Sustainable Stadia

Actualizing the Potential of Community- Owned Stadia Towards Sustainability

Cristhian Gutierrez Robert Mallette

Adebola Odumade

School of Engineering

Blekinge Institute of Technology

Karlskrona, Sweden

2008

Thesis submitted for completion of Master of Strategic Leadership towards

Sustainability, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.

Abstract

Professional sporting events draw staggering crowds to stadia on a yearly

basis. This combined, with the prosocial psychological effects of attending

professional games and the cultural meaning of stadia to a community,

provide excellent opportunities for municipalities to use their stadia in a

movement towards global socio-ecological sustainability. While these

opportunities are available, the industry is not well established to realize

their potential. Our research, through application of the framework for

strategic sustainable development (FSSD), offers measures to facilitate such

a move. In application of the framework, however, a key threat of

professional team monopoly power was identified, putting into question the

perpetuation of public ownership over facilities with professional teams as

tenants. If a solution is to be reached within this model, a multi-stakeholder

approach is endorsed, where reduction of team monopoly power is

conceded for the long-term benefits to municipalities.

Keywords

Community Owned Stadia, Community Development, Professional Sports,

Strategic Sustainable Development, Monopoly Power, Civic Pride

iii

Statement of Contribution

The ideas generated within our research were done so in the spirit of

collaboration and co-creation. Having a diverse set of educational

backgrounds, and personal experience, combined with a wide cultural base,

allowed our team to investigate topics from many different perspectives.

Cristhian‟s managerial expertise had the group on time and up to date for

deadlines and presentations. His research abilities were a team asset,

providing technical insight into our project. As well, his ability to visually

create meaningful diagrams for deeper understanding provided tools for

insightful investigation into complex problems. A strong facilitator, he led

the group in the latter stages of our conversations synergising broad

concepts and making our research complete.

Robert‟s passion for continual improvement and hard work helped us to

always keep going on track and in good shape. As a natural leader he was

always aware of our team‟s dynamic and state. Through constant

encouragement to the team, always pushing us to do our best, his

outstanding facilitation during co-creation sessions was invaluable. His

writing skill allowed the thesis work to flow in a logical and effective

manner, while his critical thinking maintained within us an awareness to

not get lost in details, but rather to always analyse situations and problems

in holistic terms.

Bola‟s careful insights into business analysis were an asset in indentifying

the industry‟s position and his careful mind for subtleties was very useful in

clarifying ideas in all aspects of our research.

Peace,

Cristhian Gutierrez

Robert Mallette

Adebola Odumade

iv

Acknowledgements

In general, we would like to thank our friends and family, who helped with

this project through informal conversations, patience listening and

meaningful insights and contributions.

More specifically, we would also like to thank:

Our interviewees and expert panel; without your expertise, patience, and

enthusiasm for this project, we would have never been able to complete it.

Our primary advisor, Tony Thompson (PhD Candidate, BTH); for knowing

when to step in and when to let us go, as well as, for your overall insight

into the process of a project of this magnitude. Your input was priceless in

our development.

Our secondary advisor, Richard Blume (Research Associate, BTH); for

your razor sharp comments and advice, encyclopaedia-like knowledge of

sustainability, and for always keeping us moving in the right direction.

And lastly, the member of Rock On! (MSLS Thesis, 2007) Sarah Brooks,

Dan O‟Halloran, and Alexandre Magnin; the clarity of your document was

like a third advisor to us, offering insight into structure and flow. Your

work was an ambition benchmark from which we constantly compared

ourselves.

v

Executive Summary

Introduction

Our current global context is driven by two trends. Trend 1: a manifestation

of the „take-make-waste‟ worldview, systematically decreases the carrying

capacity of the world in terms of necessary natural resources for human

survival while simultaneously increasing the amount of waste introduced

back into the biosphere by human civilization. Trend 2 shows a correlation

between global demand for world resources and increasing global

population. The unnerving reality of these trends is their convergence. As

resources deplete their demand increases. If allowed to persist, these trends

will ultimately undermine humanity‟s ability to perpetuate itself (Robèrt

2000).

To avoid this outcome, and move humanity towards sustainability, large

scale strategies are required. To aid us in that movement, the international

non-governmental organization, The Natural Step (TNS), developed a

framework for strategic sustainable development (FSSD). That is, a

perspective for dealing with sustainability problems within complex

systems (Robèrt 2000). This framework outlines a decision making process,

adding rigour and insight, for developing strategies towards the sustainable

function of an organization in society in the biosphere (Robèrt 2000).

Through its application, organizations work to minimize their risks by

developing and assessing strategies made within, scientifically grounded,

sustainable constraints.

Our cities each consist of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even

millions of people, making a shift towards sustainability at the community

level a useful strategy in agreement with our present global context.

Moving such a mass of people, however, is easier said than done. To induce

a societal shift towards sustainability, community governance must learn to

use their strengths as key leverage points. In such a strategy, vital social

hubs and/or centralized infrastructure will yield positive results towards

change—because they assemble many people at once, they are efficient

way to „spread the word‟. Perfect for these reasons, community stadiums

provide excellent potential as a community platform. As the house of

professional sports, stadiums draw staggering crowds world-wide,

numbering high into the hundreds of millions annually (List of attendance

vi

figures at domestic professional sports leagues 2008). These numbers alone

present a dramatic opportunity for inducing sustainability, however,

combined with the positive pro-social psychological effects resulting from

spectators sports (Howard 1912; Platow et al. 1999), intervention through

use of stadiums is especially appealing. Furthermore, stadiums serve as

statement pieces of a community‟s culture; as a symbol of modernity and

innovation they come to represent the citizens of the towns in which they

stand (Ponder 2004). Thereby, moving a stadium towards sustainability

would yield significant momentum towards a societal shift, through

changing both the minds and hearts of individuals.

Methods

Our research is framed within the structure of the FSSD, using a large,

multi-resource literature review complemented by conceptual diagrams and

interviews to inform our views. We used the literature review to understand

broad concepts within the stadia industry, translating these finding visually

into two system maps. We were then able to understand, from a system

perspective, what areas required more research by further literature review

or as part of an interview schedule.

When our results were complied, we released them for critical review from

industry experts. Having obtained constructive feedback, we revised our

findings in line with expert opinion.

Results

Through a categorized assessment of the current reality of stadia, we were

able to establish five (5) industry challenges in a transition towards

sustainability:

vii

Industry Challenges

1. Creation of Waste 2. Creation of Emissions 3. Community Participation 4. Strategic Use in Community Development 5. Unequal Power Relations between Professional Teams and

Municipalities

To engage these industry challenges, sixty-one (61) measure and activities

are suggested to facilitate a community in use of their stadium in moving

towards sustainability.

Key Findings

Stadia stakeholders are victims of their own collective self-interest, if they

all worked together towards a common goal, they would be able to achieve

more by undermining each other less.

Careful planning towards sustainability in the construction phase of stadia

development is crucial as the industry is currently averse to retrofitting,

seeing it as a cost and not as an investment. The effects of not retrofitting

are greatly exacerbated by the extensive infrastructure in place.

A gap in stadia planning appears through lack of integration into

community strategic planning. Poor integration is manifest in two ways: by

forgoing opportunities to increase a community‟s recreation capacity

through use of a stadium as a multipurpose public space, and by not seeing

stadia in their full potential as an engagement tool to inspire social change.

We understand the stadia industry and professional sports to be at

considerable risk. Monopolistic power of professional teams, and the abuse

of that power in leveraging new stadia for added profits, undermines

community capacity—an effect that cannot persist forever. This social

system is fundamentally unsustainable. If solutions are not pursued that

viii

engage the source problems of this system, they are merely quick fixes

prolonging eventually collapse.

