Stadium Architecture and Urban Development from the Perspective of Urban Economics

Sports administrators and politicians frequently claim that stadia and the sports events associated with them have beneficial effects on the economy. Surveys compiled before the construction or installation regularly demonstrate this. A case in point is the 2006 Soccer World Cup in Germany, for which various banks, organizations and universities tendered their expertise. Positive effects such as a long-term increase in the number of visitors, the establishment of new industries and so on are claimed for the period following the event, but in most cases the claims do not have the back-up of appropriate data. The event itself took place in the favorable context of a good party atmosphere throughout the country engendered by the unexpected success of the German national team — but there has been disillusionment over its economic effects. Econometric studies investigating the effects of the construction of sports facilities or events on the basis of statistical time series, paint a typical picture of the ‘paradoxical’ effect of sport on revenue and employment for the 2006 World Cup.¹ In only a few cases has it been possible to demonstrate positive surges in statistical terms.²

The long-term effects, often only slightly positive ones, may be related to an aspect that has frequently been ignored: architectural quality and urban design. While the German World Cup venues are full of technical innovations and meet stringent requirements for comfort and safety, their design generally remains conventional and ‘functional’. In contrast, international examples show how unconventional, sometimes iconic, stadium architecture can be used to create new landmarks and boost successful municipal development policies. The first empirical evidence in this regard shows that architecture contributes to more than the business economy. When a structure generates positive spillovers for the local community or neighborhood, the use of public funds to cover the additional costs that arise through adopting an unconventional stadium architecture may be justifiable in economic terms. This dimension is of high actuality, particularly with regard to the ambitious plans for the forthcoming sporting events in South Africa (World Cup 2010) and London (Olympics 2012).

The recent urban design literature suggests that architecture and urban design are experiencing a rise in significance in a globalizing economy as cities increasingly compete for tourists, firms and qualified workforce (Gospodini, 2002; Sklair, 2005). We approach this phenomenon from the perspective of urban economics in that we are searching for empirical evidence that allows the impact of the built environment to be quantified by means of economic indicators. We focus on the current transition in international stadium architecture, demonstrating important trends such as the use of iconic elements, since the typically large public subsidies for stadium construction call for a maximization of public benefits.

Responsibilities for stadium architecture and stadium location

Sports stadia are, in terms of the economy, relatively small undertakings that can cause at the outset barely measurable effects on the layout of the city as a whole (Rosentraub, 1997; Hagn and Maennig, 2008; 2009). Nevertheless, how is a stadium perceived by those in its immediate vicinity? Do stadia induce positive economic impulses on a small scale? Do they have that ‘extra something’ that invigorates and enriches a district?

According to the votes of the local residents this at first appears fairly unlikely, since the construction of new stadia is regularly accompanied by strenuous protests by the citizens. The typical attitude of the residents runs along the lines of ‘A stadium? OK, but not in my backyard!’. This attitude was impressively revealed in the 2001 referendum on location and subsidies for the Munich Allianz Arena, where the share of yes votes near to the projected site was almost 50% lower than the average for Munich (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2009a). In the case of Prince George's County, Maryland and its FedEx Field (the home of the Redskins [US National Football League]), only at the fourth serious attempt, after countless sites had been assessed and 8 years had passed, could a site be found, and even then construction was pushed through against the wishes of the inhabitants (Tu, 2005). If one considers, together with increased traffic and other undesirable consequences of a mass influx of sports fans, the architectural style of modern sports arenas, the negative reaction of the inhabitants becomes at least partially understandable.

With the possible exception of the arena in Munich, the 2006 World Cup in Germany did not give rise to any unique constructions or even any iconic architecture that contributed to the city-planning aesthetic or whose aura spread beyond its own region. The World Cup 2006, therefore, stands in contrast to the experiences of Barcelona hosting the Olympic Summer Games in 1992 or the plans for the World Cup in 2010 in South Africa, where the planning authorities have put urban rehabilitation at the focal point of public investment. In Germany's preparations for the Cup, it was widely forgotten that striking (stadium) architecture can not only fulfil the management criteria of professional organizations, but can also contribute to city development. The club managers' aim is to maximize revenues and profits for their teams. To this end, they must restrict their expenditure to what is necessary to keep the fans happy. Their task is not to engage in the development of a city or region, to make their architecture interesting in the context of the overall city plan or to achieve ‘external’ effects for the regional economy, which have no relevance to their takings. Community decision-makers are responsible for the policies. They are the ones who need to bear the extra costs of ambitious architecture (and, where necessary, better locations). The arena in Munich cost about €280 million, in fact, whereas the average for the other World Cup stadia was about €100 million. Aside from the two historical-political stadia in Berlin and Leipzig, the German World Cup stadia were 75% privately financed — and were accordingly reduced to ‘functionality’ for soccer (Ahlert, 2005).³

