
Q. Economist Mark Rosentraub, in your book, says something like, if youāre not prepared for major changes in your sports facility by its second decade, youāre being pollyanish. Letās say Frank Gehryās designing the best arena of its time. How long would it last before it needs to be reworked?
A. Well, [Seattle's] Key Arena was rebuilt in '94; now the Sonics are trying to move to Oklahoma City, thatās 14 years. [They have since gotten the OK to move.]
It depends on what you mean by reworked--torn down and rebuilt, or have some new things added? I think there will always be new technology that teams want, or new things that someone else will come up with and will make more revenue, and theyāll say, we need some of those too, the question is what you can retrofit, how much it costs and who pays for it.
At one point, I asked that to Rod Fort, an economist at the University of Michigan. His response was, Well, from the perspective of the owner, if youāre not paying for it, I donāt see anything wrong with a new arena every year.
What kind of question is it?
A. Itās certainly not an architectural question--none of these are architecturally obsolete. It's not even an economic question: at what point are they economically obsolete? Itās a political question: at what point can you go back and say We need a new one, or We need a renovated one, without people saying, What are you talking about, we just gave you one?
Oklahoma City to get the Sonics, is going back and doing renovations to the Ford Center, which was built five years ago--admittedly, it was built barebonesā¦
I donāt think there's any way of knowing. I think the answer is: itās when the team owner, whoever it happens to be, thinks they can realistically come back and demand something. That could be five years, it could be 30 years--but thereās always going to be something they donāt have.
Is there enough public oversight?
A. Thatās the problem with the baseball and basketball [projects] here, theyāre not really vetted much by the public. The Yankees and Mets went through ULURP [the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure], but it was very cursory. I will forever remember the City Council Member whose entire speech during the vote on the Yankees project was, I have always loved the Yankees and now I love them even more. I vote aye.
Q. Or Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) telling Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs New York, who testified before Congress last year, Iām with you, because Iāve always hated the Yankees.
A. We have an exceptionally dysfunctional government and these projects, and especially the Nets one, because itās not going through oversight process, are not really getting a public hearing.
Talking about [Andrew] Zimbalist defending his report--there isnāt this process for going in and trying to evaluate economic claims.
The IBO [Independent Budget Office] can do a little bit, but really its mandate is just to look at limited stuff... We donāt have an agency whose job is--I guess City Planning is supposed to be that, but itās not--to be saying what is a reasonable plan for city development... We donāt have a good process, and what processes there are were not even followed in the Nets case.
Enough public airing?
A. So thatās why itās been up to community groups to have different forumsā¦ that MAS [Municipal Art Society] forum [in 2006] was probably one of the best things Iād seen. It at least attempted to have an intelligent conversation about what sort of planning would make sense here.
But it really shouldnāt be left to the Municipal Art Society to be our public oversight body.
Yeah, it wouldāve been great to have Zimbalist called before the City Council or [Assemblyman Richard] Brodsky [whose committee oversees public authorities] or somebody like that and have somebody say, OK, what actually makes sense here?
Because, instead, itās me and [Zimbalist] yelling at each other in the newspaper--and [to him] Iām ānot an economist.ā
Comments
Post a Comment