As monopoly power of professional sports has been challenged in the past

with little or no success (Fort and Quirk 1997), it is apparent that if a

solution to this problem is to be reached within the model of public-owned

facilities with professional teams as leasing tenants, a multi-stakeholder

approach is required. Such an approach would need to focus on

professional teams conceding their monopolistic power in favour of the

long-term benefit of community capacity.

ix

Glossary of Acronyms

4SP‟s—Four Sustainability Principles

BOCOG— The Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad

CFC—Chlorofluorocarbons

CHP—Combined Heat and Power

CLD—Causal Loop Diagram

COS—Community Owned Stadia/Stadium

CSF—Critical Success Factors

FSSD—Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development

GHG—Greenhouse Gases

LEED—The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

MLB—Major League Baseball

NFL—National Football League

NHL—National Hockey League

ROI—Return on Investment

SME‟s—Small and Medium Enterprises

SSD—Strategic Sustainable Development

SWOT Analysis—Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Analysis

TNS—The Natural Step

USD—U.S Dollars

x

Table of Contents

Contents

Statement of Contribution ........................................................................ iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................... iv Executive Summary .................................................................................... v Glossary of Acronyms ............................................................................... ix Table of Contents ........................................................................................ x List of Figure and Tables ........................................................................ xiii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Context ......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Why Stadiums? ............................................................................ 3 1.3 Strategic Sustainable Development (SSD) ................................... 4

1.3.1 The Funnel Metaphor ...................................................... 4 1.3.2 Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) 6 1.3.3 Sustainability Principles .................................................. 8

1.4 Scope of Project, Research Question and sub-Questions ............. 9

2 Methods .............................................................................................. 12

2.1 Research Design ......................................................................... 12

2.1.1 Design Structure ............................................................ 12

2.2 Data Collection ........................................................................... 14

2.2.1 Spiral approach .............................................................. 15 2.2.2 Literature Review .......................................................... 16 2.2.3 Conceptual Diagrams .................................................... 17 2.2.4 Interviews ...................................................................... 17

2.3 Data Analysis ............................................................................. 18

2.3.1 Expert Review ............................................................... 18

3 Results ................................................................................................. 20

3.1 Current Reality of Community Owned Stadia through the Perspective of SSD .............................................................................. 20

xi

3.1.1 Internal Operations......................................................... 21 3.1.2 Material Flows ............................................................... 22 3.1.3 External Stakeholders .................................................... 25 3.1.4 Role in Community ........................................................ 27 3.1.5 Design and Retrofitting Planning................................... 30 3.1.6 Conceptual Diagrams ..................................................... 31

3.2 Community Owned Stadia in a Sustainable Society .................. 35

3.2.1 Desired Future ................................................................ 36 3.2.2 Industry Challenges ....................................................... 36 3.2.3 Operational „Success‟ and „Strategies‟ in a transition towards sustainability ................................................................. 40

3.3 Critical Success Factors in terms of SSD in a movement towards sustainability ........................................................................................ 41 3.4 Measures and Activities to Facilitate Community Owned Stadia in a Progression toward a Sustainable Society ..................................... 42

3.4.1 Internal Operations......................................................... 44 3.4.2 Material Flows ............................................................... 45 3.4.3 External Stakeholders .................................................... 46 3.4.4 Role in Community ........................................................ 47 3.4.5 Design and Retrofitting Planning................................... 48 3.4.6 Uneven power relationships ........................................... 49

4 Discussion ............................................................................................ 50

4.1 General Strengths and Limitations ............................................. 50 4.2 Research Question and Results Analysis .................................... 50

4.2.1 Sub Question 1: What do community owned stadiums currently look like from the perspective of strategic sustainable development? .............................................................................. 51 4.2.2 Sub Question 2: Can a community-owned stadium exist in a sustainable society, and if so, what might it look like? ....... 53 4.2.3 Sub Question 3: What are the critical success factors in terms of strategic sustainable development in a movement towards sustainability for a community owned stadium?........... 54 4.2.4 Main question: What are some measures that can be undertaken by a community owned stadium in a movement towards a sustainable society? .................................................... 56

5 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 58 6 Further Research ............................................................................... 59

xii

Alternative models of ownership (private, public/private) and their implications for a movement towards sustainability, .. 59

7 Works Cited ....................................................................................... 60

xiii

List of Figure and Tables

Figures

Figure 1.1 „The Funnel‟................................................................................ 5

Figure 1.2 Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD)...... 7

Figure 2.1 Interactive Approach................................................................. 14

Figure 2.2 Spiral Approach ........................................................................15

Figure 3.1 Day-to-Day Operations of Community Owned Stadia............. 32

Figure 3.2 Ticket Revenue and its effects on Community Capacity.......... 33

Tables

Table 2.1 Method Matrix........................................................................... 13

Table 3.1 Summary of Stadia Sustainable Challenges............................... 39

Table 3.2 Transitional Objective and Goals............................................... 40

Table 3.3 SSD SWOT Analysis for Community Owned Stadia................ 42

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Context

In 1987, a quintessential document of sustainability was published: the

Brundtland Report, or „Our Common Future‟. Within, the work of the

World Commission on Environment and Development was described,

citing connections and solutions towards global social, economic and

environmental issues (Our Common Future 1987). However important

these solutions might have been, Brundtland‟s legacy is attached to giving

much needed clarity to the idea of sustainability and offering a definition

still widely used. „Sustainable Development‟ is „development that meets the

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations

to meet their own needs‟ (Our Common Future 1987). The Bruntland

Report, however, was not a proactive approach to global issues, rather, it

was a reactive perspective born from an obviously unsustainable context. In

1974, Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland, revealed the negative

consequence of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in showing their breakdown

of the O-zone layer (Molina and Rowland 1974). In 1984, the Bhopal,

Union Carbide, disaster showed that reducing health and safety budgets for

added profit had negative social and environmental consequences (What

Happened? n.d.); the Chernobyl disaster created similar lessons but on a

global scale (Chronology of Key Events n.d.). Although not exhaustive,

these examples clearly show that Brundtland‟s contribution was as timely

as it was required.

Since 1987, progress has been slow, if at all. Replacing the issue of CFC‟s,

solved via ratification of the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substance that

deplete the O-Zone Layer (Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete

the O-Zone Layer 2000) has been a global awakening to the crisis of

climate change. Health and safety issues were further brought to forefront

of global awareness with the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989 (Spill

Prevention and Response n.d.). In 1997 the world answered by drafting the

2

Kyoto Protocol (Kyoto Protocol n.d.) aimed at reducing global greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions. The unavoidable issue of „Peak Oil‟ is causing

petroleum price to sky rocket worldwide as global reserves dwindle (Klare

2004). Absolute Poverty has emerged as the crusade of some high profile

advocates, as they look to make „poverty history‟ (The World Can't Wait

2007). Although made in specific reference to climate change, the

following statement made by Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General,

succinctly describes our current global context on whole:

“The situation is so desperately serious that any delay could push us past

the tipping point, beyond which the ecological, financial and human costs

would increase dramatically. We are at a crossroads: one path leads to a

comprehensive climate change agreement, the other one to oblivion.”

(Lastest Comments 2008)

Ban Ki-moon‟s statement leads one to question: why have the important

developments made in the Brundtland Report failed to yield significant

results towards a sustainable society? Of course there are many answers:

lack of political will, entrenchment of an inadequate worldview, and

misunderstanding the gravity of sustainability are a few. While crucially

important, these inhibitors, even if solved individually, would leave intact a

global perspective of reacting to problems as they arise. That is, „[w]hen we

eventually reverse the build-up in carbon dioxide, there will be another

issue waiting for us‟ (Noble or Savage? 2007). By reacting to subsequent

crisis after crisis, our global civilization puts itself in undo risk while

simultaneously expending undo financial, environmental and human

resources. What is more, the possibility of global issues coalescing into a

„perfect storm‟ of risks jeopardizes our current, and future, situation further

(Willard 2005). In fact, recently, at the World Economic Forum 2008, Paul

Hewson (U2‟s, Bono) and Al Gore publically connected absolute poverty

and climate change (Gore, Bono Press West on Climate, Poverty 2008), in

what may prove to be the breaking point of the „quiet before the storm‟.

