Do Sports Make a City an "IT" city?

[DaveG]

It definitely helps a city be considered an "It" city, but it's not mutually exclusive.

Nashville would have been an "It" city without ANY sports simply because of the music scene there.

Austin is an "It" city without pro sports because they have one of the best public universities in the US there and an otherwise great culture of its own surrounding the city.

Vegas is an "It" city, shouldn't really take that much explanation on that one.

But does anyone really consider Jacksonville to be an "It" city? Is there anything really defining about the culture of the area, that sports may or may not play a factor in, or is it just an area that somehow has an NFL team. At least to me it's the later, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that one. It's not really known as a hub of anything.

There are some borderline cities that are pushed over the edge by having pro sports:
Indianapolis (Indy 500, Colts, Pacers), Raleigh (ACC sports, Canes), and Charlotte (Panthers) are among them. But they are also known as hubs for other things outside of sports.

Indy is a hub for the midwest, and is a university city (Butler, IUPUI) along with having been considered one of the best business cities in the US very recently.

Charlotte is a financial hub

Raleigh is a research hub, especially medical research, and home to some of the best schools on the east coast within its MSA (Duke, UNC-CH, NC State)

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

This exactly.

Having a pro sports team does a lot to ensure people think about your city on a daily basis. If your city wins a pro sports trophy, you get instant credibility you wouldn't otherwise get if you hosted the winning of say, a music award.

Really sports provide a level playing field for cities to compete with each other in a consistent and credible way (other than meaningless statistics on crime and such which can be very ambiguous).

No offence, but to most of the posters on here arguing the opposite, I wouldn't know nor give a **** about your place of residence if it wasn't for your sports team....I assume the same goes back at me from you as I come from Ottawa.

How many of you legitimately think about Ottawa except in relation to the Sens?


Let's put this in an easier perspective:

I live in London UK now and most of the Europeans I encounter ONLY know North American cities for their sports teams.

Many Europeans have never heard of Ottawa; the number of blank stares I get when I say where I'm from is absolutely incredible considering Ottawa is the capital city of a G-8 country. Most people just assume Toronto is the capital. But everyone knows St. Louis, everyone knows Green Bay, everyone knows San Diego, everyone knows Baltimore, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Denver etc... And they connect them with the teams. "St. Louis! their team won the world series right???" "Denver....do you like the Broncos?" "San Diego Chargers".

Pro sports = international exposure at a level most cities (outside the obvious ones like New York, LA, and Las Vegas) would never get WITHOUT a pro sports team.

No one globally is going to care about a city famous for their public transit.

That's a very limited view. Personally I don't care about Ottawa much either way but I would say the fact it's the Canadian capital is the primary feature of interest about Ottawa and far more important than it having a NHL team (a sports league the vast majority of Americans and Europeans don't give two ***** about).

Having a sports team does create a certain awareness for your city in the sense that people who'd pay attention to box scores would know about the place's existence. I am sure many people across the world know of Winnipeg or Buffalo only because they sometimes see it on a sports program. The question is whether that in any relevant way actually helps the city. Sure, more Brits may know of Jacksonville because of the Jaguars but does that mean they want to live there, visit it or invest money there? No it doesn't. I've seen Buffalo a million times on TV through the Sabres or Bills and I have zero impulse to have anything to do with the place.

When I as a person decide to relocate, I am doing so most likely for professional reasons. While I theoretically could find my dream job in Buffalo, it could just as well be in Huntsville, Alabama or Dublin, Ireland. On average people are more likely to relocate to areas that are home to a multitude of commercial interests and are experiencing economic growth - whether there is a pro sport team there or not. I feel an attachment to Detroit but I'm not gonna live there if I can't find a good job there and no love of Red Wings and Wolverines can change that.

As a company deciding to make a major investment in a region, you are looking at a lot of components, availability of land, availability of labor, infrastructure, tax rates, wage levels, regulations and then somewhere down the line you may consider "leisure options/quality of life" and if you do that then pro sports teams may factor in a tiny bit - but so would things like beaches in the vicinity, mountains, outdoor options, cultural attractions like museums and so forth. In other words the likelihood of a corporation going "Yep, they have a NHL team that's what gets us to build a new facility there" is pretty slim.

While it's "nice" to get your name out, pro sports are a hella expensive approach for a pretty small potential benefit.

 

[Hoser]

What is an "it" city?

What does it matter?

Ultimately it doesn't. It's all relative anyway.

For example Melrose Munch said:

At the end of the day, if you don't live in NY, LA, DC, Chicago, Montreal or Toronto, you're city does not matter, sports or not.

If you're from NY or LA every other city on this continent is a podunk backwater. DC's borderline. Chicago, Montreal and Toronto are piss-ant cities trying to pretend they're 'It' compared to New York and LA. New York and Los Angeles are up in the rarefied atmosphere with London (UK, not Ontario ), Tokyo, Paris and the like.

Should a guy from Chicago or Toronto give a ****? No. In the same way somebody from Columbus, Ohio or Jacksonville, Fl. shouldn't give a **** about what people from Chicago and Toronto think about their cities.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

It definitely helps a city be considered an "It" city, but it's not mutually exclusive.

