Phoenix In Climate Crosshairs, So What Better Time To To Push For A $1 Billion Stadium? It's HOT, You Know!!

[hatrack]

The Arizona Diamondbacks have a climate problem. To be more precise, Phoenix has a climate problem and, as a result, the Diamondbacks have a field that needs renovations if the team is going to keep fans cool – and no one is sure whose responsibility it is to pay for it. The team’s lease on Chase Field expires in 2027, and negotiations with Maricopa county have stalled. The organization’s plan to fund the $400m to $500m project is modeled on the Arizona Cardinals’ successful bid to fund their own field renovation through stadium sales and recaptured income, and the plan is supported by the Chamber of Commerce, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Greater Phoenix Leadership, the Economic Council and Downtown Phoenix, Inc.

So what’s the problem? One glaring issue is that county officials can’t – or don’t want to – contribute money like they did when the Suns needed their own upgrades in 2019. The root of the issue is in the renegotiation of the contract between the Diamondbacks and Maricopa county in 2018, which resulted in the team assuming financial responsibilities for repairs and maintenance – a responsibility it seems the team is now attempting to offset, at least in part. (The Diamondbacks did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Guardian.)

This financial dispute is taking place against the backdrop of dire climate warnings for the city, including that by 2100 it will be too dangerous for anyone – athlete or otherwise – to work outside for 162 days of the year.. and the team is already struggling to keep the stadium cool enough for fans throughout the summer. Club owner Derrick Hall believes that building a new stadium is the best path forward, but it’s also the most expensive (renovations would cost up to $500m, but a brand new facility could top $1bn). In September he told Sports Business Journal that modern facilities have to be multi-use and that “it’s about mixed-use, it’s about activating 365 days per year, hotels, restaurants, retail and office space.”

Questions about who is responsible for stadium renovations persist with or without climate concerns, explained Dr Timothy Kellison, an associate professor in Florida State University’s department of sport management. Teams and city governments should first and foremost consider the economic impact of funding such changes on the public. The first question that should be asked, he added, is whether or not “the public investment is worth the cost to the public in terms of the return on investment, if taxpayers were responsible for paying for a major renovation or a construction”. The answer to that question is “always no”.

EDIT

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/oct/16/arizona-diamondbacks-climate-change-chase-field

[multigraincracker]

1. San Diego voted down funding for a sports stadium for a Team, with good results.

The NFL's Chargers are the most recent team to move following voter rejection of a stadium referendum. San Diego voters in 2016 defeated a plan to raise hotel taxes for a new football stadium and to expand a convention center. The Chargers then moved to a new privately financed stadium in Los Angeles, sharing it with the Rams, who relocated from St. Louis.

[hatrack]

2. Wow, they succeeded in finding private financing after all - what a shocker!!