But all is not lost. A shift towards a sustainable society is still very much

possible.

To aid us in that movement, the international non-governmental

organization, The Natural Step (TNS), developed a framework for strategic

sustainable development (FSSD). It is an approach to deal with

sustainability problems within complex systems (Robèrt 2000). This

framework outlines a decision making process, adding rigour and insight,

3

for developing strategies towards the sustainable function of an

organization in society in the biosphere (Robèrt 2000). Through its

application, organizations work to minimize their risks by developing and

assessing strategies made within, scientifically grounded, sustainable

constraints.

1.2 Why Stadiums?

The World‟s current population is approximately 6.6 billion people, with a

49% of them living in densely populated cities (World Population n.d.).

Each one of our cities consists of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even

millions of people, making a shift towards sustainability at the community

level a useful strategy in agreement with our present global context.

Moving such a mass of people, however, is easier said than done. In order

to induce a societal shift towards sustainability, community governance

must learn to use their strengths as key leverage points. In such a strategy,

vital social hubs and/or centralized infrastructure will yield positive results

towards change—because they assemble many people at once, they are

efficient way to „spread the word‟. Perfect for these reasons, community

stadiums provide excellent potential as a community platform. As the house

of professional sports, stadiums draw staggering crowds world-wide,

numbering high into the hundreds of millions annually (List of attendance

figures at domestic professional sports leagues 2008). These numbers alone

present a dramatic opportunity for inducing sustainability, however,

combined with the positive pro-social psychological effects resulting from

spectators sports (Howard 1912, Platow et al. 1999), intervention through

use of stadiums is especially appealing. Furthermore, stadiums also serve as

statement pieces of a community‟s culture; as a symbol of modernity and

innovation they come to represent the citizens of the towns in which they

stand (Ponder 2004). Thereby, moving a stadium towards sustainability

would yield significant momentum towards a societal shift, through

changing both the minds and hearts of individuals.

In correspondence to these ideas, is it important to acknowledge that

sustainability is being integrated into stadiums (Business Developments

4

2002, Ellison 2005, Grogan 2000, Short Subjects 2005, Random Samples

2006) However, strategic sustainability remains an oversight by stadia

planners, designers, builders, management and employees. As stadia are

massive capital investments for a community, with price tags in some cases

exceeding one billion USD (Yankees break ground on new $1 billion home

2006, Quebec's big owe stadium debt is over 2006), it is vital that their

potential for community development are maximised; otherwise,

opportunity costs of such facilities are too great (Baade and Sanderson

1997). A strategic sustainable approach applied to stadia will actualize

stadia‟s potential for community development by increasing the efficiency

of the facility itself, thus leaving more funds to allocate elsewhere, but also

by engaging root causes of why stadia are produced, ensuring that drivers

behind their construction are also sustainable.

1.3 Strategic Sustainable Development

(SSD)

1.3.1 The Funnel Metaphor

Our current global context is driven by two trends. The first trend is a

manifestation of the „take-make-waste‟ worldview, showing systematic

decreases in the World‟s carrying capacity in terms of necessary natural

resources for human survival, while simultaneously indicating increasing in

the amount of waste introduced back into the biosphere by human

civilization. The second trend shows a correlation between global demand

for world resources and increasing global population. The unnerving reality

of these trends is their convergence. As resources deplete, their demand

increases. If allowed to persist, these trends will ultimately undermine

humanity‟s ability to perpetuate itself (Robèrt 2000). Metaphorically, we

can understand these trends as a funnel (see Figure 1.1), where the walls of

the funnel are closing as humanity attempts to remains within those walls

(Robèrt 2000, Ny 2006).

5

Present Future

Sustainable SocietyPlanning Options

DecliningBiodiversityGroundwaterRestorative capacity

Fairness and EquityResource Availability

Social and Eviromental Networks

Increasi

ng

Populatio

n

Global De

mand

Market Pr

essure

Competit

iveness

Regulati

on

Figure 1.1 ‘The Funnel’ (Robèrt 2000)

Strategic sustainable development recognizes the above trends and looks

for “upstream” solutions to source causes. Engaging source issues is of

particular importance as it ensures newly derived solutions are not in fact

new problems to different issues. Once a clear understanding of these

notions is achieved, the goal of strategic sustainable development becomes

clearly defining sustainability and how to achieve a sustainable society by

the avoidance of the funnel walls.

6

1.3.2 Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD)

SSD recognizes human civilization and its operation within the biosphere is

a complex system. Unpredictable due to many driving factors and delaying

effects, complex systems present a number of challenges for effective

decision making. To facilitate a decision making process and to add rigour

and insight, a five level frameworkfor strategic sustainable development

has been created, as adapted from a generic five level framework for

decision making within complex systems (Robért 2000, Robért et al.

2002). The framework assists in creating a consistent understanding of

systems, shared way of thinking about sustainability, and avoids

reductionism of issues. The five levels, with a level-by-level explanation,

follows:

7

Each measure conceived at the Strategy Level is be evaluated by three

questions.

1) Does the measure move us towards sustainability? i.e. Does it operate

within the 4SP’s?

2) Is the measure a flexible platform? i.e. Does it permit flexibility in the

future as new technologies arise or as trends shift?

3) Does the measure provide a positive return on investment (ROI)? i.e.

Will the measure result in increased profit, social development, and/or

environmental preservation/regeneration

Level 1 System

Level 2 Sucess

Level 3 Strategy

Level 4 Action

Level 5 Tools

Seeking out available tools that complement prioritized measures.

Tools are understood in three categories;

1) Strategic: espousing measures with strategic goals.

2) System: measuring of the system to gain insight and gauge progress

3) Capacity: serve to increase people’s understanding of strategic

sustainable development

Using the four sustainability principles as a frame, a notion of a successful

future (Vision that is created in Level 2) is derived from which we can

backcast (We can’t predict the future, but we can invent it).

There are four sustainability principles which allow human society to

sustainably operate within the biosphere. (See section 1.3.3).

System understood within the context of ‘society within the biosphere’ and

based on laws of thermodynamics, natural cycles, and social systems

Figure 1.2 Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD)

8

A key point of the framework is the incorporation of the sustainability

principles (Holmberg 1995, Broman et al. 2000, Ny et al. 2006) at the

success level and their unique role within the method of „backcasting from

sustainability principles‟ (Robèrt 1994, Holmberg 1998, Holmberg and

Robèrt 2000, Broman et al. 2000). By using a scientifically-grounded

notion of sustainability as a creative frame to inform our idea of a

sustainable human civilisation, then creatively imagining strategic measures

to move towards that future, FSSD facilitates convergence towards a shared

vision of sustainability. A backcasting technique is used, as opposed to

forecasting, with understanding that predicting trends within complex

systems is impossible. Backasting, therefore, represents a shift from

considering the likelihood of determining feasibility to a strategy of

flexibility. That is not to say that forecasting is useless. As a complement to

backcasting, forecasting informs the space and scale of development, not

the direction (Holmberg and Robèrt 2000; Robèrt 2000; Robèrt et al. 2005).

Thus, as actors within such a system, we must be ready to act creatively and

quickly to changing trends. To position ourselves otherwise, puts us at risk

of hitting the walls of the funnel.

1.3.3 Sustainability Principles

As mentioned above, a definition of a successful system using a

scientifically grounded notion of sustainability is used at the success level

of FSSD. This becomes relevant only as we understand the un-

sustainability inherent in the current activities of society as it is then logical

to design principles for sustainability as restrictions (Robert, Yamamoto, et

al. 2006). These principles were developed within the following special

criteria as premises:

Based on a scientifically agreed upon view of the world.

