: do we even want an entertainment district?
Why? Because they lack the most crucial element of creating great places: people.
While entertainment districts certainly have people during the odd event, they are otherwise deserts of large infrastructure investments. Don’t believe me? Check out examples of entertainment districts across the county in Cincinnati, Phoenix, Des Moines, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and even the so-called successes of Denver (here & here) and Los Angeles.
Entertainment districts, even the best ones, fail at creating a lively mix of retail, residential, commercial and civic space. In fact, most all mega projects have failed in this regard. They are isolating locations, usually not worthy of the public affection beyond the handful of large sporting events, conventions or Friday night bar excursions. In fact, show me an existing or proposed entertainment district and I’ll show you a struggling city.
Large and mid-size towns have started to classify downtown’s as entertainment districts. This is a dangerous precedent to set and often times contradictory to Strong Towns place making principles. Kansas City’s Power and Light District comes to mind. It’s hard not to argue that the area is charming, fun, exciting and a few other hedonistic adjectives. It’s all of these things … if you’re 25. But, unfortunately, these types of environments don’t help in attracting other sorts into the urban settings; baby boomers and families with young children aren’t going to be attracted to these places.
That’s not to say that the activities that take place in the Power and Light District should be regulated or banned. Nor do I want to imply that sports stadiums don’t have a place in our urban environment. But, what I’m attempting to say is that downtowns need to be a place for everyone. Entertainment districts don’t do a good job that, and they certainly don’t offer good urban outcomes – often times they replicate the same symptoms of urban malls.
Paris and Florence don’t have entertainment district. Neither does San Francisco. Melbourne doesn’t either. What these cities have are spaces for people. They also have sports stadiums and bars – just not as the focal points of their city centers.
When a large building fails at creating a lively mix of retail, residential, commercial and civic space – it creates an isolating space not worthy of the public affection. It doesn’t help that these places aren’t cheap – taxpayers usually end up taking on the initial bill, and all the risk. Entertainment districts are the new “Bilbao anomaly” are the new urban mall, are the downtown casino, the list goes on. Regardless, at the end of the day, strong towns don’t create “entertainment districts”, they should create places.
If you value our work, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to support this blog and our other efforts to build a stronger, more resilient America. A small, recurring donation by you will help us in so many ways. Thank you for your support.
Reader Comments (7)
I think the Los Angeles example you cited (LA Live!) is an interesting example of well-intentioned "entertainment districts" that miss the mark on being effective mixed-use downtowns. Since the article you wrote was published, LA Live! has been completed and I was there to see it for a few days in October 2011, in conjunction with a conference at the adjacent Convention Center. There are now a few informal spaces (tables w/chairs, planters, benches) to sit and enjoy the area, and my fellow conference goers and I did just that, and enjoyed the sun and the view of the now-complete Marriott/Ritz tower. But the area is not sufficiently well-connected that it's likely to attract non-eventgoers. Rather than creating these large districts, Minneapolis and other cities should seek to sprinkle them throughout a downtown, in order to avoid the vacuum of activity that usually results.
Downtowns ARE "entertainment districts". They're also places where people live, work and simply transit. I think it might be worth investigation as to why these things are popular. Who benefits? To whom does the lions share of capital investment benefit? Who access to that kind of capital? Where is the capital coming from?
Consider the "Wrigleyville", neighborhood (or "entertainment district" if you're so inclined) aka Lake View, in Chicago. This area has everything a successful "entertainment district" WOULD have if it were successful. Restaurants (100's of 'em), Bars (1000's of 'em) Fan-wear Shops (10 maybe) Parking (sorta, kinda).
The difference is is that they're all independently owned and operated. They function successfully even when there isn't a game that day, or even that week. The parking situation is particularly interesting. A stadium with a capacity of over 40,000 who's team hasn't won a World Series in 104 years (1908 - oh the humanity!!!) still packs in fans and mere spectators from all over the Chicagoland region, state, nation and even the world. The "parking lot" is laughably small. Its there basically to give the players and mgt. staff along with the media trucks somewhere to park. Fan parking is handled by hundreds of small time operators who have a few extra spaces they can sell.
Old lady O'Malley sends her grandson to hold a sign offering "2 Secure Spots" and earn $75 total for just a few hours "work". The gas station owner sells for a premium the asphalt he or she owns that would otherwise be laying fallow, generating nothing, and so on and so on. The difference is that a few well-connected players with choice access to the fruits of the system aren't benefiting.