Iconic architecture

There is an emerging trend in international stadium architecture that runs counter to a strict reduction to functionality. This trend might be interpreted as a type of countercurrent generated by disillusionment with the design of World Cup arenas in Germany and elsewhere and their interaction with their surroundings. The new type of stadium can also be understood against the background of competition among cities and institutions that has materialized in a broader architectural trend for iconic buildings with positive auras and a supraregional power of attraction. Examples of such icons include the Sydney Opera House, the Centre Pompidou in Paris and Gehry's Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. A growing body of literature engages with the design vocabulary of ‘iconic’ structures and their meaning in a globalizing economy. Building on pioneering works by Jencks (2005; 2006; 2007), McNeill (1999; 2007) and Sklair (2005; 2006), among others, we provide a brief and obviously not exhaustive list of the key characteristics of iconic buildings in Table 1, which might be helpful as a guide to the discussion of iconic stadium architecture. A consideration of examples of iconic structures reveals certain common characteristics: they are usually within walking distance of the city centre and often beside a body of water. They are characterized by an architecture that is, at least at the time of planning, highly innovative, often apparently impracticable and nonfunctional, but unique.⁴ Often the plans are so unconventional that angry opposition builds up among the citizens (Sydney!), but this gradually changes to a feeling of regional pride and identification. In any case the cities aspire to ‘put themselves on the map’, and therefore aim for an image whose effects can lead to long-term increases in tourism and a concomitant steady revenue.⁵ Although Sklair (2005) notes that since the 1950s the transnational capitalist class has become the dominant force driving ironic architecture instead of the state and/or religion, it is very interesting to see that on his list of 27 selected iconic buildings designed by Pritzker Prize⁶ winners in the period 1979–2004, 13 entries are buildings for the arts and culture, 9 host public facilities or non-profit institutions, e.g. churches and schools, while only 5 have clearly commercial profiles.⁷ Examples of future iconic architecture also include cultural landmarks such as the extension of Tate Modern in London and the enlargement of an old warehouse in Hamburg, the Kaisspeicher, into the Elbe Philharmonic Hall (both designed by Herzog and De Meuron).⁸ In both cases, unconventional architecture was perceived as a means of city development. As anchor structures, these iconic cultural buildings should illuminate their surroundings and contribute to the appreciation of the HafenCity area in Hamburg, which is currently under construction, and of the South Bank in London.

Stadium architecture in a state of flux

Even if striking, innovative architecture is still associated primarily with representative cultural projects, its use is by no means restricted to museums, theatres or opera houses. There are also examples in sports architecture without having to go as far back as the Colosseum in Rome. The Olympia Stadium in Munich is one of that city's most famous symbols, and a popular residential and commercial area has developed from the wasteland of the former airport site.⁹ More recently, for the Palau Sant Jordi Sports Palace in Barcelona (Arata Isozaki), the new Wembley Stadium in London (Foster and Partners), Durban's Kings Park Stadium (Gerkan, Marg und Partner [gmp]), and Munich's Allianz Arena and Beijing's National Stadium (both designed by Herzog and de Meuron), internationally renowned firms of architects were engaged who themselves also served in part as iconic elements, in order to create distinctive designs for the stadia and new landmarks for their respective cities. Similar designs will be adopted according to the plans of Foster and Partners at present under discussion for the redevelopment of the Camp Nou stadium in Barcelona.

