This is a small barber shop in Excelsior, Minnesota. It’s ugly, but it is exactly what we want! I don’t know the history of this particular building, but it appears this building is newer than the two adjacent and fills the space that would be a parking alley in most downtowns. The barber shop building isn’t ideal, but I’ll take it. The question is; how do you make these buildings become a reality?

It happens on its own.

To me, this is the least satisfactory answer. If left to its own devices, I do believe this type of development will happen (eventually). The cost of gasoline, electricity and desire for authentic walkable, urbanism will increase to the point where we’ll make the transition.

I currently operate under the notion suburbanization is done. I love New Urbanism and believe in its principles; but it was not New Urbanism that killed suburbia. It was the financing of suburbia, struggling economy and jobs market and high gas prices. If these trends that crippled suburbia continue, which I think they will, the development I’m referring to above will happen on its own. Yes, eventually I do believe this will happen on its own … but the problem is that I don’t want to wait that long. So, here is what we could do to speed things up.

Incentivizing incremental development

A lot of capital left with the financial collapse. Traditional methods of private financing that could have helped build what we’re talking about will likely be hard to come by. That means local governments, local businesses and local economies need to get creative. Unfortunately, local governments have been clinging to the post-WWII zoning and approvals mindset. I’d like to do this without the method of tax handouts. It’s an important question that we’ll have to answer in the near future: can we incentive development without tax increment financing or other methods of subsidy.

Downtown / Neighborhood Improvement District

This method is currently being used in downtown Minneapolis (Downtown Improvement District, or DID). And it isn’t a bad idea. The concept  is pretty simple; DID is funded by charges to commercial properties as a ‘special assessment’ – similar to a street repair – along core downtown streets (plus larger local companies have donated money to the effort – Target and Accenture come to mind). DID operates as a non-profit, pays Ambassador’s $12/hr to act as the “eyes on the street,” pick-up trash, fill small potholes, water plants and the minor things that the city’s public works department overlooks.

I believe that this was the method used (but with parking) in Donald Shoup’s The High Cost of Free Parking. The differences being that the revenue was taken parking fees and redirected towards actually infrastructure improvements, not public relations/small public works jobs. One of the problems with DID is that its guided by your traditional urban booster (aka the people who brought you stadiums, convention centers and downtown suburban-style malls).

There are some benefits to an ‘improvement district’ – the City of Minneapolis benefits from the non-profit while the wider public doesn’t have to pay for it (besides the handful of commercial property owners). The downsides are numerous though; it has limited power for infrastructure improvements, it’s expensive, and you need an already successful existing and dedicated local business community. big problem: this model will be unlikely to work in smaller sized cities where business owners are struggling and there aren’t large corporations to cut a $1 million annual check.

Local Building / Infrastructure Bank

The idea of a nation-wide infrastructure bank has been thrown around in the media lately, but it’s concentrated on large-scale projects like high-speed rail and highway projects. I’m interested in seeing it happen at a hyper-local level for small development projects.

My idea goes something like this:

Get local/ downtown businesses together, map empty / under-used properties in a particular area, create a development plan (like what you’ve shown me) and get the city (or other entity) involved to add a small ‘special assessment’ to property owners. Let this ‘bank’ add up until you have enough money to build.

Here’s the kicker: all the properties that accepted the special assessment would have an ownership stake in the new building- and profit from it being leased. A collective organization could then manage and lease that property, returning any profit to those who paid the assessment. This also creates an environment where all building owners / tenants in downtown have a shared interest in its success. This might be the best way to go about it; the difficulty is that it will take an awful lot of collaboration with local business leaders, stakeholders, and city employees / city council members.

Revising property tax

One problem that Minneapolis and St. Paul have is that of open-surface parking lots in downtown. Besides our love of the automobile, one reason I believe that they still exists (and continue to exist despite a ‘small‘ downtown building boom) is because of our system of property taxation.