Necessary to achieve sustainability.

Sufficient to cover all aspects of sustainability.

Concrete enough to guide actions and problem solving, and preferably.

Mutually exclusive to facilitate comprehension and monitoring.

9

From this, four basic Sustainability Principles (TNS System Conditions)

were developed through a scientific consensus-building process (Holmerg,

Robert and Eriksson, 1996). First, basic principles of sociecological non-

sustainability were identified by a cluster of downstream socioecological

impacts into a few well defined upstream mechanisms. Afterwards a “not”

was inserted in each to direct focus to the underlying systemic errors of

societal design. The 4SP are:

In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematic

increases of…

1) concentrations of materials extracted from the Earth’s crust

2) concentrations of materials produced by society

3) physical degradation of the natural environment

and…

4) In a sustainable society people are not subject to conditions which

undermine their ability to meet their own needs

1.4 Scope of Project, Research Question and

sub-Questions

Through our research we found the majority of global leaders in sustainable

stadia are associated with mega event, i.e. World Cups and Olympic

Games. Mega events have entire set of sustainability issues different from

those of stadiums themselves. In those developments a stadium is one

aspect of a much larger development, the majority of which is planned with

extensive use for a small time period (often less than one month). While our

research can be applied, in part, to stadia developed within the context of

10

mega events, our research is focused on facilities not associated with such

events. Our focus rather is directed towards community owned stadia

(COS), which we define as professional grade sporting facilities built for

lease by professional teams and owned by either a municipality or

state/provincial government.

Our research develops two narratives simultaneously: one discussing the

sustainable management of stadia and the second, conditions by which COS

are created. We have investigated both concurrently for two main reasons;

they are closely interrelated and we wanted to „meet the industry where it

is‟. We have chosen to present our research in such a way because the

manner in which stadia are produced is a reflection of how they are

managed. Likewise, with the massive amount of infrastructure in place, it is

complacent to ignore how constructed stadia function and how they might

be operationally improved towards sustainability. With this in mind, it is

the purpose of our research to offer suggestions, from a systems

perspective, in how community owned stadia can move towards

sustainability.

Primary Research Question:

What are some measures that can be undertaken by a community

owned stadium in a movement towards a sustainable society?

We left the intended audience of our research open to a wide set of

stakeholder (municipalities, stadia managers, and professional level tenants)

through the semantics of our primary question. We see this as essential to

moving stadia towards sustainability due to multiple stakeholders‟

involvement within stadia operations. To facilitate the process of creating

solutions towards sustainability, each of our questions relates to an aspect

of planning by use of the FSSD. Our main question represents possible

strategies and activities that could help in a movement of stadia towards

sustainability. We then divided our main question into three questions

necessary to be addressed in developing strategies through use of the FSSD:

Sub question 1:

What do community owned stadiums currently look like from the perspective of strategic sustainable development?

11

Answering this question increased our understanding of the necessary

internal practices, material flows, stakeholder relations, impacts within a

community at large and broad planning details of community owned stadia.

By answering this question we gain an understanding of the system of

which we are planning and making decision in, a requisite of the first level

of FSSD.

Sub question 2:

Can a community-owned stadium exist in a sustainable society, and if so, what might it look like?

Addressing this question allowed us to assess whether there was room for

stadia in a sustainable society by facilitated our understanding of the

necessary elements required in creating such facilities. With this

understanding, we were able to evaluate the gap between the current reality

of the stadia industry and where it would be in a sustainable society. With

knowledge gained in answering this question, we understood a working

definition of success of stadia in a sustainable future from which we could

backcast, a necessary requisite of the second level of FSSD.

Sub question 3:

What are the critical success factors in terms of strategic sustainable development in a movement towards sustainability for

a community owned stadium?

By using the business strategy of a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities and Threats) through the perspective of SSD, we were able to

understand the position of the stadia industry and identify its critical

success factors (CSF). Doing so permitted insight into those elements that

would prove most useful in closing the gap between the current reality of

community owned stadia and how they would function in a sustainable

society. In determining the CSF‟s we are taking a closer look into how the

system operates in order to induce change within it. This can be understood

within the first level of the framework and speaks to the iterative nature of

FSSD.

12

2 Methods

2.1 Research Design

2.1.1 Design Structure

We used a methods matrix to derive which actions would be most

appropriate for our research. The results are listed below.

13

Table 2.1 Method Matrix

M

eth

od

s M

atr

ix

Wh

o

do

w

e

need

to

co

nta

ct?

Art

icle

Dat

abas

es

Sta

dia

Man

ager

s

Su

stai

nab

ilit

y C

onsu

ltan

ts

Aca

dem

ics

in C

om

mun

ity

Dev

elop

men

t

SU

BQ

UE

ST

ION

S

Sta

dia

man

ager

s

Su

stai

nab

ilit

y C

onsu

ltan

ts

Con

ceptu

al d

iag

ram

s

Th

esis

mem

ber

s

Th

esis

mem

ber

s

Con

ceptu

al d

iag

ram

s

Wh

ere

can

w

e

fin

d

this

info

rma

tio

n?

Lit

erat

ure

rev

iew

on

sta

diu

ms:

E

con

om

ic A

spec

ts

S

oci

al A

spec

ts

E

nvir

on

men

tal

Asp

ects

Inte

rvie

ws

wit

h e

xper

ts

Rev

iew

fro

m e

xper

ts

Lit

erat

ure

rev

iew

Con

tact

and

inte

rvie

w o

f

exp

erts

(i

nte

rnet

sea

rch

)

Con

ceptu

al d

iag

ram

s

Iden

tifi

cati

on

of

gap

s

surf

aced

in

an

aly

sis

of

curr

ent

real

ity o

f st

adiu

ms

as

com

par

ed t

o 4

SP

‟s

SW

OT

an

aly

sis

of

the

curr

entl

y r

eali

ty o

f

com

mun

ity o

wn

ed s

tad

ia

Wh

at

kin

d

of

info

rma

tio

n

wil

l g

et

us

the a

nsw

er?

Role

o

f st

adiu

m

in

a

com

mun

ity

in

gen

eral

and

in

term

s o

f su

stai

nab

ilit

y

Role

o

f st

adiu

m

in

a

sust

ain

able

so

ciet

y

SW

OT

of

com

mun

ity o

wn

ed

stad

ia i

n t

erm

s o

f S

SD

Ho

w s

tadiu

ms

are

inte

gra

ted

into

a c

om

munit

y‟s

str

ateg

ic

pla

ns

Wh

at i

s bei

ng

don

e in

stad

ium

s cu

rren

tly

in

ter

ms

of

SS

D

Req

uir

emen

ts o

f st

adiu

ms

to b

e in

com

pli

ance

wit

h

the

4 S

P‟s

Th

e re

sult

s o

f a

SW

OT

anal

ysi

s fr

om

the

per

spec

tiv

e o

f S

SD

wil

l

giv

e u

s th

e nec

essa

ry

info

rmat

ion

Wh

y d

o w

e n

eed

to

kn

ow

th

is?

To

o

ffer

com

pel

ling

docu

men

t th

at

can

be

use

d

in

stad

ium

s fo

r

com

mun

itie

s w

anti

ng

to

mo

ve

tow

ard

s

sust

ain

abil

ity

To

iden

tify

a b

ench

mar

k

for

com

mu

nit

y o

wned

stad

ium

s fr

om

the

per

spec

tiv

e o

f S

SD

To

un

der

stan

d t

he

role

of

a co

mm

unit

y o

wn

ed

stad

ium

in a

su

stai

nab

le

soci

ety

To

un

der

stan

d a

com

mun

ity o

wn

ed

stad

ium

‟s c

urr

ent

po

siti

on

in

so

ciet

y

Wh

at

do

we

need

to

kn

ow

?