Among the German World Cup stadia, the Allianz Arena in Munich plays a special role.¹⁰ It has adopted the colors of its resident teams (F.C. Bayern and 1860 München) and is seen from afar on the approach to the city. To a large extent freestanding, the arena achieves a monolithic character that further enhances the external effect. Lighting is one of the devices that enable the main access route to be made to look exactly like a path leading pilgrims to a holy shrine. On the other hand, a great weakness of the site is the isolation of the stadium from surroundings that might otherwise be regarded as attractive. Situated on the urban periphery, surrounded only by arterial roads and the infrastructure of waste disposal, any attempt to develop the precincts must surely founder.¹¹

The 1992 Olympics in Barcelona represent the opposite example of how to embed mega-sporting events into a major plan for urban transformation. Although Barcelona had a long tradition of developing city campaigns and urban policies dating back to the Universal Expositions of 1888 and 1929 and including such projects as the ‘Plan de Enlaces’ by Leon Jaussely and the ‘Sagrada Familia’ Church by Antoni Gaudí, it appears that Barcelona did not become aware of its coastal situation until the 1992 Olympics (Monclús, 2000). Together with the restoration of the historical buildings in the Gothic Quarters and on the Montjuic Mountain and the construction of ring roads around the metropolitan area, the opening up of the sea front of the city, including the renovation of harbor and beach areas, represents the major Olympic construction work. A key element in the coastline regeneration was the Olympic Village built on a 130 hectare parcel of industrial land formerly separated from the rest of the city. After the Games, Barcelona was left with a new district and buildings at the waterfront while the beaches now represent an important leisure facility for both residents and visitors. Architects like Calatrava (Montjuic Telecommunications Tower), Gregotti (reconstruction of the Montjuic Stadium), Pei (International Trade Centre) and Isozaki (Sant Jordi Palau Sports Park) were selected for the design of Olympic venues and accompanying projects. Many projects were planned strategically and optimized with regard to the time after the Games (Brunet, 1993). All in all, Barcelona represents an impressive example of how mega-sports events can be used to redefine a city in a larger context. Barcelona's dedication to architecture convinced the Royal Institute of British Architects to break with its principles established since 1848 and to award a Royal Gold Medal to a city instead of an individual. The exciting urban history of Barcelona has attracted much scholarly interest. Among a rich body of literature the contributions of Robert Hughes (1992) and McNeill (1999) deserve particular attention. Brunet (1995; 2005) and Carbonell (2002) provide some evidence for a positive economic impact of the 1992 Olympic Summer Games.

Durban's Kings Park, a stadium for up to 70,000 spectators, which will be erected for the 2010 World Cup competition in South Africa, represents the synthesis of Munich's approach to an iconic stadium and Barcelona's idea of an integrated urban development concept (Maennig and Schwarthoff, in press). The stadium is the anchor point of a concept that positions Kings Park as the nucleus for the development of a city area and that sees Durban as one of the leading sports cities on the African continent. For this, the commissioned architects, gmp, have conceived a symbiosis of architectural elegance and surprising monumentality that will make the stadium timeless and iconic. The iconic element here is indisputably the monumental arch that spans the length of the stadium and supports the roof structure. In its bifurcation at a point along its length, the arch recalls the flag of the Republic of South Africa and constitutes a symbol of the national sense of identity. Since the arch can also be walked upon, this stadium can also function as a focus for streams of tourists independently of the staging of major sporting events, and can thereby contribute to the life of the whole city area.

In modern stadium construction an alternative trend can be observed, in which stadia attempt neither to obscure nor to dominate their surroundings. This approach seeks not to upset the fragile urban equilibrium, but to fit in with the existing structures of the city and subtly enhance them. The architecture may be self-effacing and yet in its detail can demonstrate quality. In this way the architecture is certainly functional — although not in the management sense but insofar as it adopts local aims and meets the needs of the inhabitants. Particularly in densely populated inner-city districts, it occasionally makes sense to create or connect urban spaces instead of putting in dominant monoliths — however aesthetically exciting they may be. Examples of this are the ‘Olympic’ arenas in Berlin, the Velodrom and Max Schmeling Arena, which at the time of Berlin's bid for the 2000 Olympic Games were conceived as venues for cycling, boxing and swimming events. The architects (and jury) attached importance to creating new open spaces in one of the most densely populated districts of Berlin and to embedding the halls in a lawn. Hence, the halls were for the most part sunk into the earth, so that the size of the buildings was not evident from outside. The concept, was honored with important architectural awards.¹² The Max Schmeling Arena is embedded in a rehabilitated (green) rubbish dump, and to the west and east the similarly planted roof structure arches into the surrounding parkland. Since it is possible to walk on this roofing, the halls constitute a green bridge between the Prenzlauer Berg district (formerly East Berlin) and the immediately adjacent Wedding district (formerly West Berlin), thereby symbolizing the unification of the city.