We put a tremendous burden on the buildings themselves and their capital improvements. The problem with this is obvious; parking lots don’t have buildings to be taxed (besides small wooden shacks). The answer to this is to tax land at a greater emphasis, based on proximity and other amenities, and not punish small land owners for putting up the type of buildings we’re looking for. In the City of St. Paul, if you operated a single-lot open surface parking lot, you’d be taxed at around $5,000 a year (pulling his number out of the hat here, so hold criticism). If you building two to three-story mixed use building, like those of your drawings, the rate (especially for commercial) would jump to probably around ten to fifteen times the rate (again, based on similar calculations this is the range I found). If the parking owner/operator is earning a profit and being taxed at such a low rate – why risk a development?

By modifying this element of our tax code, we are essentially incentivizing people to use their empty lots and encourage them to create better places. Of course, this seems nearly impossible to do under our current circumstances, so I am thinking it would be best to advocate for a ‘property-tax modification zone’ – with this, you’d simply draw up an area, similar to what you’d do with a  tax increment financing area, but make it a zone where land is taxed at a higher rate, but capital improvements are not.

Code-free zones

This idea of drawing a downtown zone and modifying the tax code could be plausible, and to add to it – what if we made it ‘code-free’ zone? Again, instead of the government granting TIF (or some other subsidy/tax break) to a particular area, it creates a ‘code free zone’. Now, there would need to be stipulations: it wouldn’t be “code free” per se, but more so a list of aims and objectives that would need to be reached.

Aims and objectives would be things like:

1) good urban design,
2) density,
3) transit-accessible,
4) walkability

In a sense, we’d be trying to achieve a version of form based coding, just minus the innate building regulations. The best might be to just pick photos and development buildings that look like that type. The codes I want to avoid are building codes, like “rooms larger than 250 sq ft must have outlets places 8 feet apart” (word on the street is that is a code in California) … you know that stuff I’m talking. I think there is a lot here, especially because I foresee governments wanting to promote development but not having the resources to hand out tax money. I like the idea, but it needs to be brainstormed and work shopped a little more. I think it has potential.

The reason the ‘code-free’ zone is important is because its a way to remove developers from the equation. One of the strengths that developers have is a knowledge of building codes, how to get community and government approvals, etc. In other words – they know the system. If you were to have, for example; a hardware store owner, to build a new building, they may not have the know-how to build a structure or trust a builder/contractor to do so. But, if they knew they weren’t going to be fined / construction halted because they choose door frames 1/8 of an inch to wide, my thought is that they would be more comfortable building something outside of a developer.

Donations

While this is a lofty idea, and I’ve never seen it work, it’s a possibility; the idea that community members would donate enough money to get something off the ground. It’s happening in Minneapolis right now. There is a brewpub (Smokehouse Brewpub) asking for donations of $1,000 of start-up money in exchange for free beer for life. You can read about it here. My first reaction to this was negative, but it appears as if the surrounding local community is really into the idea (note: Minnesotans like beer and drink a lot of it- so this idea may be more viable here than elsewhere). The part of the city is in need of ‘third places’ and this idea has been a hit. I’m not sure of the financials thus far in the development of the brew pub, but PR has been only positive.

__

I’d love to hear your ideas. Leave them in the comments section …

Here are a few excerpts from the article:

The problem with these created-overnight districts is that you’re trying to create a culture as opposed to letting one grow,” says Nathaniel Hood, a Minneapolis-based transportation planner. “You’re getting the culture that one developer or city council member thinks the city needs, as opposed to the ground-up culture that comes from multiple players.”

…

“That’s a defeatist choice to have to make, but the monocultures created by urban districting make it almost inevitable. At last week’s 20th annual Congress for the New Urbanism, Hood spoke about the folly that is Kansas City’s Power & Light District, an $850 million entertainment district whose neon signage is as blinding as its eagerness to be hip. But no one would mistake Power & Light for a neighborhood created by cool kids. “Land costs are higher downtown, so you have to create something genuinely unique,” says Hood. “It can’t just be an outdoor mall with slightly cooler bars.”

…

It’s not just that the developers are boring people — the economics of single-owner districts incentivize blandness. Chain stores and restaurants can afford to pay higher rent, so they get first dibs. To boost rents even higher, tenants are sometimes promised that no competition will be allowed nearby. “Starbucks will be willing to pay the higher rent if [the developer doesn't] let other cafes into the area,” says Hood. And forget about occupying the Power & Light District — you’re on private property. For a full list of the rules (no bicycles, panhandling, profanity on clothing) you can consult its website.

