Hoppers still a hit
The Grasshoppers ended their season with a victory today and another banner year in attendance, drawing more than 10,000 fans to New Bridge Bank Park.
The Hoppers fell short of the last year's record attendance but led the South Atlantic League in total attendance anyway.
Some complain that the downtown ballpark may be good for the team but lousy for downtown.
To a small extent, they may be right. I've seen little evidence that the park has done much for restaurants in the area.
After all, they do sell lots of food and drink at the stadium. Who's still hungry after a big fat ol' ballpark sausage dog, plus ketchup-drenched fries?
But the games do draw people downtown that normally may not come and offers them at least a glimpse of the many changes going on there.
And the stadium has inspired some downtown developers to build residences in the area, which absolutely will have a direct long-term impact on downtown's vitality.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Allen, while giving John Kavanagh credit for building 6 townhouses near the stadium (some of which have still not sold after two years), we should also remember that the new stadium inspired the owner of a perfectly good Art-Deco era apartment building across the street from the stadium to tear it down for a parking lot.
And North State Chevrolet, once a functioning business adjacent to the new stadium, is now a desert of weedy asphalt. All schemes to develop that property have so far vaporized.
I hear anecdotally that the Acropolis restaurant across from the stadium has lost business, especially on baseball nights, because people eat their dinner in the stadium.
It looks like the stadium has been a net loss economically for downtown -- fewer downtown workers at the site, fewer residents, and a net loss in business activity -- unless you count the Grasshoppers owners.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone. Anne Stringfield of Fisher Park researched and made available reams of economic studies that all conclude that downtown stadiums are not drivers of economic development.
I'll make you a bet: within 10 years, the Grasshoppers and stadium owners will ask the city either to renovate or buy the stadium as it ages and attendance numbers dwindle. The loser buys dinner for the winner at the Acropolis ... if it's still there.
Posted on September 6, 2008 2:54 PM
We'll see, David.
As I've mentioned, the stadium is, if anything, a competitor to downtown restaurants.
That shouldn't be a surprise, since a major source of its revenue is the sale of food and drink.
But it has created more excitement downtown.
Or at least that's what I've been told.
Roy Carroll has told me time and again that the stadium helped spur his interest in building Center Pointe.
As for the old North State site, one of the Jones brothers told me that it sparked similar interest from them in developing the spot for mixed use.
They obviously didn't succeed with their initial vision for Bellemeade Village.
But guess who still wants to buy that land for residential development and has bought the old county building site across from the ballpark as well?
Roy Carroll.
Finally, you seem skeptical about the stadium's positive impact but are a passionate supporter of War Memorial Stadium as an asset to the Aycock community, where you live.
Isn't there a contradiction in there somewhere?
Posted on September 7, 2008 3:43 PM
Allen, I agree that the new stadium has probably had some strong but less easily measurable effects on downtown development. I also think those same effects could have been attained from investment in projects that have stronger economic spillover, such as the original Bellemeade Village concept that Action Greensboro's planners originally proposed for the site. Have a look at the upper left-hand corner of this image:
http://www.actiongreensboro.org/images/centercity/originalplan.jpg
As to whether I contradict myself ... I don't think so. The case that I and others made was that it would be a better use of AG's money to renovate War Memorial Stadium because it would be less expensive, because it would enhance a significant historic structure, and because (following Philip Bess's argument in his book City Baseball Magic) neighborhood ballparks are generally more successul than those plunked down in urban entertainment zones.
At any rate, I'm grateful that the N&R editorial page has endorsed the idea of taking advantage the inherent synergy between the stadium and the Farmers' Market. May I point out that that was at the heart of the original stadium/neighborhood plan that the Aycock neighborhood produced in 2003? And at the heart of the most recent bond proposal? My recollection is that the N&R was less enthusiastic about the idea back then, and that any notions that the old stadium needed to be "saved" were pooh-poohed by you.
Just saying ...
Posted on September 8, 2008 9:16 AM
Now boys, let by gones be just that.
We have an idea that we all seem to agree upon. Let's do it.
Posted on September 8, 2008 9:29 AM
I agree, David. There's a win-win to be had by following the farmers' market/War Memorial plan.
And I congratulate the Aycock neighborhood for its initiative all along.
Yours is a community to be admired.
Posted on September 8, 2008 9:53 AM
Thanks Allen. You're right, it's a win-win ... so, onward!
Posted on September 8, 2008 10:07 AM