- Brief Case Description
Farmers Field is a project meant to see construction of a sports complex and events stadium in Downtown Los Angeles. The masterminds behind the project include the outgoing president of the Anschutz entertainment group (AEG), TimLeiweke and Casey Wassermann, former owner of the LosAngeles avengers. The stadium will be located at the current Los Angeles conventional Centre. The stadium will be a 72000-seater with a retractable roof covering it. Some of the games and events suggested of the Farmers Field include super bowls, Olympic Games, and rally events (Kellogg 356). Leiweke estimated that the project would cost US$750 and would hold any special events, which would earn revenue eventually.
In 2011, the new estimates of the project revealed that it would cost US$1.2 billion. Furthermore, the Farmers insurance company signed a deal of US$700 million to have the field named the Farmers Field and raise it to US billion if two NFL teams relocated to the field. The construction of the field was adopted by majority vote by the Los Angeles city council meaning the construction was set to start after negotiations with NFL and a team relocating to Los Angeles. The teams apply to relocate to the field beginning early 2013 while the construction is set to start in the same year. Notably, Tim Leiweke left AEG hence; the group is unlikely to participate in the construction of the field. The main stakeholders in the construction of the Farmers Field are Farmers insurance company, NFL teams, AEG, the city council, and Los AngelesAvengers. The project is in its preliminary stages with the Icon Venue group the main project manager.
- Analysis Of Planning Topics
- Economic Development
Economic development is the process through which an area, through the establishment and actualization of economic worthy projects, strives to attract revenue, taxation, job creation, and investment. The local and municipal governments aim at raising the revenues through initiating projects. The governments do this through funding projects, subsidizing projects, or taking ownership rights in projects.In order to finance a project, a local government needs to seek funds from sponsors and people willing to buy some rights for the project (Snyder 104).Rights selling mostly benefit the institutions that need to market themselves through identification with development projects.
The economic reality of the field is that it would gain the local government revenue. Through tax collection and fees during the NFL matches, the government will get revenue from the project at a high rate. However, the project will also create jobs for the local people in Los Angeles. From construction to the management of the field, over 30,000 jobs will accrue from the project hence its economic viability is high. The project utilized the economic land in the area, making it more productive than it was previously and benefiting the locals. The project is fully funded by Farmers insurance firm hence no debt to the local government (Cilliers et al 58). This increases the revenue streams for the government. The project will also increase revenue to the municipality through transportation fees. A recent report suggested that transport into and out of the municipality is set to increase by 22 % once the project is completed implying that revenue from the transport sector will significantly increase. According to the report, the field will also attract more investments in the area, which will further boost the economy.
- NIMBY/ Proximity
In planning and politics, there are six reasons for which planning is considered political: locals easily get involved in local meetings, planning affects taxes in a community, people have emotional stakes, planning decisions are often visible, people are knowledgeable about the subject and financial stakes are involved in the decisions. People living close to a proposed project are heavily involved through these six reasons. The distance one is from the project dictates how much concern they have and the land owner therefore will be most concerned. As regards the opposition of the casino proposal by the Neighbours of Suffolk Downs, their main concerns were traffic, crime and noise. The group’s argument is that the casino will encourage gambling and alcoholism resulting in a rise in suicide cases. While this may be true, the overall benefits should be considered and whether it outweighs the reasons for opposing the project. In this case, though the casino will yield economic benefits, there is no direct social benefit that can be directly associated with the casino. In actual sense, it promotes habits that tend to erode individuals in the society and this makes them less productive. Less pproductivity means less financial gains. The casino could also distract young people from participating in the more beneficial activities like farming. It is therefore important that any new development will have positive effects on the society and the individuals personal life if it is to be allowed commence.
- Environment Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental impacts and mitigations refer to the possible effects that the project will have on the environment in an area and the reactions that the people must put in to lower the effects. People are always skeptical about new projects because they fear their environmental impacts at two levels: the establishment and the usage level (Kalipeni 116). The effect of the project on the environment in terms of noise, air pollution or care, water preservation or pollution and soil care or pollution influence the reactions of the local people to new projects. If the project will cause noise in the areas, then the lifestyle of the people becomes relevant in the decisions to adopt the project. Fears of the people that a project will cause harm to the environment can halt a project if the implementation is not strong enough to counter the fears.