I feel uneasy about self-promotion. Nonetheless, the article at Salon is well-done and I recommend it.

The first comment:

“this article had to be written by an engineer.  vapid, sterile & looking for a pin in the ground.”

That is funny. I’m not an engineer. I have a degree in urban and regional planning, but I do work with engineers and they must be rubbing off on me. The next comment was a little more insightful.

Unfortunately, San Francisco does have an entertainment district of sorts called Fishermans Wharf, including a mall (Pier 39) with all kinds of simulated waterfront authenticity. I can’t speak to the finances of the area, but most people (at least the ones I know) consider Fishermans Wharf quite an embarassment and avoid it at all costs.

I dropped the ball on this one. In fact, I was at Fisherman’s Wharf and Pier 39 not too long ago. Below is a snapshot from my camera. It falls into the same category as the Power & Light District. Good urbanism, but something is missing. Odd, but I do remember people telling me to avoid it as if it was a side-of-the-road World’s Largest Ball of Yarn-type tourist trap.

Well, if you find yourself in exurban Minneapolis, you can charge your electric vehicle here. It’s a Kwik Trip.

This is it!

Here you go …

Kwik Trip is installing these at a number of their Midwestern locations. The most obvious problem here is that of voltage.

“The family-owned Kwik Trip chain is installing the stations at all its new stores, a total of 25 so far in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. But the outlets only provide 110 volts, which, charging for the few minutes it takes to grab coffee and use the bathroom, would barely get someone out of the parking lot and down the block. Charging for an hour at that voltage might allow a typical electric vehicle to run three to five miles.” - Midwest Energy News  (June 7, 2011)

In the larger scope of things, that issue is secondary.

The real issue is location, as in- it’s in the middle of nowhere and, unless you want to hang out at an exurban gas station for literally hours, this charging station will get you nowhere except to another gas station.

The Location: Approximately 20 miles southwest of Minneapolis.

The StreetView: Not good, but they do have a sidewalk. Not sure where it goes though.

The beauty of new Kwik Trip stations? They are designed to be LEED certified. While I’m not positive if this particular gas station is LEED approved, I do know Kwik Trip has been designing to certification. My question is; who are they trying to fool?

This all comes back to something I remember James Howard Kunstler writing; “The time has really come to change our national motto from E Pluribus Unum to It’s the Thought That Counts!“

*See also: Mailbag: LID and NU over at StrongTowns.org.

Golden Gate Park is as awesome as the city it calls home. It’s a big park with lots to offer: botanical gardens, baseball fields, tea gardens, a lake, plenty of homeless people and … a museum.

This is a hard place to love; and I have a feeling three things will happen here in 25 years:

1) People will universally dislike the appearance of this building, and
2) The maintenance, repairs and general upkeep will cause the over-sized museum financial hardships, and
3) The public will be unwilling to subsidize it again …

If you were curious, here is the original de Young Museum.

I’m flying back from West Palm Beach, Florida after visiting my first Congress of New Urbanism. The weekend was nothing short of amazing. I’m going to attempt to write, but after major fatigue I’m finding it difficult to think.

The best way I can describe my experience at CNU is this: I am at a party with all the cool kids, and I have no idea how I got invited. I mean, I had the opportunity to have a few beers with Duncan Crary, speak one-on-one with Andres Dauny, exchange business cards with Robert Orr, sit next to Richard Florida and finally meet all the NEXTgen’ers I’ve been following on Twitter– which made for some interesting conversations:

“Hi, I’m such and such”
“Oh, Hi! I’m Nate and I follow you on Twitter”

It’s hard not to notice that you’re surrounded by rock stars and soon-to-be rock stars. Everyone has an impressive resume and everyone is doing stuff.

CNU is like no other industry event. It’s the first conference I’ve experienced where everyone actually wants to be there.  What makes it even better is that the CNU community, especially NextGen, is very welcoming. I came as a stranger and left as a friend.

I don’t remember giving my presentation. It is a surreal blur. Luckily CNU was kind enough to collect my presentation slides and record the audio. I’m not sure when that will be up. Overall, the positive response exceeded my expectation.