A building that uses this type of surroundings-oriented yet muted architecture can nevertheless acquire iconic powers. This is illustrated particularly by a bird's-eye view of the Velodrom, when its dimensions become evident and it appears like a UFO resting in the crater it has formed. Nevertheless, a surroundings-oriented approach at the same time brings with it not so much a revolution in design vocabulary as a timeless elegance, which over generations fits into the cityscape. Another example of modern, aesthetic, city-oriented stadium architecture is the St Jakob Park in Basel (Herzog and De Meuron), where the stadium disappears behind a timeless plain façade, which makes it barely recognizable as what it is from the outside and thus allows it to fit seamlessly into the cityscape. But the stadium acquires an iconic quality after dark, when the stand either shines out in the colors of FC Basel or shows the white crosses of Switzerland against a red background. The radiant façade as an iconic element was to be adopted again by the same architects in later projects such as the Allianz Arena and the Elbe Philharmonic Hall.

Referring back to the iconic building characteristics listed in Table 1, it is evident that not all attributes apply to all of the unconventionally designed arenas considered above. While arenas differ in particular with respect to their embedment into the existing urban fabric, almost all of them possess a strong metaphoric character, which facilitates recognition and identification. The Olympic Stadium in Peking is already known worldwide as the ‘Bird's nest’, Munich's Allianz Arena is known as the ‘Rubber dinghy’ in common parlance, Cologne's RheinEnergie stadium has become the world's largest Advent wreath and the similarity of the Velodrom in Berlin to the conventional image of a UFO is probably hard to beat. The arch of Durban's Kings Park Stadium was inspired by South Africa's national flag. While the inflationary use of iconic elements in a globalized world tends to end in a hopeless competition for global attention and finally some kind of arbitrariness (Koolhaas, 2008), a symbolically charged formal vocabulary may indeed be more appropriate for sports arenas than for other projects: not because of an intended global echo, but due to their very local importance as cult sites for highly affiliated sports fans. In these terms, the Allianz Arena and St Jacob Park, adopting the colors of the resident teams, qualify as exemplary symbols of fan identification.

Measuring stadium impact

It is not the task of (urban) economics to judge the quality of architecture, but to make measurable its possible external effects. If others profit individually from the business, there is a social justification for promoting this trade, so that the resultant benefits are made available sufficiently widely. Quantifying these external effects is possible from an economic analysis of prices: following conventional assumptions in hedonic models (Muellbauer, 1974; Rosen, 1974; Sirmans et al., 2005) common in empirical urban and real estate economics, equilibrium real estate prices include information on willingness to pay for all attributes of a property including its position.¹³ If the attractiveness of the location is enhanced as a result of a city building project, then its value in monetary terms will also increase. An increase in value of this nature can justify, in terms of welfare and economics, an intervention by the State.

Architectural quality cannot be considered without further factors as variables in an empirical model. However, price variation that has not been explained by an empirical model can be tested for systematic relationships with the built environment. The use of geographic information systems enables complex spatial relationships to be modeled.¹⁴ In this way one can determine whether spatial proximity to the source of the supposed aura contributes to the explanation of otherwise inexplicable variations in the attractiveness of the site. The validity of the analysis increases when not only spatial but also temporal relationships can be demonstrated.

In the case of stadium impact, analysis of stadium referendums at voting precinct level represents an alternative approach to detecting spillovers. If residents are assumed to behave rationally, then approval for a stadium project will vary according to the expected net benefit.¹⁵ Compared to standard indicators of economic activity and wealth such as income or employment, which are not usually available at a sufficiently disaggregated level, voting analysis may also reveal intangible benefits. However, the great weakness is that hardly any ex-post analysis will be possible and that it is questionable whether residents appropriately anticipate the full range of positive and negative effects, including those arising from stadium architecture and urban design. Contiguous valuation with respect to the spatial dimension would allow for a considered ex-post analysis, although these techniques are expensive and also have shortcomings of their own.¹⁶ In Table 2, we briefly summarize the expected costs and benefits, their expected impact area and channels through which effects may become measurable.