Mea

sure

s th

at

wil

l b

rin

g

com

mun

ity

o

wned

st

adia

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ilit

y

Wh

at d

o c

om

mu

nit

y o

wned

stad

ium

s cu

rren

tly

loo

k l

ike

from

the

per

spec

tiv

e o

f st

rate

gic

sust

ain

able

dev

elop

men

t?

Can

a c

om

mu

nit

y-o

wn

ed s

tad

ium

exis

t in

a s

ust

ainab

le s

oci

ety

, an

d

if s

o,

wh

at m

igh

t it

loo

k l

ike?

Wh

at a

re t

he

crit

ical

su

cces

s

fact

ors

in

ter

ms

of

stra

teg

ic

sust

ain

able

dev

elop

men

t in

a

mo

vem

ent

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ilit

y

for

a co

mm

un

ity

ow

ned

sta

diu

m?

14

To structure the process of our research we chose the iterative approach

developed by Maxwell.

Goals:

Why this study?

Methods:

What will you actually do

Validity:

How might you be wrong?

Conceptual Framework:

What do you think is going

on?

Research Question :

What do you want to

understand?

Figure 2.1 Interactive Approach (Maxwell, 2005)

The interactive model presented by Maxwell was beneficial to our research

because of its non-linear structure. By being flexible, we were able to

reorient components of our research as new developments arose; thus,

hedging against pathological assessments and the chance of overlooking

data.

2.2 Data Collection

15

2.2.1 Spiral approach

To compliment Maxwell‟s perspective, we also employed a spiral approach

to learning for our data collection.

Figure 2.2 Spiral Approach

As we moved from a literature review through conceptual diagrams,

interviews, and finally received expert feedback, the depth of insight gained

into crucial aspects of stadia‟s operations were greater.

The combined elements of a spiral and iterative perspective produced a

deep, non-linear approach, proving essential to our process.

16

2.2.2 Literature Review

Purpose: Our literature review served a dual purpose: to justify our

research by showing the great potential of stadia as a tool in moving

communities towards a sustainable society; and, to help inform our

understanding of the role of stadiums within a community, i.e. stakeholders,

relationships, management, influence, etc.

Topics researched: To form as complete of an understanding as possible,

our research investigated stadia in terms of their: economic, environmental

and social aspects.

Economic Aspects:

Economic effects of stadiums

Importance of location

Environmental Aspects:

Waste management practices

Municipal planning processes

Social Aspects:

Civic Pride

Community consultation processes

Spectator Psychology

Crowd Psychology

Validity:

Because information gathered was limited to sources within North America

and Europe our interpretation of the stadia industry is limited and will be

skewed towards trends in those areas.

17

2.2.3 Conceptual Diagrams

Purpose: Conceptual maps (i.e. system maps and causal loop diagrams)

were developed to give form to our content and were the centre of our early

conversations. Likewise, concept maps facilitated the creation of our

transitional objectives and goals.

2.2.4 Interviews

Purpose: Investigation of our literature review and conceptual maps

indentified gaps in our knowledge regarding the currently reality of stadia

from the perspective of SSD. These gaps were used to produce an interview

schedule that would complete our understanding of a stadium‟s operation

and role in society.

Topics researched: In forming our interview schedule, five (5) broad

categories were used to structure our inquiries:

Internal Operations

Material Flows

External Stakeholders

Role in Community

Design and Retrofitting Planning.

Sources consulted: We interviewed four experts.

Dustin Cherniawski, Head of Business Operations, SymbiAudit,

Sustainability Consultancy, Vancouver, Canada

Julian Radlein, President and Industrial Ecologist, SymbiAudit,

Sustainability Consultancy, Vancouver, Canada

John Haverstock, Stadium Manager, McMahon Stadium, Calgary,

Alberta, Canada

18

Gayle Burgess, Behavioural Change Programme Manager, London

Sustainability Exchange, London, England.

Validity:

Due to the small number of interviewees, our research may not capture the

full picture of the industry. Nevertheless, by interviewing consultants in the

field of sustainable stadia, we were able to gain insight into many facilities

and general trends within the industry. Also, as our interviewees were only

from North America and Europe, our research excludes a clear

understanding of how stadia operate elsewhere in the world.

2.3 Data Analysis

Information complied through methods describe above was arranged in a

results package and sent to an expert panel for review.

2.3.1 Expert Review

Purpose: To gain insight and feedback regarding the usefulness, clarity,

and validity of our results as presented in an information booklet.

Topics researched: Participants were sought out based on information

gained through our literature review, interviews and prior experience.

Sources consulted: Candidates were approached based on their knowledge

in the field of stadia management or community development.

Dr. Gayle Broad. Department Head; Community Economic and

Social Development, Algoma University College, Sault Ste. Marie,

Canada

19

Dustin Cheriawski, Head of Business Operations, SymbiAudit,

Sustainability Consultants, Vancouver, Canada

Julian Radlein, President and Industrial Ecologist, SymbiAudit,

Sustainability Consultants, Vancouver, Canada

John Haverstock, Stadium Manager, McMahon Stadium, Calgary

Alberta, Canada

Outcomes:

We invited our interviewees to be part of our expert panel with the

expectation of having external interest from at least three other parties. We

consulted many other contacts, however, interest was limited.

Validity:

As most of our expert panel were interviewees, our results may be less

objective. Also, as the members of our expert panel are entirely from North

America, our research will be biased towards a North American

perspective.

20

3 Results

Our results are listed below in corresponding order to the logical structure

of our research questions.

Section 3.1 addresses results corresponding to our first sub-question: What do community owned stadiums currently look

like from the perspective of strategic sustainable development?

Section 3.2 addresses result corresponding to our second sub-question: Can a community-owned stadium exist in a

sustainable society, and if so, what might it look like?

Section 3.3 addresses results corresponding to our third sub-question: What are the critical success factors in terms of

strategic sustainable development in a movement towards

sustainability for a community owned stadium?

Section 3.4 addresses results corresponding to our main question: What are some measures that can be undertaken by a

community owned stadium in a movement towards a

sustainable society?

3.1 Current Reality of Community Owned

Stadia through the Perspective of SSD

From our interview process, our results were structured in five broad

categories, each corresponding to an essential aspect of the operation of

COS in terms of strategic sustainability: Internal Operations, Material

Flows, External Stakeholders, Role in Community, Design and Retrofitting

Planning. Completing our understanding of these five categories are

21

conceptual diagrams depicting the overall function of daily operations and

conditions from which stadia are produced.

3.1.1 Internal Operations

Our research revealed three essential internal stakeholders that participate

in the operational function and decision making of COS. They are as

follows:

Owners

One of two groups owns the facility, either the municipality or the

state/provincial government. In the practical terms of day-to-day

operations, no difference was found in either case of ownership.

Rental agreements are the essential contract outlining roles and

responsibilities over the facility its terms of its use. These contracts vary

dramatically with different revenue splits over parking, concession, and

ticket sales. They also vary in terms of maintenance responsibilities and

capital expenditures (Fort and Quirk 1997). Despite the details of these

contracts varying, an overall trend among them is their highly subsidized

rate. Tenants (the professional teams) enact their monopolistic market

power over stadia owners, e.g. by threat of relocation, to create bidding

wars between communities. Communities then offer reduced prices as they

vie for professional teams (Delaney and Eckstein 2003).

Pressure is being exerted upon municipal and state owners for more

responsible management and creation of stadia by public opinion. Citizens

understand the large opportunity cost associated with stadia and have

voiced thier discontent with thier unneeded construction (Delaney and

Eckstein 2003).

