Worcester Woo Sox? (Boston, Lowell, Cambridge: move, suburbs, architecture)

[timberline742]

Fair points on the retention and signaling, though I don't know where people living there would go to if they're already there? It could benefit from having more going on though. I really wish I could have been ok with buying there. It would have saved me so much time.


I never felt Worcester had a breadth and density of venues, but I guess its more the ones they have don't appeal to me. Not like Providence does. For instance, places like the Palladium never did anything for me (I avoid it now) despite some overlap with music I like. Ralphs is cool. But hey, each to their own.

[phoenixmike11]

looks like a lot of sports economists believe the stadium is not a good deal economically for the city

Nine out of ten sports economics experts think Worcester’s stadium deal is awful, and the tenth is the guy who helped design it | Field of Schemes

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by phoenixmike11

looks like a lot of sports economists believe the stadium is not a good deal economically for the city

Nine out of ten sports economics experts think Worcester’s stadium deal is awful, and the tenth is the guy who helped design it | Field of Schemes

The one thing I feel like they neglect is the idea that it does matter where people spend their money. They said the vast majority is just reshuffling entertainment dollars but if people are crossing into Worcester instead of spending money in Milbyry, Shrewsbury or Auburn doesn't that NK make a difference to the city?

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

The one thing I feel like they neglect is the idea that it does matter where people spend their money. They said the vast majority is just reshuffling entertainment dollars but if people are crossing into Worcester instead of spending money in Milbyry, Shrewsbury or Auburn doesn't that NK make a difference to the city?

Are pro sports teams economic winners for cities?
https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/...winners-cities

Worth a read. IMO sports teams and stadiums are a dog and pony show. Lots of unseen consequences but most people only see the big shiny stadiums and the crowds during the few hours of games.

I'm not saying you can't like sports games, but I find the claims of economic prosperity extremely dubious, to be charitable. Especially considering how tax payers are on the hook. There's no incentive to not keep milking that.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

The one thing I feel like they neglect is the idea that it does matter where people spend their money. They said the vast majority is just reshuffling entertainment dollars but if people are crossing into Worcester instead of spending money in Milbyry, Shrewsbury or Auburn doesn't that NK make a difference to the city?

It does, but especially if those dollars in the city are going to people who live and work in the city that are then spending that money also within the city. That's likely for service sector people. It will be better if the service sector businesses there are owned by locals as well.


It would be better if the city invested (more) in incubators and accelerators to try to create some real jobs and wealth, but that's a much harder sell to the public.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Are pro sports teams economic winners for cities?
https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/...winners-cities

Worth a read. IMO sports teams and stadiums are a dog and pony show. Lots of unseen consequences but most people only see the big shiny stadiums and the crowds during the few hours of games.

I'm not saying you can't like sports games, but I find the claims of economic prosperity extremely dubious, to be charitable. Especially considering how tax payers are on the hook. There's no incentive to not keep milking that.

I do think that $100 million is a quite absurd but I also think the minor league sphere is actually way more competitive than the majors. Just look at New England, there are probably 6 cities that are suitable for minor league teams. Only one (maybe 2 for the NHL or MLS) from the majors.


If it was just the $35 mil from the state (which is mostly infrastructure and residential tax credits) I think it would be a decent investment but with the city I don't live in Worcester so I really don't care how they spend their money.


I also would like to point out there is an entire state agency that is dedicated towards giving tax breaks and grants to artistic organizations. I would much rather see money go to s baseball team than a ballet that nobody goes to.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by redplum33

Interesting article.


I'd argue that it will bring people to Worcester that otherwise wouldn't be there spending money.

Agreed. I'd also argue that the point about restaurants is wrong. It assumes that the restaurant market is already at capacity. People are either eating out or ordering out (to eat at home) more often than ever before, so the restaurant market is growing (which is obvious to anyone who has spent time in much of Worcester, Providence, or really anywhere else). Restaurants often thrive in clusters and restaurant rows that create a "dining destination" (Shrewsbury St. for example). People will go seek out a cluster of restaurants because it becomes as much about the scene as it does about the food/drink. You can make a long night out of eating and drinking at the Italian places along Atwells Ave. in PVD. If you're a sports fan, a night out along Canal/Causeway in Boston during a game is an experience. There's no reason you can't have a cluster of restaurants and bars (especially since there's already a good scene there) around the ballpark and still keep restaurants in other parts of town just as packed as they currently are.

[MMS02760]

The Worcester Business Journal piece was sobering. All but one of the ten economists think Worcester got played for fools big time by the millionaire Pawsox owners. Their comments paint city leaders as a bunch of cheerleading rubes.

Worcester city officials had the benefit of knowing what was was being offered in RI (city/state combined stadium support of 38M). RI conversely made its proposal in the dark since Worcester details only became public just last week. The city of Worcester with this knowledge then basically offered nearly 2X (additional 32M+) more on its own for stadium construction than RI. What kind of business sense is that?

Got to give the WBJ credit for not just going along as most all of Worcester seems to be currently doing. It appears to be all alone in raising warning flags as city leaders steamroll this through without any extensive vetting and real input from the public. The fact that the City Manager has basically told the council that the deal can in no way be changed as it is a take it or leave project and must be approved within weeks is a classic strong arm move. Worcester residents are going to end up paying for this big time.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by MMS02760

The Worcester Business Journal piece was sobering. All but one of the ten economists think Worcester got played for fools big time by the millionaire Pawsox owners. Their comments paint city leaders as a bunch of cheerleading rubes.

Worcester city officials had the benefit of knowing what was was being offered in RI (city/state combined stadium support of 38M). RI conversely made its proposal in the dark since Worcester details only became public just last week. The City of Worcester with this in mind then basically on its own offered in excess of 2.5X (additional 62M) more for stadium construction than RI. What kind of business sense is that?

Got to give the WBJ credit for not just going along as most all of Worcester seems to be currently doing. It appears to be all alone in raising warning flags as city leaders steamroll this through without any extensive vetting and real input from the public. The fact that the City Manager has basically told the council that the deal can in no way be changed as it is a take it or leave project and must be approved in weeks is a classic strong arm move. Worcester residents are going to end up paying for this big time.

Worcester residents, or Worcester businesses? Didn't Worcester shift the till rates of property taxes toward businesses and away from homeowners recently?

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I never felt Worcester had a breadth and density of venues, but I guess its more the ones they have don't appeal to me. Not like Providence does. For instance, places like the Palladium never did anything for me (I avoid it now) despite some overlap with music I like. Ralphs is cool. But hey, each to their own.

Providence has an abnormally robust arts/music scene for a city it's size, which why a segment of the population adores it - myself included. However, compared to Hartford, Nashua, Lowell, Manch, and other second/third tier cities, Worcester and Providence have notably more robust arts/music/restaurant scenes. In short, using Providence as your baseline sets a relatively high bar.

With the MA 'boroughs becoming a biotech core, Worcester stands to benefit. Providence has been dogged by the RI economy/politics, though in some regards that has made for a more interesting city.