Part 2: The Arena Effect: Stadiums and Communities

As Philadelphia deliberates over the proposed 76ers arena in Center City, a familiar story unfolds across the country: the contentious intersection of stadium developments and their lasting impact on communities. While several groups tout potential benefits such as crime reduction, job creation, and affordable housing, those communities and groups affected, voice a narrative of displacement, unfulfilled promises, and negative social impact.

A Cautionary Examination

In 1958, the city of Los Angeles offered Chavez Ravine as the site for the new Dodger Stadium. Prior to development, Chavez Ravine was a thriving community of neighborhoods – Palo Verde, La Loma, and Bishop – established in the 1840s by Mexican-American residents as a direct result of redlining.  Ultimately, the city’s decision to develop the stadium in this area displaced over 1,000 families, totaling about 12,000 people, primarily from the Mexican-American community.

Historian Don Normark reported in an interview with VOX that, “Many of those displaced never owned their own homes again and held grudges against the Dodgers and the city.” The event, known as “The Battle of Chavez Ravine,” failed to deliver the promised public housing, offered little to no compensation when homes and buildings were expropriated through eminent domain, and remains a controversial topic in Los Angeles history as both a symbol of progress and cultural erasure.

Almost 50 years later on the other side of the country, The Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, promised a state-of-the-art arena (now the Barclays Center), public open space, and 2,250 affordable apartments in the middle of downtown Brooklyn. Twenty years after the initiative launched, many of these promises remain unfulfilled, with over 800 affordable homes yet to be built and proposed environmental improvements unrealized.

Assembly Member Jo Anne Simon stated in an interview with Brownstoner that, “Atlantic Yards, instead of providing additional housing and bringing people together, has actually furthered displacement in this area.” This displacement was fueled by several factors, including but not limited to a 21% increase in white residents and a 21.5% decrease in Black residents, as well as  rising rental costs and property values, which priced out long term residents and low-income families it was intended to support.

Research shows that stadiums often fail to deliver promised economic benefits while driving gentrification. Olivia Viorst, a researcher at the University of Oregon, noted, “While stadium construction and development focuses on economic development, residents of these neighborhoods experience negative social impacts.” These experiences include; displacement of long-term residents and businesses, loss of community identity as neighborhoods transform to accommodate commercial interests, increased traffic and congestion, straining local infrastructure, and rising housing costs, exacerbating affordability crises.

In Tuesday’s Council Hearings on 76 Place, Professor Domenic Vitiello, an expert in urban planning and urban studies at the University of Pennsylvania shared during his testimony that there is a broad consensus among independent economists that arenas and stadiums do not generate net tax revenue or significant economic benefits for cities. Vitiello claims that downtown arenas often create “dead zones” on non-game days and disrupt surrounding businesses and residential neighborhoods. He emphasizes that Philadelphia’s vibrant downtown, with its dense ecosystem of small businesses and a growing residential population, could be severely harmed by arena construction. Vitiello warns that the arena threatens to reverse the city’s recent growth and could have a significant negative impact on its tax base and economy. He points out that other cities have wisely kept arenas out of their downtowns, instead developing purpose-built arena districts that are better suited to larger businesses than the small stores and residences that characterize Center City Philadelphia.

Bridging the Gap Between Communities

Planned developments often divide communities and highlight differences in representation and priorities. The debate over the 76ers arena in Philadelphia has revealed a stark class divide, with mixed reactions among Black Philadelphians.

Brittany Alston, Executive Director of the Philly Black Worker Project and a member of Black Philly 4 Chinatown urged, “We need to have hard conversations about what we want as a community — not just what some of us want because we want to make political or economic capital out of it.”

As cities rush stadium deals, residents often feel excluded from the process. In Philadelphia, the Stadium Stompers formed to oppose Temple University’s previously proposed football stadium. “We took [to supporting Chinatown’s fight] because it can happen anywhere,” Gail Loney,  organizer for Stadium Stompers and member of the Black Philly 4 Chinatown Coalition explained  “It can happen anywhere, and now people see it when it happens to us… We said, if y’all sit here and don’t help us and let it happen to us, you’re going to be next.”

This sentiment of solidarity underscores the interconnectedness of the struggles over urban development. As communities like Chinatown and North Philadelphia rally together, questions about the intentions and decisions behind stadium development locations become increasingly pointed. For Loney and others, the focus shifts to the rationale behind choosing Center City as the site for the proposed 76ers arena, raising broader concerns about whose interests these developments truly serve.

“The Sixers had the opportunity to be at Penn’s Landing at one point in time, ” Loney questions, “why not Delaware Avenue somewhere, and once again, down there with all arenas, the arena district… What is it about this piece of land that you just got to put it in the middle of the city?”