Managers

Managers work act as middle men between owners and tenants. They are

responsible for carrying out the day-to-day operations of the facility and

22

have considerable autonomy to do so. However, for any capital

improvement projects, they must seek approval of the owners (Haverstock

2008). Autonomy at this level permits facility managers to construct

procurement policies individually, that is, apart from other tenants and on

their own terms (Cherniawski 2008, Haverstock 2008, Radlein 2008).

A sustainability culture is emerging organically in the management of

stadia, of which the major driving is seeing sustainable action of a cost

saving measure (Cherniawski 2008, Radlein 2008).

Tenants

Professional teams are the only tenant to have decision making power

within stadia. They use this clout, however, in ways which undermine the

long term interests of owners. This is carried out in two ways; the

aforementioned subsidized rents, and also through exclusivity in lease

agreements contracts. Generally, each stadium has one professional tenant

(Cherniawski 2008). That is, where a city might have professional football

and baseball teams, sports in which two teams could share a facility,

generally there are two separate facilities.

Also mentioned above, professional teams have individualized procurement

policies. While sustainability criteria are emerging in these policies, it is

clear by the excessive amount of waste produced that their emergence is

still in its infancy. These procurement policies are crucial in moving a

stadium towards sustainable because “a stadium on any given day, is for the

most part, only as sustainable as the event planner” (Cherniawski 2008).

3.1.2 Material Flows

Procurement

Our interviewees revealed that within COS procurement policies are

created by third parties or suppliers hired by tenants. That is, there were no

general, facility-wide procurement policies in place for the facilities we

investigated (Cherniawski 2008, Haverstock 2008, Radlein 2008).

23

In facilities primarily designed and constructed for legacy events (i.e.

Olympics Games in Beijing 2008, Vancouver 2010 and London 2012),

sustainable procurement have been approached with particular emphasis.

First steps in sustainable purchasing have been done in the Environmental

Management System of Beijing 2008 (Green Olympics in Beijing--

BOCOG's Environmental Activities 2004). The Sustainable Purchasing,

Licensing and Business Development of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics

Games Committee is evaluated against sustainability and ethical practices

of all suppliers and licensees (V. O. Games 2006) For London 2012,

procurement policies were launched with several sustainability aspects (L.

O. Games 2007).

In the exceptional case of the Australian Olympics Games in 2000, the

Olympic Park, in which ANZ Stadium is situated, developed a

sustainability policy that extended to adjacent apartments through

sustainable procurement of water, energy, landscape materials, office

equipment and materials, building materials and land and space (Lambous

2002).

Waste

Waste management practices vary between facilities depending on local

recycling infrastructure, municipal by-laws and state legislation. Barriers

include a lack of legal frameworks and regulations to deal with violations

(apart from western Europe) (New Soccer stadium sets goals in

sustainable waste management 2005), a lack of urgency with regards to

resource availability (Cherniawski 2008, Radlein 2008) and a fee

structure in place to for recycling collection (Cherniawski 2008, Radlein

2008).

Successful solutions have been implemented to address some of these

issues. In western Europe, legal frameworks limit landfill usage, shift the

responsibility of refuge collection to the facility itself, thus causing an

economic disincentive for added waste. Likewise, these laws restrict final

waste disposal to municipal plants, landfills and incinerators with

recycling infrastructure (New Soccer stadium sets goals in sustainable

waste management 2005). The Allianz Arena in Munich, Germany is a

global leader in waste avoidance: it has implemented a deposit/refund

system for all beverage cups and dishes, avoids as much packaging as

24

possible in food and snacks sold at concessions, separates biowaste and

food waste from restaurants at source, uses biodegradable plastic

wherever possible, and has waste bins that are highly accessible (New

Soccer stadium sets goals in sustainable waste management 2005).

Energy

Sustainable energy solutions are emerging within the stadia industry,

though they have not yet permeated into mainstream practice. While it is

not certain that these solutions operate within sustainability constraints (i.e.

within the 4SP‟s), there are some successful examples of stadiums moving

toward a more sustainable option.

New York State has taken a leadership role in providing renewable energy

for its facilities. They have done so through use of alternative energy

solutions and implementation of LEED1 Certification in Red Bull Stadium,

Barclay‟s Center Atlantic Yards, Jet/Giants Stadiums and at the

Meadowlands in East Rutherford (Schorender 2007).

The World Cup in Germany adopted an accelerated energy policy for the

event in 2006. Within the overall plan, titled „Green Goal‟, energy usage

was optimized through light management, heat recovery, air-conditioning

and refrigeration avoidance, district heat from combined heat and power

(CHP), efficient energy management and generation of renewable energy

(Stahl, Hochfeld and Schmied 2006).

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building

Rating System™ encourages and accelerates global adoption of sustainable

green building and development practices through the creation and

implementation of universally understood and accepted tools and

performance criteria (LEED Rating System n.d.)

25

Retrofitting

Our research shows the stadia industry as having a significant gap in

retrofitting analysis, with exception of Sydney‟s Olympic Park (Lambous

2002). There is an impression that retrofitting is comparatively not as cost

effective as building a new stadium to modern sustainability standards

(Cherniawski 2008, Radlein 2008). In retrofitted stadia such the German

facilities in Dortmund and Kaiserlautern, Germany (Stahl, Hochfeld and

Schmied 2006), and the Exhibition Place in Toronto, Canada, little

information was discovered in how the industry manages building and

outfit materials, demolition and excavation processes, and construction

materials (Environmental Initiatives at Exhibition Place n.d.), suggesting

that the industry knowledge is in its infancy.

3.1.3 External Stakeholders

The functioning of COS has four major external stakeholders. These

stakeholders are crucial to the decision making processes both by their

operation and construction (Delaney and Eckstein 2003). For these reasons

they were investigated in our research. The key external stakeholders are as

follows:

Municipal/State Government: The owning body of government are

largely the major financiers of the facility, and manage these finances

through allotment of tax revenue and highly subsidized rent rates. To secure

necessary finances, informal partnerships are sometimes formed between

local government and business. These partnerships have been termed

„Local Growth Coalitions‟ (Delaney and Eckstein 2003) and are formed to

serve the individual self-interest of parties involved. Business has an

interest in securing a larger share of the community‟s entertainment market

while local politicians have much to gain in highly visible new

developments. As such, the subsidization of facilities grows while more tax

revenue is allotted to their maintenance and/or construction. This affects the

community overall by acting like subsidy for the rich while excluding the

poor (Zimmerman 1997). In the politics of COS, wealth equates to

influence, which in turns leads to more wealth; this cycle polarizes classes

and excludes those without means.

26

Citizens:

Users: Nowhere in our research was it found that communities are using

their stadia as tools for community engagement. Stadia are an excellent

opportunity for engaging citizens because: the large crowds are drawn to

these facilities, sporting events create pro-social psychological effects in

spectators (Platow et al. 1999), and the power of context that an

environment has on individuals (Gladwell 2007).

Non-Users: We refer here to those members of a community who do not

use stadia directly. Often these members voice their concern for new

projects on deaf ears. As tax-payers in a democracy, these citizens have a

right to have input into where their contributions are being spent (Coates

and Humphreys n.d.). Consultation or referendums are sometimes

preformed to gain community input or to assess community favour for a

project. However, even in cases where communities have voiced a majority

of disapproval for new facilities, they have been built anyway (Delaney and

Eckstein 2003, Noll and Zimbalist 1997). Furthermore, the exclusion of

concerned citizens negates the possibility for dialogue towards innovative

social change and holistic inclusion (Delaney and Eckstein 2003).

Local Business:

Small/ Mediums Enterprises (SMEs): With regards to small/medium

enterprises, stadia will not act as a market creator, providing enough

business to surrounding SMEs fully sustain them. If stadia are to be used to

increase economic growth, they must be placed within the context of an

existing entertainment district within a community (Nelson 2001).

