Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerNhockey
Academic research is emphatic that that benefits that are spouted in reports such as the EY one almost never come true, and any benefits are largely at the expense of other areas. For example, presumably an office tower is built to house office workers. A shiny new arena does not materially change the demand for office space, so that comes at the expense of other parts of the city. Just like the bar thing I referenced in my last post.
The EY report is paid for by the proponents of the district development (the rivers district development team wants to build stuff). The biggest problem is that things like this tend to move around where development is, not create new development. On a city wide basis you are rearanging teh economic deck chairs and robbing Peter to pay Paul.
|
Two things - firstly, did you read the report, or are you just dismissing it because you think it's wrong because it was commissioned by a municipal body? Secondly, is your position that development cannibalizes other areas of a city? If so, why is this is a bad thing? Universal urban growth is primarily based upon the movement and relocation of residential and commercial opportunities based into new and revitalized developments, homes, neighborhoods, towers, etc. These projects are what help keep a city growing, investment incoming, and jobs created. This growth is happening everywhere, all the time, all over the world, every day. I guess I'd just like to know why this is a bad thing... we live in a free market economy, so suggesting we are 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' is a bit myopic within this context. It seems you are suggesting there might be something fundamentally wrong with new development because of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerNhockey
There are lots of reasons to build an arena, but economic benefits to the city have not been shown to be one of them.
Do you have any academic/non proponent research that suggests otherwise?
|
Again, assuming you have read it, are you suggesting that the information in the EY report is inaccurate? If so, where, specifically, does it go wrong within which particular data set or forecasting?