Empirical evidence on spillover effects of architectural quality

As noted by Gospodini (2002), the relationship between urban economy and urban design seems to have been reversed in that the quality of the urban space has become a prerequisite for the economic development of cities in the area of globalization. The rise of the creative class (Florida, 2002a; 2002b) and the transnational capitalist class (Sklair, 2005) forces cities to compete for not only for tourists but also for a qualified workforce, raising the importance of urban design and amenities as a location factor (Kotkin, 2000; Sommers and Carlson, 2000). Some authors have searched for the positive economic effects of urban development strategies, including landmark buildings, in case studies on the basis of descriptive statistics (Burdett, 2000; Rodriguez et al., 2001).

Surprisingly, the (dis)amenity effect of quality of architectural and urban design has received little attention from empirical urban economics. To some extent it has been addressed in the context of the evaluation of price effects of heritage preservation policies (Asabere and Huffman, 1994; Asabere et al., 1994; Coulson and Leichenko, 2001; 2004; Leichenko et al., 2001; Coulson and Lahr, 2005; Noonan, 2007). These studies tend to find positive effects, although most of them focus more on the internal than on the external price effects and more on the policy effects than on the effects of the building structure itself. Gat (1998) and Vandell and Lane (1989) also find positive internal price effects of building design quality, which they determine by the use of design surveys. Using a hedonic multivariate regression model, Ahlfeldt and Maennig (forthcoming) investigate the spillover effects of 16,142 monument-protected buildings in Berlin and show that the presence of an increased density of heritage buildings has a significant positive effect on property values in that area. At the same time, the formal act of designating a protected site has no significant effect on prices, which suggests that: (a) heritage status can be enlisted as a proxy for building quality; and (b) the advantages of the formal nature of the listing (fiscal, etc.) are balanced by the disadvantages (restricted rights of usage). These results empirically confirm theoretical approaches (Brueckner et al., 1999) that explain the attractiveness of downtown areas of European metropolises like Paris which were largely shaped during the period of urban modernization in the second half of the nineteenth century (Sutcliffe, 1993).

Stadium impact at micro scale

With the methods described, the spillover effects of major sporting venues, too, are measurable. Since a definite completion date is available, it is possible to quantify not only spatial but also any temporal variations in prices that can be attributed to the building of an arena. If otherwise unexplained price rises occur in the immediate vicinity of a new stadium, and these coincide with the completion of the project, then this taken together with a comprehensive consideration of the environmental factors represents an index for a rational relationship. So far, there is still little evidence available for stadium impact at neighborhood scale, and the results of existing studies are not always readily comparable.

For instance, some care must be taken when comparing the results from Tu (2005) to those provided by Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) due to differences in empirical approaches. In their final hedonic specification Ahlfeldt and Maennig (ibid.) attribute otherwise unexplained variation to the location of arenas by introducing geographic variables into the baseline model. The simplified regression equation reads as follows:

(1)

where Y stands for standard land values of a block group, BASE is a vector of baseline variables, NE is a dummy denoting the neighborhood of the arena and Dist stands for the distance to the considered arena and the subscripts MS and V indicate the Max Schmeling Arena and Velodrom, respectively. The usual error term is represented by ε while β is a vector of baseline parameters to be estimated and γ₁ to γ₃ are the coefficients of interest. Similarly we can formulate a simplified equation according to Tu (2005), who used a combined hedonic and difference-in-difference estimator:

(2)

where variables and parameters are defined similarly to equation (1), with the exception of Y, which here stands for the price of a property transaction. Tu (2005) introduced an additional dummy variable denoting the post-completion period (Post), which by interaction with impact variables allows us to isolate the difference between estimated parameter values before and after completion of the FedEx Field. Consequently, the coefficients of interest are δ₁ to δ₃. Since in both approaches log-linear specifications were chosen, functions corresponding to the coefficients of interest estimated by Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) and Tu (2005) can be visualized using the same scale.¹⁷Figure 1 allows for a comparison of results, although it must be borne in mind that both functions are derived from different empirical setups.

In the case of the FedEx Field there was an estimated impact of up to 13% on real estate prices in a comparison of the periods before and after completion, which decreased with distance from the stadium and disappeared after approximately 5 km.

