Christchurch stadium, again

The issue of a new sports stadium for Christchurch in in the news again with a couple of recent articles on Stuff ("Stadium concept 'would be money maker'" and "New stadium plan 'smart, bold'"). Fortunately there are those at Massey who are on the ball when it comes to stadiums. Massey economist Sam Richardson writes at his blog Fair Play and Forward Passes:

A stadium will only ever be used sparingly. That is reality. Westpac Stadium is used for between 40-50 event days per year - and it has been making operating surpluses since it has been opened. Westpac Stadium was also built with a mere 1/3 of its funding from local and regional government. It is not clear yet where exactly the funding for Christchurch's stadium plans is coming from, but it is fair to say that it will be largely funded by taxpayers - locally, regionally and nationally to some degree. As such, if my taxpayers money is going into funding a stadium, I would like to see some evidence that this amenity is going to be at least self-sustaining, and should not be detrimental to the local area. The idea that office buildings will make the stadium profitable is missing the point. If the office blocks are the profit-making parts of the venture, why not just build the office blocks? If they must be built as part of a stadium plan, we have to acknowledge that the rents earned by stadium offices will simply be transferred from other office spaces elsewhere within the city. It may well be the case that office space is at a premium in Christchurch, in which case the stadium offices may be beneficial to the city of Christchurch in that clients who were previously unable to obtain office space may now be able to do so. If, however, the offices are simply populated by clients who relocated from the suburbs, then this isn't making money (nor necessarily welfare enhancing either) at all - it is merely redistributing the rents on office space from the suburbs back into the CBD.

It is exactly the same argument as the claim that stadiums generate conference revenues too - which is only beneficial if the conferences wouldn't have been held in the city in the first place without the stadium conference spaces.*

Sure, the office rents may make the bottom line of the stadium better (if indeed things pan out as projected). But from a wider (city or regional) perspective, is it really regenerating or simply redistributing? That's the question that ratepayers need to be asking of their policymakers.

One further question I would ask is about the opportunity cost of any taxpayer money used for the stadium. There are many other (better?) things to use money on in Christchurch right now. Sam's response to that question is,

Is a stadium an essential or luxury for Christchurch? I know they have the 'temporary' stadium, but surely there are more compelling alternative uses of scarce government funds at this time. Decisionmakers should at least be open about the fact that it is highly unlikely to be a money maker for the city. If you build it for public good purposes, show us the value of the public goods it will generate.

I have to agree with Sam about seeing evidence about the value of any public goods a stadium will provide. Off the top of my head I can't think of any. So those backing the stadium need to front-up with details as to what the real reasons for the stadium are.