The Farmers Field also takes care of the environment through an appropriate design to counter the changes in the environment. The recognition by LEED implies that the stadium meets all the standards to operate as an environmental friendly field. The stadium also aims at being the first carbon neutral field in the country hence it will prevent any carbon related compounds like carbon (IV) oxide from emission into the atmosphere. According to the environmental report, the Farmers Field will be the first stadium to offer environment friendly parking for all the vehicles, limiting the cost of such a service to minimum. The report also suggests that the field will ensure all the surroundings are green, thus the people will enjoy good scenery even as the leisure at the field entertains them.
The Los Angeles people feared a number of things would come up due to the establishment of the projects. The Los Angeles Community Action Network (LA CAN) raised concerns that the Farmers field would cause numerous effects on the environment that would worsen the lives of the people. However, the new green spaces for markets assured the people that the project cared for the environment more than it destroyed it. According to LA CAN, the project would cause a lot of noise in the area. The people in Downtown were used to cool lives and lives with no noise. However, the people felt that a lot of noise would come into the area as the new project was launched. The people felt that sounds of cheering people would pollute their environments through noise and that would be unhealthy for them. However, the project implementation assured the people that this would not be the case. They ensured that there would be retractable roofs built in the stadium, which would limit the noise. At the same time, the stadium would create a good recreational ground for the locals. The people would go to the field to relax hence the noise created was not a problem.
The people thought that traffic would increase but convincing argument from the stakeholders and the vast supply of the road network in Los Angeles backed the project in a great way. The people also raised the alarm on the litter that people would drop in the area because of the people getting into the field and littering the place. However, the local authorities challenged the people in two ways. Firstly, this could generate jobs for the people and secondly, little points all over the field will ensure the place is kept even better. Some people argued that the project would create noise in the area but the development of the retractable roof reduced the danger.
Despite the rise in the cost high cost of implementing this plan, the project needs to be adopted since it is of high economic value. The project will cost highly but the emergence of Farmers insurance company to purchase the naming rights to the stadium gives the municipality a great boost.The project will attract extra infrastructure into the area. The extra projects likely to come up include streets, schools, water projects, and housing projects. The cost of maintenance to the project will be very high. However, the revenue streams from the project will also be relatively high. This will be enough to cater for the maintenance costs as well as leave some revenue for the government.
The project should be adopted despite the fact that it leads to movement of the people living in the area. Emphasis on the settlement of the people is a wrong priority for the people because it does not override the economic and social benefits from the project. The project is about the pride and development of LosAngeles. It is about employment to the people in LosAngeles, which cuts across the demography in the area. This means that as much as the people relocate, the quality of their lives is better. Social amenities stemming from the project will also encourage the development of the project. With the stadium hosting different sports, hospitals will spring up around the facility. Banks will be developed and more insurance companies will open branches there. Such prospects make enough ground for the project to be adopted in LosAngeles.
Bollens, Scott A. "Urban Planning and Intergroup Conflict: Confronting a Fractured Public Interest." Journal of the American Planning Association 68.1 (2002): 22-42.
Cilliers, E. J., et al. "Sustainable Green Urban Planning: The Green Credit Tool." Journal of Place Management and Development 3.1 (2010): 57-66.
Hamilton, Chris. "Final Neighborhood Report Ready: Urban Planning: The Charrette Meetings in July 2005 Resulted in Plans to Improve East Downtown and Nearby Areas." McClatchy - Tribune Business News: 1. Sep 25 2006.
Kalipeni, Ezekiel. "Urban Planning, Housing and Spatial Structures in Sub-Saharan Africa: Nature, Impact and Development Implications of Exogenous Forces." Journal of the American Planning Association 68.1 (2002): 116.
Kellogg, Wendy A. "Nature's Neighborhood: Urban Environmental History and Neighborhood Planning." Journal of the American Planning Association 68.4 (2002): 356-70.
Light, Jennifer S. "Urban Planning and Defense Planning, Past and Future."Journal of the American Planning Association 70.4 (2004): 399-410. ProQuest.Web. 8 Nov. 2013.
Snyder, Jack. "Development Deal Adds another Big Project in Downtown Orlando, Fla." Knight Ridder Tribune Business News: 1. Jan 07 2005. Tillman, Elva E., Helen E. Meller, and Tom Hanchett."Planning and Urban History." Journal of the American Planning Association 64.2 (1998): 250-3.
Uggla, Ylva. "Construction of 'Nature' in Urban Planning: A Case Study of Stockholm." The Town Planning Review 83.1 (2012): 69-85.