Around the Velodrom, price rises of up to 8% were achieved in the immediate vicinity, also decreasing to zero after some 3 km. Around the Max Schmeling Arena, no significant increases are evident in the immediate vicinity, but they build up at greater distances. In Figure 2 the estimated impact on property prices is plotted in three- dimensional space to provide an intuitive spatial impression.

Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2009b) confirmed this unequal impact pattern in a study that compared the development of land prices in the proximity of sports grounds over time. The employed difference-in-difference specification allows us to distinguish between short-term and long-term effects on growth rates of standard land values as well as for the development of counterfactual scenarios:

(3)

where Growth stands for annualized growth rates in standard land values, d is a full set of time fixed effects, MS and V denote block groups within a 1 km radius of the Max Schmeling Arena and Velodrom, InV denotes the inauguration period and PostV the full post-completion period for the Velodrom and InMS and PostMS are defined accordingly. Parameters of interest are the υ and µ coefficients, which give the impact on annual growth rates during the post-completion period (µ) and the inauguration period (υ+µ).¹⁸

Figure 3 compares indices of land value development for treatment areas within 1 km around arenas compared to the control group of the remaining Prenzlauer Berg district.

In order to assess the aggreaged percentage impact (AI) of arenas, which corresponds to the difference between counterfactuals I and effective land value development, we apply the following formula to the coefficient estimates provided by Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2009b).

(4)

where In_E is the end of the inauguration period, C is the time of construction and E is the end of the observation period. Accordingly, by 2005, impact had aggregated to 15.2% for the Velodrom, and only to 2.5 % for the Max Schmeling Arena. After reviewing data on automobile registrations per capita, Ahlfeldt and Maennig (ibid.) conclude that positive price effects in the vicinity of the Max Schmeling Arena are neutralized among other things through the consequences of a miscalculation regarding the traffic behavior of the visitors. Obviously, apart from the aesthetic components for successful integration into urban planning, the negative consequences of the establishment of a major sports ground from the point of view of the local inhabitants must also be carefully considered during the planning process.

The impact on property prices found for the Velodrom on the basis of inter-temporal comparison of prices clearly exceeds the 2005 markup revealed by cross-sectional analysis and even tops the effects of the FedEx Field. These results point to considerable price discounts in the neighborhood before construction of the Velodrom, which also were found in the case of the FedEx Field. However, on the basis of the limited evidence considered so far, it is difficult to empirically separate the effects of a stadium in its function as a sports site from those of its architecture.¹⁹ The case of the FedEx Field in Prince George's County, demonstrates that even a football stadium with conventional architecture can have positive effects if it is accompanied by improvements in the infrastructure and additional employment opportunities.

These factors can be largely discarded as the source of potential ‘presence’ in the case of the above-mentioned Olympic Arenas in Berlin. The sites were explicitly selected on the basis of their good infrastructural accessibility, so that no special investments in traffic infrastructure were necessary. In addition, the halls, with a capacity of a little over 10,000 spectators each, are small in comparison with the FedEx Field considered by Tu (80,000), so that decisive economic impulses and increased employment opportunities were hardly to be expected. In view of the absence of investments in traffic infrastructure and only restricted direct economic effects, it could be concluded that the area is to some extent more desirable as a result of the newly created cityscape.

Some additional evidence for stadium impact on real estate markets is available at a higher level of aggregation. Carlino and Coulson (2004) found that the presence of a National Football League team could raise rents by up to 8% and that this effect is limited to the core of cities. At a similar level of aggregation Dehring et al. (2007) found the effects of an announcement of stadium construction by evaluating property prices in Dallas-Fort Worth and Arlington, Texas. In the case of Arlington, a series of announcements led to an aggregated decrease of about 1.5%, which is surprising since during the observation period the project won the approval of the majority of voters. Dehring et al. (2007) have suggested that the net benefits may have been so distorted that a majority of voters favored the project although average property values fell.²⁰

