Blaming Camden Yards for unfulfilled promises of economic development is roughly equivalent to blaming a building when the architect is at fault. The Orioles didn’t make promises to turn the City around; they simply agreed to play 81 games a year in Baltimore. In that sense, Camden Yards has done everything it was supposed to do and more. For those who take issue with promises made 20 years ago and not kept, perhaps writing a letter to Mr. Schmoke would be a more appropriate outlet for your frustrations.
As for the comparison between Baltimore and Boston, why not just compare a banana and an apple? Yes, they are cities of comparable size, but the structural and institutional differences are what really spoil the comparison. The Boston area, unlike Baltimore, has several built in job creators. For one, it’s a state capital and might as well be the capital of New England. It’s also home to several of the U.S.’ most prestigious and well-funded universities which are economic development engines in their own right. If the Baltimore area were home to 3 or 4 Hopkins Universities and had 4 subway lines bringing workers downtown, perhaps it would be a more apt comparison. As it stands, however, Baltimore probably has more in common with Pittsburgh or Cleveland than it does with Boston. It’s pretty safe to assume that no city or state wants to publicly finance a Major League Baseball stadium but cities that have been losing population often see having a professional sports team as a sure-fire way to keep people coming downtown. And, for the most part, it works.
Take Camden Yards as an example. Since 1992, its inaugural year, the stadium has brought over 55 million people into downtown Baltimore. By the numbers, if you assume that each of those fans spent just $25 while in Baltimore, which is probably a huge underestimate, the state has earned almost $84 million in sales tax revenue and that figure does not include additional parking and alcohol taxes. The stadium only cost $110 million to build, about $2 for each visitor.
As any Orioles fan can tell you, many in attendance at Camden Yards come from out of state. Despite being annoying at the game, those tourists bring money into Maryland. When you consider the hotels out-of-towners stay at, the gas they buy, the flights they take to get here and the parking they pay for, I would imagine that the taxpayers just about break even or they will pretty soon. And it’s only been 20 years.
The great thing about a classic stadium like Camden Yards is that it rarely needs renovation. The Baltimore Convention Center, however, completed its last renovation in 1997, more recently than Camden Yards was built, and it’s already considered uncompetitive. Compare the two facilities and you’ll see that, in 2010, only 389,000 people attended conventions at the Baltimore Convention Center. That same year, Camden Yards drew a total crowd of 1.7 million. Meanwhile, the Convention Center’s total cost was about $202 million and that doesn’t include the incredibly attractive Hilton across the street that taxpayer money paid for. If you tack on the $300 million in bonds for the hotel, you have a facility that draws 1.3 million fewer visitors to Baltimore each year and cost 5 times as much to build.
With all this talk of economic value and money, it’s easy to lose sight of the intangible benefits a ballpark like Camden Yards gives to a city like Baltimore. Camden Yards has been a source of civic pride for 20 years now and will continue to be for years to come. So consider it a long-term investment in Baltimore because great stadiums don’t need to be replaced: Wrigley Field and Fenway Park have been in operation since 1916 and 1912, respectively. Both stadiums are great places to watch the game and destinations for fans across the country. Camden Yards, though it’s only 20 years old, is already a classic. There are a lot of things that could be better in Baltimore but it’s hard to imagine a better ballpark.