Most of stadiums (or similar infrastructures) are built with taxpayers'/government's money, so I genuinely don't know where to draw the line between "a stadium" and "a football stadium". On one end, cities obviously need stadiums; on the other hand, I'm not trying to pretend these specific stadiums in case are not going to benefit the football team and its associated private group the most, despite it can be used by others.
A stadium was built in my city several years ago, and for me it has occasionally caused a moderate inconvenience, and had no upside. Some of my neighbors really like it, though.
We might want one, but we don't need one. If we needed one someone would build one, same as we build restaurants, bars, refineries, breweries, manufacturing, etc without any subsidies from the gov.
I would love one for my small business, on a related note, I can't even count the times I have watched my city give millions in tax breaks to bring in already successful, wealthy, large businesses and give the local ones jack shi.
Would the business case not be - commerce generated during sporting events, multiple businesses nearby the stadium benefiting from increased foot traffic, and so on? Projected over a 10-20 year horizon, the city would likely make back its money and then some, while increasing income for businesses in the vicinity.
This is the frequently-cited theory, but most realistic studies show that it doesn’t really work out that way. I think the reasonable justification is more that having a team is an intangible good for the city, like a museum or a library, where you can’t measure the value in dollars.
The 49ers stadium in Santa Clara has brought nothing but traffic, zero commercial or housing development. The Warriors' Chase Stadium helped vitalize Dogpatch but I guess one could argue that area was naturally going to be built up given UCSF expanded in that location.
If it brings traffic, it means it attracts people attending the events it's hosting. To me that's the main (or direct) purpose of it, and that (be able to host large events) is what differs big city lifestyle from others, at cultural level.
I consider "commercial or housing development" a plus, than the purpose itself.
Cities need stadiums to host all kinds of events, not limited to sports. But if you're not interested in any of these I guess at personal level you don't need it. Just like roads are useless for people who don't leave their house.
Many people don’t like sports and find them a nuisance. The idea that they not only cause traffic but cost us money while making only a select few people extremely rich is nauseating.
Arguably, cities need public transport in from of a metro even more than stadiums, yet, the first underground railway was completely private enterprise.
Again, I just feel it's a very nuanced topic.