I am excited to get back to Minnesota and get to work. I can’t wait to continue to form a pro-active collection of rationale responses to encroaching entertainment districts and how cities may administer urban diversity. I got a lot of great advice from someone I admire, and he really help put a breath of life into an idea I was starting to lose interest in.

I’m now obsessed with ideas of opt-out urbanism and tactical urbanism. Opt-out urbanism, or code-free zones, will be the next project I undertake. I love the idea and am going to start to get the ball rolling in Minneapolis. I also want to spearhead some brainstorming events soon to get tactical urbanism in Minneapolis. I foresee lots of hurdles, but it’s totally doable.

I learned a lot – most importantly was this: just do it. Don’t ask for permission. Mike Lydon, one of the leaders of the tactical urbanism movement, had a beautiful quote that went something like, “why should I sit around and wait for my city to make my neighborhood a better place”. He’s right. We need to just do it. If you ask for permission, it’ll be an up-hill battle, they may say ‘no’ and if they don’t say ‘no’ – they will certainly take a long time to tell you ‘yes’.

I’ve been told I need to turn this electronic device off. We are descending into Minneapolis. I’ll close it with this: I can’t thank Chuck Marohn enough for making this all possible. If it weren’t for Chuck, I don’t know where I’d be. He’s a role model, great guy and a rising star in the realm of urban planning, placemaking, New Urbanism, urban economics, you name it!

Best -Nate

I hate giving Phoenix too much grief. It already receives enough commentary from the urban planning collective, and rightfully so, but books have been written about it and there really isn’t much room for me to expand. I do find it appropriate though to comment on Phoenix’s Legends Entertainment District.

The entertainment district includes:

- 2 sports arenas
- 1 convention center
- 1 large office tower (Colliers Center)
- 1 historic renovation (Luhrs Building)
- 2 large multistory parking garages
- 1 light rail line

While I find it encouraging that Phoenix is finally looking inward in an attempt to create a more vibrant downtown- this is not the way to do it. The two sports arenas, convention center and two parking garages create empty zones on non-event days. The intensive ‘entertainment development’ will also discourage residential in the nearby area (95 percent of the time it’s empty space, and 5 percent of the time its chaotic space).

The light rail line and historic renovation are steps in the right direction, but will be fruitless endeavors unless more productive land uses aren’t created nearby (or along the light rail line). It’s also discouraging to see light rail stations in a downtown being surrounded by large, multistory parking decks. Furthermore, these critiques go without mentioning that the sports arenas, convention center, light rail and parking decks were likely paid for by taxpayers (and therefore off the property tax rolls).

I’ve been to Phoenix, but I’m not intimately familiar. I can’t say for certain if this is a good development without being able to critically examine the surrounding land uses. However, from my research, I can say that it looks really, really bad.

Entertainment Districts, as they are referred to as, are easy to spot.

These places usually have a well-marketed name followed by the words: eat, drink, relax, dine, play or some similar variation. A hotel is often used as an anchor, a movie theater is thrown into the mix along with some higher-end chain restaurants while the area’s light posts will be covered in well-designed banners.

Another easy way to identify an entertainment district is by government subsidy. These projects usually have some form of subsidy attached, whether that is through direct spending on infrastructure improvements, local government bonding or tax increment financing. They are also supposedly to support the creation of jobs, economic growth, promote adjacent urban development and feed off a new, existing or proposed sporting arena.

Downtown’s are and are not Entertainment Districts. It depends, as certain policies can give them similar qualities. That being said, giving further caveats to these differences is necessary. It is best to breakdown Entertainment Districts into two categories: overnight vs. naturally-occurring.