Spatial heterogeneity in benefits indeed is not only suggested by the above mentioned studies on real estate price effects, but also revealed by spatial voting patterns in stadium referendums. Results by Coates and Humphreys (2006) drawn from 1999 and 2000 referenda point to proximity benefits related to the presence of Lambeau Field, a professional football stadium in Green Bay, Wisconsin and two basketball arenas in Huston, Texas. On the other hand, Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2009a) find evidence for expected proximity cost from the 2001 referendum on location and subsidies for the Allianz Arena in Munich.²¹ Although Coates and Humphreys (2006) do not provide an explicit estimate of impact range, at least for Lambeau Field it can roughly be approximated from the average distance of voting precincts in three defined impact zones. In the case of the proposed new basketball arena, the pattern of estimated coefficients can be interpreted such that they indicate countervailing externalities (Galster et al., 2004) similar to those operating in the case of the Max Schmeling Arena, with positive and negative externalities cancelling each other out in close proximity and positive externalities dominating at intermediate distances (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2009a). Table 3 summarizes the existing evidence on stadium impact at disaggregated scale.

Results still do not allow us to reliably separate effects related to sports functionality from those for the architecture. More evidence is needed, particularly from studies that investigate arena impact with respect to architecture and urban design. However, it seems fair to state that evidence suggests both the existence of positive and negative effects that may also vary in range resulting in net effects that differ from case to case. However, in the light of large amounts of public spending on subsidies for arenas, it is evident that planning authorities should take care that potential problems such as traffic congestion are minimized and positive spillovers are maximized in order to increase public net benefit. Given encouraging evidence on the impact of the built environment either a spectacular architecture or sensitive urban design should seriously be considered.

Summary

A range of econometric studies suggest that neither from major sports events nor from the new stadium construction linked to these can considerable income or employment effects be expected on the regional or municipal scale. In contrast, first results reveal that newly constructed stadia can be a good means of carrying out city development policies at the level of part of a city only. Either districts of the city can be newly aligned around a new stadium, or sports facilities can be embedded in a spatial concept that is complementary to the existing structures. However, first the site has to be generally suitable for interaction with the existing built environment. Second, the usual investor architecture, characterized by commercial considerations and constraints, must be resisted and replaced by a cityscape-oriented architecture.

At present, international stadium architecture is gaining markedly in significance. Around the world, internationally renowned architects are being commissioned to design stadia that have the potential to become immutable symbols of their respective cities, in the same way that representative cultural projects used to. Iconic forms are intended to vie for international attention so as to create a share for the city in the international tourism market. Reminiscence is a particularly popular and iconic element in modern stadium architecture. A metaphoric character makes it easier for citizens and sports fans to identify with ‘their’ stadium. Even in the realm of careful, setting-oriented architectural strategies, iconic elements can be introduced, as exemplified by the Velodrom in Berlin. Other interesting examples are the RheinEnergie Stadium in Cologne and the St Jacob Park in Basel. Principally modernistic and restrained in form, they gain an iconic character when required and after dark through the use of characteristic elements of lighting. Using lighting it is possible to create a distinctive image at important and highly charged evening matches, without allowing the stadia to completely dominate their surroundings.

To allow increased expenditure on unconventional architecture to be justified in economic terms as well, it must be demonstrated that investments in the built environment not only have an economic dimension but also induce positive spillover effects on their surroundings. Empiricism is here still in its early stages. First results, however, are encouraging and show that the built environment is perceived by participants in the market as a significant determinant of value. The Olympic Arenas in Berlin prove that sports arenas, when they are ambitiously designed and integrate with their surroundings in a cityscape concept, can contribute to an increase in the attractiveness of the surrounding areas. However, there is not enough information to assert, from an economic point of view, which city-building measures paired with which formal beginnings can be expected to maximize public benefit. For this, a greater number of suitable new construction projects should need to be empirically investigated.

At the level of the city as a whole, an increased influx of mass tourism generated by iconic buildings should be the primary aim, though a small group of tourists who are passionate about architecture might also appreciate other types of unconventional stadium architecture. However, this, too, has not yet been shown empirically. It is clear that monoliths in an urban no man's land can per se have no charisma in the absence of the appropriate city setting. Especially when public funds are committed, planning authorities should ensure that stadia are not only designed with respect to profit maximization for the respective sports team, but also follow an integrated concept that minimizes proximity cost by providing sufficient parking facilities and avoiding long access paths leading through residential areas. Unconventional stadium architecture may additionally be employed with a design vocabulary appropriate to either the rehabilitation of the area or to amplify image and spending effects.