Hong 1

Jae Hong
WRD 104
Professor Lyon
April 21, 2014

Brennan, Eamonn. "Chicago Reveals DePaul Arena plans." Espn.com. ESPN Chicago, 16 May
2013. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.

This article, written by Eamonn Brennan, is a brief description about the new
basketball arena that will be built in downtown Chicago region for DePaul University.
The school intends to have the arena open for the 2016-17 season. The estimated price
for the construction of this building is to be around $173 million and will be built
adjacent to McCormick Place; this is part of Chicago Mayors, Rahm Emanuel, $1.1
billion revitalization effort called Enhance Chicago. In the article, Brennan informs
the readers about a proposal that DePaul declined which would have been a cheaper
alternative to building a new stadium. Brennan also informs about the school athletic
director states that he believes the stadium will encourage incoming stars to apply into
DePaul and revive the schools athletics program.
I intend to use this article more as background information and basic facts to my
paper. The article is very flexible with facts that could both support and counter my
argument. The article gives detail about the budget spent on building this new arena and
I will be using this to compare to other sports arenas or stadiums stated in other articles.
This article also gives a better understanding for the purpose of building the new arena
under the schools perspective. This article ties very well with most of the other articles
but especially with Coates and Humphreys article. Coates and Humphreys article
describes how stadiums tend to not revitalize an urban neighborhood which is a very
good counter to Chicago Mayors revitalization efforts.

Wischnowsky, Dave. "Wisch: A New Arena Won't Fix DePaul Basketball Alone CBS
Chicago." Chicago.cbslocal.com. CBS Chicago, 11 Mar. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.

Wischnowsky, a writer for CBS Chicago, describes why building DePauls new
arena is very harmful to the economy. His biggest concern is that DePauls basketball
team is not even well developed and believes that the new stadium will not improve the
schools basketball program. The school barely got 30,000 fans to watch one of their
games and building a new stadium will not change the number of attendance. He also
describes how it is a bit unfair for taxpayers whose taxes are used to build this arena.
Wischnowsky believes that the school needs to improve their basketball team and gain
more fans before building the new arena.
This article is useful in my paper because most of the claims made are what I will
be using to support my argument against building the new stadium. I will be strongly
supporting Wischnowskys fact about how $70 million worth of taxpayers money will
Hong 2

be used to build the new arena. I will relate this fact to Seigfried article and provide
information on how the arena will not benefit the taxpayers. The best part about this
article is how it matches with Brennans article about DePauls basketball team. Both the
writers believe that the basketball team should be revitalized first before the school starts
to build a new arena for a very unpromising team.

Shank, Matthew D. WHAT DO SPORTS FANS WANT IN A NEW STADIUM: RESULTS
FROM MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL Allied Academies International Conference. 6.2
(2001): 24-28. Print.

This article is a research conducted through survey to find out what fans want
most in new stadiums or arenas. The survey sampled 196 random fans and found that
some of the most essential wants in a new stadium were ticket prices, parking, and the
food. What the result showed was that the new stadium should be more than a place to
watch a game. Through this study, researchers also found that stadiums need to
incorporate more wants than requested in the past due to the change in society. Also, for
a stadium to create more revenue, researchers found that they have to take the opinions of
season ticket holders more seriously than walk-up spectators.
This article is not directly related basketball but is useful. The article speaks about
the necessities that new stadiums should have that fans desire. Most of the necessities are
quite beneficial in smaller municipal regions but are negatively correlated to urbanized
regions. For example, the author mentions how fans want large parking spaces for new
arenas but Coates and Humphreys article contradicts this stating that that space is
dropping the amount of profit gained in the region. Also, fans desire to have lower ticket
prices but according to Wischnowsky, that is probably not going to happen in DePauls
new arena if they cannot bring up the attendance.

Siegfried, J., & Zimbalist, A. A Note on the Local Economic Impact of Sports Expenditures
Journal of Sports Economics. 3.4 (2002): 361-366. Print.