Instead, a lot of independent actors are generating lots and lots of revenue and enjoying the fruits. Those who advocate "entertainment districts" are really just trying to capture what is otherwise beyond their control. Its greed pure and simple. They seem to be unable to abide the idea that old lady O'Malley and her grandson are capturing they should be. The bars are independently owned. The fan-wear shops (one of which springs up on game days in a Ryder Truck Rental parking lot under a tent) are owned by independent small timers. The restaurants - everything from Thai, Mexican, Irish, American, German, and the Evil Clown are owned by small timers or local franchisees.
It LOOKS inefficient, but in fact, upon closer inspection is wildly efficient. The existing infrastructure serves diverse needs over time and can re-purpose at a moments notice in order to capture revenue (the fan-wear shop under a tent in a parking lot and old lady O'Malley's two-car garage). THIS is what a successful "entertainment district" SHOULD look like and DOES look like. I say City, you say "entertainment district."
From Jane Jacobs' definition of a district:
“To generate exuberant diversity in a city's streets and districts four conditions are indispensable:
1. The district, and indeed as many of its internal parts as possible, must serve more than one primary function; preferably more than two...
2. Most blocks must be short; that is, streets and opportunities to turn corners must be frequent.
3. The district must mingle buildings that vary in age and condition, including a good proportion of old ones so that they vary in the economic yield they must produce. This mingling must be fairly close-grained.
4. There must be a sufficiently dense concentration of people, for whatever purposes they may be there...”
― Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities
There really isn't much to like about public expenditures subsidizing private sports ventures. Time and time again, promises are made about "jobs" and revivification of an area. Yet each time, a place is created that is publicly funded, yet privately owned, and it's empty 89% of the time. If a private athletic corporation isn't able to provide a proper venue, then it's not a business model that's sustainable.
I have a much better idea. Take that massive sports complex, and slice it up into quarter block segments, and place them twenty minutes apart by foot. Put in a community theater here, a dining cluster there, and some libraries. Give people places worth walking to. give us 20 minute neighborhoods, and toss the sports stadium out.
I live in Minneapolis, so I thought I'd comment on this. The idea of putting a stadium by the Basilica and near the other stadiums isn't/wasn't an attempt to create an entertainment district out of whole cloth, it's about plugging into the existing entertainment district. With theatres, clubs, Target Center and Target Field, the area west of downtown is *already* an entertainment district, and it seems to be successful, compared to duds like Dallas' Victory Park.
Part of the overall problem with creating such a place around a football stadium is the nature of football. There are only a few games played per year--about 14, with only 7 or 8 home games. Also, football is played in the fall and winter, when Minneapolis is too cold for leisurely outdoor strolls or patio dining, so it's hard to integrate football with family recreation. On the other hand, baseball is a great sport for Minneapolis--the Twins play multiple games per week in the spring and summer.
Another part of the problem is the nature of entertainment districts. They arise spontaneously. Developers can capitalize on existing places, but it is nearly impossible to manufacture them from the ground up. That's why another Vikings' proposal--an entertainment district in Arden Hills, a suburb north of St. Paul, would have been a complete failure.
Ummm...... that is not what Cincinnati's Riverfront between the stadiums looks like. It is filling up with development. That map you showed is outdated. Case in point: http://thebankscincy.com/ It's also more then bars... its also lots of apartments and new residents with a brand new park.
Re: Cincinnati
I based that assumption off a visit to the city in 2009 and imagery provided by both Google and Bing. I enjoyed watching the Reds on the riverfront and Cincinnati has a good solid, downtown core. However, the entertainment district between the fields was a virtual dead zone during my visit. I haven't been back since, but my feeling is that the stadiums didn't play a large part in that revitalization. Chanes are, like in Minneapolis, a downtown / riverfront renaissance was already in place / going to happen.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, both stadiums have been reported to have caused major financial damage to the county (Hamilton?) and the city?
I agree. The Rose Garden in Portland, Oregon is a dead zone when it's not game night. And thus it's a huge chunk of valuable real estate that is wasted most of the time. I used to cut through there on my bike, and rarely ever ran into anyone else.
I felt the same way when I lived in Cincinnati... I'd cut through one or both stadiums down on the riverfront on my bike on the way to or from work. Mostly dead. Giant empty spaces. Except on game night, when it's crammed with people and the traffic is a disaster.
Give me a vibrant downtown any day. Or even better, some tree lined streets with nice neighbors and low speed traffic. Nice places to live and to take a walk. THAT'S what makes a city like Portland great to live in. Not an entertainment district.