Overnight Entertainment District: The Power & Light District in Kansas City

Here’s the run-down:

The Kansas City Power & Light District … is a shopping and entertainment district in Downtown Kansas City, Missouri … The district comprises nine blocks on the south side of the downtown loop. … The $850 million “mixed-use” district is one of the largest development projects in the Midwestern United States^. The Power & Light District is one of only a few places in the United States where possession and consumption of open containers of alcoholic beverages are allowed on the street, although they remain prohibited on the street throughout the rest of Kansas City. [Wikipedia]

The Power & Light District is an infill project in an urban area that connects with the original street grid, is walkable and the urban design is scaled appropriately. One would think this would be a success story. Reality is, it’s a financial drain. The Wall Street Journal reported:

The tab is mounting for this Midwestern city on a bet it made during the real-estate boom on an $850 million entertainment district meant to breathe new life into its struggling downtown. While the eight-block restaurant, nightclub and retail complex named the Power & Light District is mostly complete, traffic and sales are well below initial projections when construction started in 2006.

Today, the project … generates less than one-third of what is needed to cover the debt service on the bonds. The city is setting aside $12.8 million in its budget for the fiscal year that starts next month to cover the gap, a notable hole in a $1.3 billion budget that calls for $7.6 million in cuts to the fire department. [...] property-tax collections have been lower than expected, given lower rents and real estate values. Sales-tax revenue is also off. [The Developer] has blamed this partly on the lack of a professional sports team at the [nearby] arena.

Kansas City gambled on a 9 block entertainment district and a new sporting / music arena – and now it’s draining city resources (similar to what is going on in Cincinnati).

The question: Why did it fail?

1) Projections were too optimistic, and
2) Bad timing (finished at the genesis of a recession)

These are the two often cited reasons for why these developments fail – and they certainly play a role, but they don’t tell the whole story. The real problems are less obvious.

1) Single-Use

Despite being billed as mixed-use, these environments concentrate all efforts on one aspect: entertainment. While original projects plans usually include visions of high-end condos, this promise fail to materialize. Even if they do materialize, they are not the primary focus. Residential is merely used to sell the bundle.

Entertainment appears to be code-speak for food and drink. If it isn’t a weekend or an event night, these places are silent. They lack one crucial element: people. For a place to be successful, it needs people. All types of people – not just 25 year old’s on a night out.

2) Ownership

Overnight entertainment districts are typically controlled by one entity, similar to a shopping mall.

1) Limits Diversity: When an urban environment’s diversity is determined by one actor, you’re likely to get only businesses that the developer finds favorable. Developers will likely find chain restaurants who are willing and able to pay higher rents. This is economics 101. For the downtown urban environment as a whole, especially one looking to attract visitors, there is little or no benefit from ubiquitous chains. This is the problem that plagued Block E in Minneapolis – why visit Applebee’s downtown when they are everywhere?

2) Limits Flexibility: To attract higher rents, developers will sign agreements to limit competition. For example; a coffee shop, such as Starbucks, may sign a contract only under the agreement the developer will not rent to a competing firm even if a demand exists. This limits the development’s ability to adapt to market changes.

3) The Disproportionate Effect of Failure: If one business fails under the model of single-ownership, it will have a more disproportionate effect on other businesses. Take for example, Block E in Minneapolis. When a mid-sized drug store chain closed its doors a year after opening, this left a large vacant space collecting dust. The developer needed to make that up, and upon new lease negotiations it will likely put more pressure on existing tenants to cover this costs.

Furthermore, after Borders closed its Block E doors in 2008, there were fewer tenants paying into utility costs. These costs (of course, depending on each individual contract) will be shared amongst existing tenants. Where as in a traditional urban environment with multiple landlords, while a neighborhood closure isn’t great for business, it certainly wouldn’t increase the bills your utility bills.

4) One Sinking Ship Downs the Whole Fleet: If the developer tanks and the building falls into foreclosure – what is the fate of the successful businesses in the development? In some cases, one sinking ship downs the whole fleet – even businesses turning a profit.

5) Public Space: Open space is not public space. For example; even if you wanted to, you couldn’t legally “occupy” an entertainment district. It’s private property and it has the same shortcomings characteristic of suburban shopping malls.

I see the appeal to the single-owner system. Public decision-makers choose this route because its far easier. They are dealing with one party – not many. It’s also easier to sell and allocating land to one, well-connected developer as opposed to ten to 15 smaller, less well-known developers. But, even when you have multiple property owners, entertainment districts still fail to create complete urban spaces.