Corporate Business: As the prominent business members of local growth

coalitions, corporate interest outweighs local SME interest (Delaney and

Eckstein 2003).

Professional Leagues:

In some leagues, such as the National Football Leagues (NFL),

manufacturing rights, and profits there from, are evenly distributed between

teams. This ensures that bigger markets do not gain an edge over their

smaller competitors. A side effect of this strategy is that by sharing

27

manufacturing profits equally, stadia revenues becomes the singular aspect

of differentiation and competitive advantage for teams. As such, owners

apply more and more pressure on municipalities towards building more

profitable facilities (Delaney and Eckstein 2003). The emerging trend has

been an increase in highly profitable luxury boxes and a decline in seating

numbers; a trend that is extending to Europe from North America (Van

Riper 2008).

Generally, professional leagues have fewer teams than the market demands.

Team scarcity creates bidding wars, translated in below market rent rates

(sometimes in free rent rates) between communities as they compete for

professional tenants in their facilities (Fort and Quirk 1997).

3.1.4 Role in Community

To further structure our results of a stadium‟s role in its community we

divided our findings into three categories; economic effects, social effects,

and environmental effects. Although arranged into these headings, we

acknowledge that these divisions are artificial and that each individual

effect has consequences for others.

Economic Effects

Despite popular perception, and large capital investment, research shows

economic benefits of a community owned stadium are, at best, conclusively

indeterminate. While revenues are generated, they are not necessarily new

revenues, as stadiums, and the professional sports held within, are seen as

substitutes against other forms entertainment in the city (Baade and

Sanderson 1997). Further suggesting economic ambiguity, when alternative

forms of infrastructure are considered, such as schools, industrial parks,

libraries, etc., a community‟s return on investment in terms of job growth

are higher in those alternatives. In light of this, stadiums could be

considered not viable economically (Perez-Pena 1997).

Typically two locations are offered for the construction of stadia, each with

their own consequences. A downtown location is economically

advantageous as it typically is the focus of a core revitalization strategy,

28

moving against a trend of de-urbanization since the 1950‟s (Baade and

Sanderson 1997). Likewise, a downtown location ensures added economic

activity because of alternative forms of entertainment surrounding a

stadium. Without a year-round business district to support, stadiums‟

economic benefits are lessened as the infrequent professional sporting

events held within are not adequate to support stand alone businesses

(Baade and Sanderson 1997). Opposite to downtown, peripheral suburb

locations are used. Often chosen from concerns of increased congestion and

required infrastructure to a city‟s core, suburb locations look attractive on

surface, however, may cause economic blight, as residential property values

decline in proximity to stadiums (Nelson 2001).

The majority of profits generated from stadium operations belong to teams,

which by and large are spent on players‟ salaries. Professional athletes

typically live outside the municipality in which they play, invest their

money heavily in foreign markets and are subject to high federal taxes, all

of which contribute to monetary leakages out of a community (Baade and

Sanderson 1997).

Social Effects

A stadium predominantly fulfils four basic human needs2: idleness,

participation, freedom and identity. Freedom and identity are directly

relatable to professional sports. With a stadium, citizens have increased

options in recreation, thereby satisfying their need for freedom, however,

high costs of attending professional sporting events make stadiums a

possible pseudo satisfier of freedom for those who cannot afford access.

Also associable with professional sports is citizens‟ sense of identity. It is

not uncommon for members of a community to identify with local sports

teams, an identity in which stadiums are encapsulated. Stadiums satisfy

idleness as a stage of leisure and recreation/entertainment activities. Finally,

stadiums offer a city a venue for mass participation. Having a place in

which upwards of 100,000 people can meet for a single event is extremely

rare for most communities.

2 „Needs‟ as defined by Manfred Max-Neef in Human Scale Development

(Max-Neef 1992)

29

As discussed above, COS do not necessarily yield positive economic

benefits, communities are essentially investing in civic pride when they

construct a new professional grade facility (Perez-Pena 1997). The case of

St. Louis in the early 1990‟s shows how a stadium fulfils the desire for

civic pride twofold: as the house of professional sports but also as a symbol

of a community‟s culture. In 1992, St. Louis‟ local media began

demanding a new stadium based on the city‟s loyalty to their baseball team,

the Cardinals. Further leveraging civic pride, a local journalist stated, „[St.

Louis] is the best neighbourhood in baseball, and should have the nicest

house‟. The latter statement proposes demands beyond simply a new

stadium, suggesting that the city deserved the best stadium in the league in

which the Cardinals play, Major League Baseball (MLB). The dual

emphasis on civic pride contributed to a construction budget for the new

stadium exceeding 300 million USD (Ponder 2004).

Overwhelmingly, stadiums are socially under-utilized within a community.

Rent agreements between professional teams and stadiums favour

exclusivity to a single tenant. Based on team interests and enacted through

the monopolistic market power in which teams have over municipalities

(Noll and Zimbalist 1997), agreements translate into cities having multiple

stadiums where it may not be necessary. Unnecessary stadiums cost

municipalities a great deal of tax money via both construction and rent

subsidies. Exclusivity also denies a stadium from contributing to a

community‟s recreation capacity. In these cases, a citizen‟s ability to use a

stadium is undermined through municipal/team rent agreement

(Cherniawski 2008, Haverstock 2008, Radlein 2008).

Environmental Effects

Stadiums are large single producers of waste within a municipality due to

attendees. In North America, little waste is diverted, as it is not standard

practice within the industry (Cherniawski 2008, Haverstock 2008, Radlein

2008). Exacerbating waste production at stadiums are community barriers

for waste diversion. Some North American municipalities lack the

necessary infrastructure for recycling a variety of material and have a curb

side recycling pick up fee in place.

Waste is not only produced in a stadiums operation, but also in its

construction and demolition. A lack of information regarding stadium

construction/demolition and waste creation is indicative of little or no

municipal planning surrounding such a process.

30

3.1.5 Design and Retrofitting Planning

“It would be very unfortunate, if often exaggerated expenses incurred for

the most recent Olympiads, a sizeable part of which represent the

construction of permanent buildings, which were moreover unnecessary—

temporary structures would fully suffice, and the only consequence is to

them encourage use of these permanent buildings by increasing the

number of occasions to drawn in the crowds—it would be very unfortunate

if these expense were to deter small countries from putting themselves

forward to host the Olympics games in the future”.

- de Coubertin 1911

Research demonstrates sustainability is emerging in stadia planning and

construction. A new perspective, „sustainability in the built environment‟, is

gaining enthusiasm. There are two pillars to this perspective: sustainable

urban development, which refers to the efficient use of urban land and

infrastructure resources and sustainable architecture, referring to the

creation and responsible management of a healthy built environment based

on resource efficient and ecological principles (CIB Report, Agenda 21 on

Sustainable Construction 1999).

Planning new facilities within sustainable constraints has been addressed

more successfully in cases of mega-events (Libby 2007). For instance, New

York, a candidate for the 2012 Olympics Games, developed plans for

creating sustainable facilities not only for Olympic purposes but also for

professional and community events thereafter (Schorender 2007).

Construction and planning firms are primarily using LEED Certification in

their development of new facilities. HOK, a construction firm and its

division of HOK Sports, are global the leaders in the field, having worked

on projects such as TCF Bank Stadium at the University of Minnesota,

Nationals Parks in Washington D.C. and the University of Connecticut

Training Facility. On all or most of these projects HOK Sport has utilized a

LEED Certification (HOK Sport n.d.). Innovative themselves, HOK has

categorized sustainability matters into 4 headings, allowing deeper insight

31

and easier workability of projects: environmental sustainability, physical

sustainability, social sustainability and financial sustainability (Henry 2000)

Historically, as Sheard (2005) has identified, stadia were not constructed

with flexibility in mind until fifth generation facilities were developed

(around 1990), at which time stadia were integrated into urban

multipurpose facilities requiring significant design innovations..

