urbanMSP

Cool list, but the stadium didn't "attract" any of those. The only one that is tangential to the stadium is the WF project (lured by a subsidized and underutilized new parking ramp) but they were going to end up at one of a few potential Mpls sites no matter what.

Also, even if there *was* $1b of new development in return for $0.5b in public subsidies, it still fails the Real Return on Investment math.

Yeah sorry the Vikings stadium didn't attract this development. Those lots were right next to the Metrodome and never filled during its existence. How are we to believe that a stadium with even fewer events than the 'Dome had is attracting all this? Doesn't pass the laugh test.

To be fair, I'd much rather live next to this new stadium than the (frankly ugly) Metrodome.

The alternate history of Downtown East would be pretty interesting to see. Had the costs not been higher in the western part of downtown, many would have preferred the stadium be built over there. Had that been the case, though, the Metrodome would still be standing for another several months.

Even if Wells Fargo had still gone ahead with something on those blocks, it'd almost certainly look very different from what we're getting.

What attracted most of the projects to this part of town is the Yard, or whatever it's being called now.

To be fair, I'd much rather live next to this new stadium than the (frankly ugly) Metrodome.

That is also true.

What attracted most of the projects to this part of town is the Yard, or whatever it's being called now.

Perhaps I'm missing something? Downtown East is dominated by two developments: the stadium and the four-block project that includes the Commons — it's been called that for a while — and seven other buildings, namely the two Wells Fargo towers. Since the stadium came first and the Commons is part of the second development, maybe the park can claim credit for Thresher Square and the proposed Armory renovations, but I wouldn't consider that "most of the projects."

Don't get me wrong, I think the park will be the true amenity to DTE, more so than the stadium, but I don't believe that's been realized yet. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Anyway, the greater point of my last post was to consider the hypothetical alternative. Whether or not the Vikings stadium directly led to new DTE investment, the Wells Fargo blocks clearly relate to the stadium being there. So if the Metrodome was still standing until this winter and a new Vikings stadium was being built by the farmers' market:

• Would Wells Fargo have still bought the Star Tribune property and developed there?
• If so, would Wells Fargo still have built two short towers?
• And would that development still have had a park component?
• If so, would the Commons still be a linear two-block park without the stadium bookending it?

Well, coulda woulda shoulda, but in the absense of a stadium or the Metrodome the state & city could have spent a small fraction of the public's share of the stadium cost and made the area more attractive to development than the stadium has. If they just spent $50M (about 10% of the public contribution) on a downtown park and some streetscape improvements (public dollars for public amenities!), I believe the area would have developed very quickly. Elliot Park Neighborhod sketched out this post-Metrodome option quite a while back.

The public dollars put towards the stadium have an opportunity cost, despite the efforts to ignore this fact.

The public dollars put towards the stadium have an opportunity cost, despite the efforts to ignore this fact.

Exactly. The claim that the stadium is helping revitalize this side of town is true. But that's not the important point. If we spend $500 million on something, it sure should. If we spent the $500 million to build a park, a couple mixed-income housing developments, nicer streets, etc. (and hell, even go halfsies on the Wells Fargo buildings if we really wanted to throw money at corporations)the area would also be revitalized. And we'd have a nicer public realm and would be getting returns on our housing investments.

The idea was to discuss how DTE might have looked different had there not been a stadium, not to take sides on whether or not there should be a stadium.

Just as a reminder:

The stadium has sailed. But bogus claims about development it has "caused" won't fly.

I actually saw one flying outside my window this morning. The wing looked a bit injured, but it was indeed flying.

This whole conversation was started because of the stadium authority's statement that US Bank Stadium generated $2 Billion in development. The purpose of this statement is to continue to try and justify this beast to a cynical public. It's absolutely germane to point out similiar investment could have likely being sparked with just 10% of the public investment.

But your right, I guess. Just like debate over the justifcations for Iraq war ended once we invaded. No reason to second guess those decisions as that debacle unfolded. And you know, passage of the ACA ended the health care debate once and for all.

Hey, I'm sick of this debate too. Want to move on? Then do so. But it's disengenous to continue to support your case, and respond with mocking memes when the underlying fallacies of your arguments are pointed out. These are still relevant public policy arguments, as demonstrated by the next major league team with their hand out.

Okay, so the city-shuffled-convention-tax-financed stadium parking ramp was the catalyst. It certainly was for Ryan Companies to get the Wells Fargo deal done, and in turn the entire development.

This whole conversation was started because of the stadium authority's statement that US Bank Stadium generated $2 Billion in development. ...

One, not two.

"This iconic stadium has already attracted nearly $1 billion in private investment, which was one of the state's major goals for the stadium," said Michele Kelm-Helgen, chair of the Minnesota Sports Facility Authority."

Okay, so the city-shuffled-convention-tax-financed stadium parking ramp was the catalyst. It certainly was for Ryan Companies to get the Wells Fargo deal done, and in turn the entire development.

Fair enough.

One, not two.

Thanks for the correction.

Hey, I'm sick of this debate too. Want to move on? Then do so. But it's disengenous to continue to support your case, and respond with mocking memes when the underlying fallacies of your arguments are pointed out. These are still relevant public policy arguments, as demonstrated by the next major league team with their hand out.

My posts had nothing to do with supporting or justifying the stadium. I'm simply pointing out that a massive swath of downtown Minneapolis has fundamentally changed, and the four-block Ryan development was obviously designed with the stadium in mind. If the stadium had not been there, how might DTE look today? Would the Ryan development have looked different? Given that the Metrodome would still be standing, would redevelopment have gone at this crazy pace? Perhaps it would have gone faster. No one knows. That's why it's interesting!

No one knows. That's why it's interesting!

It's also why it's very misleading for the Vikings, MSFA, media outlets, or anyone else to attribute $1bn in economic development to the stadium itself. I'm not going to say $0 or 0% of the development going on are a result of the stadium. But I think the number is probably closer to 0 than 100%. Maybe the parking ramp is a more solid tie-in. We could evaluate the return on investment (if we wanted) with a bit more accuracy there. The $500m in stadium money?...

A point that gets lost in this particular debate is that the city basically had a moratorium on development in DTE for a very long time. The theory was that if development was free to spread to DTE, it would take away from redevelopment of the core. I'm not sure exactly when that policy was lifted but I wouldn't be surprised if it was around the time the stadium was approved.

Thus groups claiming the Metrodome was a failure at creating development and that this new stadium is a catalyst for development are both walking on thin ice.

I also think that claim that development was restricted in this area is on thin ice. I've seen zero evidence from a contemporaneous source that said this was city policy. This line was trotted out by Rybak to respond to the question "How would the new stadium generate development when the Metrodome didn't with many more major events?"

I'm willing to be corrected if anyone provides any evidence that this was city policy. Was any development actually discouraged based on this policy?