Naturally-Occurring Entertainment District: Hennepin Ave in Minneapolis (downtown)

[NOTE: Hennepin Ave Photo has been removed because apparently I didn't properly cite the creative commons license. You can look at a different image of Hennepin Ave here].

Hennepin Avenue in downtown Minneapolis can be a vibrant place. It has theaters, restaurants, nearby sporting facilities, historic to modern architecture, high-degree to transit access and proximity to Minnesota’s largest downtown. It’s active, but something’s missing.

Amid the jumble that is Hennepin Avenue, “You will always belong on Hennepin Avenue because everyone belongs on Hennepin Avenue.” MinnPost’s resident sidewalk writer, Andy Sturdevant, recently published this well-written prose about Hennepin Avenue:

More than any other stretch of road in the Twin Cities, Hennepin Avenue is the one that everyone can lay claim to, the one that everybody imbues with their own mythical qualities. It’s the oldest, it’s the most famous, it’s the most crowded, it’s the one all the semi-famous songs are about. It’s one of the few places where the city’s social stratification levels out somewhat – you can see people in all income brackets, walking past one another (if not directly interacting).

It’s hard not to argue that the area can be charming, fun, exciting and a few other hedonistic adjectives – and I certainly can’t deny that the avenue is a conglomeration of income brackets and social classes. It’s all of these things … if you’re 25.

Unfortunately, these types of environments don’t help in attracting other sorts into the urban settings; baby boomers and families with young children aren’t going to be attracted to these places and surrounded by the airport of late-night noise pollution. This being said, naturally-occurring entertainment districts can best be described as an adult theme park.

The reason the adult theme park exists is because leaders are too focused on bringing people downtown for entertainment, or drawing in tourist dollars. Policy needs to shift from making cities places to visit, and concentrate on making them places to live. Entertainment districts, even the best ones,  can fail at creating a lively mix of retail, residential, commercial and civic space. In fact, most all mega projects have failed in this regard. They are isolating locations, usually not worthy of the public affection beyond the handful of large sporting events, conventions or Friday night bar excursions. In fact, show me an existing or proposed entertainment district and I’ll show you a struggling city.

It appears as if entertainment districts may be the new “Bilbao Anomaly”.

Paris and Florence don’t have entertainment district. Neither does San Francisco. Melbourne doesn’t either. What these cities have are spaces for people. They also have sports stadiums and bars – just not as the focal points of their city centers or of their new infrastructure investments. The problem boils down to over something very simple: We are disconnecting our downtown’s from all other aspects of life.

Financing and cost are issues, too, for Minneapolis’ Pillsbury A-Mill project

Hiawatha struggles to become a destination, not a corridor

Is Minneapolis-St. Paul that much more liveable now than from 1993 to 2000?

It’s a hard question to answer. I don’t remember 1993, and even 2000 is a bit hazy. I was all of 15 when the Wild arrived in Minnesota and the only thing I remember is that everyone was disappointed in the name. My teenage self thought it wasn’t any good. Now, up to Canada …

Is Winnipeg a better place now than from 1996 to 2011?

I don’t know much about Winnipeg. They lost the Jets and it’s cold. That’s about it. Now? They’ve got the hockey team back, but it’s still cold. Is Winnipeg any better off with the Jets in town? It certainly keeps hockey fans happy, even with the loss of the Manitoba Moose. At the end of the day, this shifting of location appears to be normal. Teams go from location A to location B, and sometimes to location C.

A handful of teams that have relocated since 1990 in the four major North American sports [baseball, football, basketball and hockey]. The odd thing is, it’s looks like the more likely a city is to lose a team, the more prone I’m to liking it. Let’s examine the Big 4 …

Major League Baseball:

• 2005: Montreal Expos moved to Washington, D.C. and became the Washington Nationals.  [Wikipedia]

Montreal lost a team and Washington got the Nationals. The Expos struggled for the better half of a decade prior and wouldn’t build a new stadiums. The team left. Montreal is still an awesome place. It may be debatable, but I’d contend that Montreal is one of the most beautiful cities in North America. It’s constantly ranked as one of the world’s most ‘liveable cities‘. The loss of a team certainly didn’t bent the attitude or perception of Montreal. There’s more to a city than a baseball team.