3.1.6 Conceptual Diagrams

From the details mentioned above, we were able to visually conceive the

current reality of community owned stadia‟s day to day operations and the

circumstance from which they are created.

32

Fig

ure

3.1

Day-

to-D

ay

Fig

ure

3.1

Day-

to-D

ay

Oper

ati

ons

of

Com

munit

y O

wned

Sta

dia

33

Fig

ure

3.2

Tic

ket

Rev

enu

e and it

s ef

fect

s on C

om

munit

y C

apaci

ty

34

Key Elements to Figure 3.2

How do profits gained from ticket revenues affect a community capacity?

Professional sport is a business like any other: the teams owners‟ are in a business for profit. Therefore, their drive for profit is

fundamental.

Owners realize that the more competitive a team is the more profits can be gained. As drive for profits increases so does a team‟s

competitiveness. Competitiveness is conceivable in two ways: on-

field performance and comparative profitability across teams, i.e.

keeping costs low.

On-field competitiveness increases demand for skilled players, who increase demand for tickets. Increase in ticket demand are amplified

by the additional fame that professional athletes have from modern

television exposure (Fort and Quirk 1997).

Demand for ever-improved and more entertaining sport has another affect: increased demand for skilled players. The scarcity of skilled

players thus increases players‟ power in negotiating higher salaries,

resulting in an average increase of 10-15% in some leagues (Stein

n.d.).

Increased salaries translate to a higher share of profits from ticket sales going to players, causing a de facto decrease in profits from

tickets going to team owners.

Combined, the affect of the lower % of profits to owners and the higher demand for tickets, raises ticket prices, which, in turn, causes

higher ticket prices and increased ticket revenues. The increase in

ticket prices acts as a buffer against the reduction of profits to

owners from ticket lost by increasing player‟s salaries.

When rental agreements expire after anywhere from 3 to 40 years, although it is a trend to have shorter and short terms, (Fort and

Quirk 1997), the team owners‟ drive for profit compels them to

exercise their lopsided power against a community.

Team owners are able to exploit a community into reducing rent rate by two factors: 1) team scarcity and the resulting monopoly

35

power (Fort and Quirk 1997), 2) by leveraging a community‟s

notion of civic pride against them.

Rent rates are propped up by increasing operational costs. As time goes on, aging facilities are most expensive to operate (Fort and

Quirk 1997). Increasing operational costs are often the burden of

the community, which decrease a community‟s capacity by

diverting funds away from other social infrastructure.

Reduced rent rates affect a community‟s capacity by forgoing revenues that would otherwise be collected. These rent rates detract

from building alternative, more economically viable social

infrastructure (Baade and Sanderson 1997).

The threshold of this system is approximately 30 years (Siegfreid and Zimbalist 2000). At which time, owners have enacted thier

lopsided power to compel communities to build a new facitily. This

occurs because owners‟ declining marginal profits decrease to a

point below their profit margin preference3. New stadia

construction has an even greater negative effect on a community

capacity as the opportunity costs of a new construction are greater

(Baade and Sanderson 1997).

Therefore, owners‟ declining marginal profit from ticket sales decrease a community‟s capacity.

3.2 Community Owned Stadia in a

Sustainable Society

3 It is likely that the cycle of thirty years will lessen dramatically as average

players‟ salaries continue to rise at levels well above inflation, i.e. 10-15%

per year (Stein n.d.)

36

3.2.1 Desired Future

Based on our analysis of the current reality of the stadia industry, we

realized many aspects of stadia are currently far from compliance with the 4

SPs. While we cannot be certain of what a stadia will be like in a

sustainable society, we have generated transitional strategies to direct

progress toward that end. From analyzing the current reality of stadia, we

identified five challenge areas within the stadia, that in solving would

accomplished much in a movement towards sustainability.

3.2.2 Industry Challenges

Creation of waste

Large gaps exist regarding debris left after demolition of COS. While there

are regulations in some countries that demand recovery and recycling of

steel from reinforced concrete and debris that can function as rumble for

recycled concrete, this is certainly not mainstream practice. Likewise,

avoidance of waste is not being achieved through stadia design: there is a

lack of focus on building material selection based on durability and

resistance, but also, ease of repair, renovation, reconstruction and

replacement (Kunszti 2003). Furthermore, at present, stadia are large

producers of waste. In a case study consulted for a professional grade

facility, there was an estimated 2000 tonnes of waste produced annually by

spectators, 87% of which could be diverted from landfill sites (Greening the

building lifecycle: Lifecycle assessment tools in building and construction

n.d.). Contributing to these numbers is a lack of knowledge in the industry

about effective waste avoidance, which, if developed, would certainly

contribute to the decrease in waste a stadium produces. Another By not

diverting and avoiding waste, stadia systematically increase levels of

substances extracted from the Earth‟s crust (metals, glass, etc) and

substances produced by society (paints, chemicals, etc) into the biosphere.

Likewise, by sending excessive amounts of waste to landfill, stadia

contribute to the systematic increase in physical degradation of nature.

37

Creation of emissions

Attendees of professional sports number in the tens of thousands per game,

all of which require transportation to and from the facility. In major cities,

especially in North America, this means private vehicles with high

emissions. Also, energy consumption is a critical aspect of any stadia‟s

operation. To house such large crowds and stage an event of professional

calibre requires a lot of electricity, most of which is produced from non-

renewable, high carbon sources. Air born emissions, however, are only part

of the issue. Water management and soil sediments also need careful

consideration. Life cycle analysis is an important feature that should be

used with more effectiveness, not only to reflect cost-efficient analysis, also

to consider emissions during the production (by the use of thermal and

fossil based energy) of building materials. By releasing harmful emissions,

stadia contribute to the systematic increase of concentrations of materials

from the lithosphere into the biosphere.

Community Participation

Professional grade stadia are very expensive developments for a

community, with some costing over a billion dollars USD (Quebec's big

owe stadium debt is over 2006; Yankees break ground on new $1 billion

home 2006). As buildings constructed fully or with the vast majority of

funds coming from government sponsorship generated from tax revenues,

citizens have a right to access these buildings. Once stadia are constructed

and lease agreements signed, it is professional teams, and not municipal

governments, who have control over ticket prices. As a for-profit business,

professional teams have no interest in catering to a political constituency,

but rather to paying fans. Such a process alienates the poor within

communities: they pay their taxes, but cannot access the facility. The same

applies for those members of the community who do not enjoy professional

sport as a form of entertainment. While a community cannot fully cater to

all needs in all endeavours, it is difficult to justify such a large financial

project being so specified. Likewise, often communities have more than

one stadium, as their economic obsolescence is much sooner than their

operational obsolescence. This effect further alienates social classes who do

not support stadium or who cannot access them. By appropriating tax

revenues in the service of alienating large groups of citizens, stadia

contribute to conditions that systematically undermine people‟s ability to

meet their own needs.

38

Strategic Use in community development

If it often the case that stadia are regarded exclusively as professional sport

facilities by industry members and citizens alike. Viewing these facilities in

such a limited way results in at least two negative effects: by restricting

access to the facility as a part of a larger set of recreation infrastructure

within a community, and by overlooking its potential as effective tools

towards community development and social change. Because municipal

governments expend large public capital on these facilities and do not

maximize their potential as public infrastructure, stadia contribute to the

systematic undermining of people‟s ability to meet their own needs.

Unequal power relations between professional teams and

municipalities

Professional team owners have considerably more power than the

municipalities in which their teams are situated (Fort and Quirk 1997) .

Professional leagues maintain a team scarcity through monopolistic market

power in order to serve the interest of owners—by way of increased profits.

The most impactful consequence of this power relationship is the creation

of new, redundant, stadiums in a community. For owners, facilities become

economically obsolescent far before they are st