Siegfried and Zimbalist describes how easily people are manipulated into
believing that supporting building a sports stadium will help revitalize the local economy.
At first, people are manipulated into believing that if a new stadium were to be built in
the local area, it will boost consumer expenditures locally. However, the two writers
debunk this theory with past examples; Siegfried and Zimbalist believe that people spend
all their money in the stadium and do not end up spending much outside the stadium.
Practically, the sports teams are the only ones to benefit from the new stadiums and the
local economy actually drops. Throughout the articles there are many examples showing
the effects of what really happens when a new stadium is built. The writers state that
their goal of this article is to inform the people of the misinterpretation of public
subsidies as being beneficial.
This article is significant for it gives evidences on how building new stadiums
harms the local than benefits. This article is very similar to Coates and Humphreys article but
different in that Siegfried and Zimbalist gives scenarios with the facts that they found while
Coates and Humphrey gives facts that were collected from previous records. The article will be
very beneficial for support so some arguments that will be used from Can new stadiums
Hong 3

revitalise urban neighborhoods? Also, the article will help support many of the claims made by
Wischnowsky in his article. The article will also challenge Mayor Emanuels Enhance Chicago
revitalization plans.

Coates, D., & Humphreys, B. Can new stadiums revitalise urban neighborhoods? Significance.
8.2 (2011): 65-69

This article discusses the question whether a new stadium can profit an urban
neighborhood or not. Coates and Humphreys believe that new stadiums do not. The
region where the stadium is typically built, the surrounding neighbors housing price rise
but the house owners wages do not. This causes many residents to leave the area into
other neighborhood and causes a housing problem in the stadium region. Also, the
amenities in the area do not rise but instead falls. However, the biggest cost to new
stadium projects into neighborhood is the funding spent on building. Most of the
stadiums built are not privately funded and instead are publically funded. Sometimes,
States or local government run low on budget and have to borrow money to support the
construction. In such cases, the government has to use different methods to recover from
a debt, in most cases, they use the lottery money.
Cotes and Humphreys conclude that new stadiums do not help revitalize urban
neighborhood. This supports will be useful refuting the claim made by Mayor Emanuel.
According to Brennans article, the Mayor intends to spend $1.1 billion on revitalizing
Chicago and part of the plan includes the new arena. This article mentions that new
stadiums negatively affect the amenities in the surrounding neighbor. This ties with
Siegfried and Zimbalists article which also concludes that economically, these amenities
are likely to lose profit.

Cardno, Catherine A. New Louisville Basketball Arena Will Be Truly Multipurpose Civil
Engineering 79.8 (2009): 19-22. Print.
In this article, Cardno gives descriptions as well as facts about the new basketball
arena that Louisville will be constructing. Majority of the information given in this
article relates to the physical aspect of the building. The stadium is somewhat symbolic
to the state of Kentucky because there are no professional sports teams situated in the
state and everyone turns to college sports instead. The stadium will be large enough to
hold 22,000 attendances and in addition, will have 75 luxury suites and 70 junior suites.
The arena will be built in a way that it could host other events and even other sports. The
estimated price for the entire construction will be at max $238 million.
This article contains information geared towards engineers. However, it is also
useful to me because I can compare this arena to DePauls new arena. The article
provides me with information that I can challenge whether DePauls new arena is worth
building. The article states that in Louisville, there are no professional teams to support
besides Louisville University. However, in the city of Chicago, there are four well
recognized professional teams bringing up the question whether DePaul should necessary
build a new arena in an area with many established sports teams. The article also
mentions how this new stadium will help the local government for it will be used as a
multipurpose arena during the basketball off seasons. In the city of Chicago, there are
Hong 4

many other multipurpose stadiums and adding an additional multipurpose arena seems to
be quite unnecessary.


Jae,

You have good sources here. You are looking at the articles in a balanced
way, demonstrating that, while it is possible that the stadium will help DePaul and
Chicago, the chances of this happening in a saturated market are slim. You still
leave the possibility of this being successful, but at the same time recognize that the
funding offered for the project may not have the returns suggested by the mayor
and others.
Your annotations here are good, though there could have been a bit more
synthesis between the articles. This item is graded A-, or 92%