National Football League:

• 1995: Los Angeles Raiders moved back to Oakland after 13 previous seasons, the first “return” relocation of a North American professional sports team.  [Wikipedia]

Los Angeles loses a team in 1995 … and then slowly becomes one of the most desirable urban areas in the United States. Most of Los Angeles (minus its sprawling suburbs) can be classified as a really great place. Places like West Hollywood, Silver Lake and even Downtown have really turned out. It has some of the most expensive real estate in the nation. It’s loss of a professional team didn’t really seem to faze anyone. The city is currently looking for a NFL team (the Vikings?) and private investors are willing to pay for the stadium. I say, good for them. Los Angeles has done well without a team, and with or without one in the future, the city will do well.

• 1996: Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Baltimore Ravens. The move was one of the most controversial in major professional sports history. In response to a fan revolt and legal threats, the NFL awarded a new franchise to Cleveland in 1999, which for historical purposes is considered a continuation of the original Browns franchise. [Wikipedia]

Cleveland; my Mom is from around there and I have relatives scatter around the area. I want to love it, but Cleveland is in rough shape (and its population can’t seem to stop declining). The same goes for Baltimore. An article in the Atlantic Cities highlighted a study that showed that both Cleveland and Baltimore were rated as some of the least favorable cities in America (or, at least, that is what Forbes thinks).

• 1997: Houston Oilers moved to Memphis and became the Tennessee Oilers. The team originally planned to play both 1997 and 1998 in Liberty Bowl Memorial Stadium in Memphis before moving to their intended destination of Nashville. However, due to poor attendance, the team moved to Nashville in 1998, playing in Vanderbilt University’s stadium. The team was renamed the Tennessee Titans in 1999, when their new stadium was opened. The NFL eventually awarded Houston an expansion team for 2002. [Wikipedia]

I don’t know much about Memphis, Houston or Nashville. But I question whether any of them are better off because of a professional team. I’ve been to Memphis and Houston and, from my personal observations, view both rather unfavorably. Nashville seems cool. I’m not much into country music, but I appreciate a town with an artistic vibe. Nashville has the Titans – although, until about 1 hour ago, I thought the Titans played in Memphis. In fact, when I think of, or visit, a city, sports franchises are pretty low on the list of things I consider.

[Ed. Note: This is taking too long and getting to repetitive, so I'm going to speed this post up ...]

National Basketball Association:

• 2001: Vancouver Grizzlies moved to Memphis, Tennessee.
• 2002: Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans.
• 2008: The Seattle SuperSonics became the Oklahoma City Thunder.
• Sources? You know it — Wikipedia

Vancouver and Seattle are ranked as some of the world’s most favorable and liveable cities. Charlotte lost a team, and then got the Bobcats (a team currently battling it out for the worst record in NBA history). When I talk with friends about team relocation I often cite Seattle and Oklahoma City as an example. They’re probably sick of hearing it, but I usually say something like, “Seattle lost a professional team and Oklahoma City gained one. I still want to visit Seattle and I still think Oklahoma City is a piece of s***”. {Note: I can’t write that word, or WordPress won’t make this post searchable}.

National Hockey League:

• 1993: The Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas.
• 1995: The Quebec Nordiques moved to Denver.
• 1996: The Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix.
• 1997: The Hartford Whalers became the Carolina Hurricanes.
• 2011: The Atlanta Thrashers moved to Winnipeg, becoming the latest incarnation of the Winnipeg Jets.
• Sources? – Yep, again — Wikipedia

The NHL moved around a lot in the 1990s, and the shifts followed population growth in the American south and southwest. Dallas, Colorado, Phoenix and North Carolina all got teams. Cold places with long hockey histories lost teams (Minnesota, Winnipeg, Quebec City and Hartford). Minnesota and Winnipeg eventually got teams back, but I’m sure it cost both of them a lot of money to do so.

Sport teams don’t make or break a city – and losing a team isn’t going to matter in the long run. The public paying for sports stadiums is merely the subsidizing of entertainment for those who watch. I enjoy professional sports. I just don’t think it’s the public’s responsibly to fund what I watch on TV at night. And if a team leaves Minnesota? We’ll be fine.