Putting investment into a sports stadium can help regenerate an area, but finding the money is not the only stumbling block to success. Lawrence Higgins reports
A new sports stadium can rejuvenate neighbourhoods, bring back underused brownfield sites and make substantial physical improvements to neglected areas.
A London Assembly Regeneration Committee study into stadium development around the UK found that while it was difficult to pinpoint the specific economic impact, stadium-led regeneration schemes are a catalyst for physical and social regeneration. This makes areas more attractive to new business and residential entrants and creates new jobs and opportunities.
The development of Tottenham Hotspur’s new White Hart Lane stadium, N17, is a perfect example, and one that regional cities are trying to emulate.
The new 60,000-capacity ground will bring about a wholesale regeneration of the surrounding area that years of public initiatives have failed to improve.
“Going back to the Tottenham riots there has been lots of talk from the government, but only now will there be a vast improvement to the area,”says Chris Lee, senior principal and managing director of stadium designers Populous.
While the football ground itself will not be completed until the start of the 2018/19 season, Phase I has already produced new retail and office space and a university building. Phase II will deliver 579 new homes, a 180-bedroom hotel, a sports building and a health centre.
The local community will benefit from new mixed-tenure housing, improved transport links and jobs through the Northumberland Development Project – a 20-year regeneration programme for the area with the Spurs stadium at its heart.
No wonder, then, that many cities that don’t have a stadium aspire to one. But the problem is not just getting them built; but making them pay.
Lee says a new stadium provides one of the best catalysts for regeneration there is, but adds there is little public appetite in the UK to provide funding.
In the US the public sector pumps millions of dollars into stadiums. For instance, the local government provided the site, infrastructure and tax exemption for the NFL’s San Francisco 49ers’ Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara.
The publicly owned Stadium Authority also took on the debt used to finance the stadium construction, which is usually repaid over a 20-25-year period through income from events, matchday revenues and naming rights – Levi’s pays around $11m (£8.9m) per year.
However, a recent study by Stanford University found that the revenues generated by sports stadiums are relatively low in comparison with other billion-dollar investments, such as a shopping centre or large manufacturing plant, which will employ more people and generate more revenue and taxes.
But the public sector subsidises stadiums not just to benefit from the money fans spend in hotels, bars and shops around matchday, but also for the kudos derived from hosting a prominent sports team, band or singer.
While a new stadium for a Premiership powerhouse or NFL giant may justify the huge outlay required, for a smaller team the economics may not stack up.
But context is important. “While a city’s desire for a sporting venue is often judged on the profile of the event, or the prestige of a brand, the real measure of value is the wider contribution and transformation it makes to the micro and macro-economy,” says Alessandro Zoppini, head of Gensler’s sports practice, EMEA.
The designer of three Olympic venues points to a 5,000-seat stadium in Sorrento, Italy, as a prime example. As well as sporting facilities, it provides space for a large market and in summer is transformed into a concert venue popular with tourists.
“You have to find other functions appropriate to the location,” says Zoppini.
What is emerging is that the viable future for development is veering from open-air sports stadiums to indoor arenas.
With a turnover of around $350m in 2015, the world’s most successful venue is the 19,000-seat Staples Center, Los Angeles. The venue is home to four sports teams and numerous concerts and conferences, and operates for more than 200 days a year. The premium seats alone generate more than $100m.
The economics are fairly simple – as the Stanford study points out: “Arenas are used more often.” The trick is to get as much out of the stadium as possible.
Bristol’s plans on hold
Music fans in Bristol may fancy seeing Bob Dylan or Little Mix on their latest UK tours, and comedy fans will clamour to see one of the UK’s most popular live performers, Micky Flanagan.
But as well as the price of their ticket, Bristolians will have to stump up £6.70 to cross the Severn Bridge as these acts are playing the 7,500 seater Cardiff Motorpoint Arena in Wales.
Bristol’s biggest venue, Colston Hall, has a capacity of just 2,000 – too small to attract the big stars to the UK’s 10th biggest City.
This summer the likes of Take That should be playing at a newly opened £90m, 12,500-seater Bristol Arena. But following yet more planning obstacles and increased expense, the council’s jv partner, Bouygues, has walked out on the project. Fraught with difficulties and spiralling costs, the latest setback is reckoned to be costing taxpayers £80,000 per week.
Tim Davies, head of Colliers International’s Bristol office, reckons the city is losing out on around £50m each year because of the lack of a major venue, with spending on hotels, leisure and jobs going across into Wales or up to Birmingham.
And it is not just revenue that Bristol is missing, but the marketing opportunities. “Bristol has claims to be a global city and has so much going for it – the airport is expanding and the Dockside developments are world class – but not having a significant venue is big blot on its copybook,” says Davies.
The arena is also a mainstay of the City’s regeneration plans, as it is a key component of the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone. Bristol’s mayor Marvin Rees is adamant that work will begin on site by spring 2018, with the new Temple Meads Arena opening in 2020.
Eco Park aims to set the standard
Green energy company Ecotricity intends to create a new 5,000-seater stadium for Forest Green Rovers to showcase eco-development.
The new football ground at junction 13 of the M5, part of a proposed 100-acre Eco Park in Gloucestershire, will be Britain’s greenest stadium.
The ground and the surrounding green technology business park aim to be carbon neutral. The Zaha Hadid Architects-designed stadium will be mostly made of wood, meaning it will have the lowest embodied carbon of any sports stadium in the world. There will also be solar floodlights and organic pitches.
The business park will host Ecotricity and a further 4,000 professional, scientific and technical jobs in 43,000 sq ft of office space for green-related industries, along with a high-tech sports hub.
A study by Regeneris estimates that Eco Park could inject around £290m into Gloucestershire’s economy if it reaches its full potential.
Oliver Chapman, associate director, Regeneris, says that while in development terms the stadium is a small part of a larger business park, the two are interdependent.
“There will be association benefits from having a stadium on site for the business users. And the stadium itself it needs long-term sustainability, which the business park can offer.”
The bottom line: Many cities that don’t have a stadium aspire to one. But the problem is not just getting them built; but making them pay. The trick is to get as much out of the stadium as possible.
PROPERTY’S POINT OF VIEW
#Gloucestershire 'Eco Park' and stadium plans submitted – https://t.co/ltKjpe1Ty1 #econews #ecopark
— MrPottery (@MrPotteryUK) January 12, 2016
COMING SOON
Global 100: Who are the biggest players in real estate across the world?
Find out as EG releases the rankings over the next two weeks