Nashville would have been an "It" city without ANY sports simply because of the music scene there.

Austin is an "It" city without pro sports because they have one of the best public universities in the US there and an otherwise great culture of its own surrounding the city.

Vegas is an "It" city, shouldn't really take that much explanation on that one.

But does anyone really consider Jacksonville to be an "It" city? Is there anything really defining about the culture of the area, that sports may or may not play a factor in, or is it just an area that somehow has an NFL team. At least to me it's the later, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that one. It's not really known as a hub of anything.

There are some borderline cities that are pushed over the edge by having pro sports:
Indianapolis (Indy 500, Colts, Pacers), Raleigh (ACC sports, Canes), and Charlotte (Panthers) are among them. But they are also known as hubs for other things outside of sports.

Indy is a hub for the midwest, and is a university city (Butler, IUPUI) along with having been considered one of the best business cities in the US very recently.

Charlotte is a financial hub

Raleigh is a research hub, especially medical research, and home to some of the best schools on the east coast within its MSA (Duke, UNC-CH, NC State)

I think Raleigh is actually a good example against this theory.
Wake County saw massive population and economic growth from the 60s onward and it's of course closely tied to the Research Triangle and developments attached to that.

Population increase from 1960 to 1970 was over 40%, 1970 to 1980 was 26%, 1980 to 1990 was 40%, 1990 to 2000 was around 48%. Meanwhile this pretty provincial and rather downscale Southern setting was transformed into a modern wealthy metro area as thousands upon thousands of people came from places like New York, Michigan, Ohio, Canada etc. for good jobs.

This transformation occurred with *no* major pro sports in the area or the state. The closest major pro franchise was the Redskins for a long time. Corporations and with them people didn't move to the area because of pro sports but because of a very clever concept around the Triangle, major research universities, business-friendly policies and to an extent the pleasant climate and natural environment.

When major pro sports came to North Carolina it didn't "put them over the top" it was simply a sign that they had made it over the top.

 

[Brodie]

or, you don't make it when you get a sports franchise... you get a sports franchise when you make it.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Ultimately it doesn't. It's all relative anyway.

For example Melrose Munch said:



If you're from NY or LA every other city on this continent is a podunk backwater. DC's borderline. Chicago, Montreal and Toronto are piss-ant cities trying to pretend they're 'It' compared to New York and LA. New York and Los Angeles are up in the rarefied atmosphere with London (UK, not Ontario ), Tokyo, Paris and the like.

Should a guy from Chicago or Toronto give a ****? No. In the same way somebody from Columbus, Ohio or Jacksonville, Fl. shouldn't give a **** about what people from Chicago and Toronto think about their cities.

True True. I was just trying to relate it to the thread, but NY and LA are so far ahead of everyone else.

 

[knorthern knight]

Pro sports bring pride, prestige, excitement, and most of all consistent 'spectacular' to a city.

It forces people from other places to think about your city.

That, plus a $5 bill, buys you a wierd coffee concoction at Starbuck's.

 

[Doan Jidion*]

NY and LA are so far ahead of everyone else.

LA is barely even a true city.

 

[Pizza the Hutt]

It's all about an edge. Cities without an edge will never be able to grasp "it". Edmonton had a minor edge for a few years with that giant mall they built. Winnipeg never had an edge. Montreal has the euro-edge, Toronto the TIFF edge, Vancouver the beauty edge.

Pittsburgh has great sports teams but no edge to speak of, same with Baltimore, Detroit etc. Then you look at a city like Austin that rose to global prominence from one festival. You need an edge! Just pray your city never ends up like Flint, Michigan.

 

[Bluebirds Boyo]

I live in London UK now and most of the Europeans I encounter ONLY know North American cities for their sports teams.

Many Europeans have never heard of Ottawa; the number of blank stares I get when I say where I'm from is absolutely incredible considering Ottawa is the capital city of a G-8 country. Most people just assume Toronto is the capital. But everyone knows St. Louis, everyone knows Green Bay, everyone knows San Diego, everyone knows Baltimore, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Denver etc... And they connect them with the teams. "St. Louis! their team won the world series right???" "Denver....do you like the Broncos?" "San Diego Chargers".

Like Brodie, I am calling BS on this. Where on earth are you finding people in London that know of St Louis winning a baseball trophy? Everyone in London knows of Green Bay, Wisconsin?!

 

[Brodie]

Now, the reactions I get upon telling people overseas I'm from Detroit tend to fall into four distinct camps:

1. "Do you know Eminem?" is far and away the most common response. Media is the primary source of people's knowledge about the US abroad (and vice versa... ask a North American what the second largest city in the UK is and be prepared to never hear Birmingham even once). Thus, whatever international cachet Seattle has owes more to Frasier and Nirvana and Microsoft than the Seahawks or Mariners. Sports franchises may help in this regard... people may be familiar with Green Bay exclusively through TV and movie mentions of the Packers, for example.

2. "Is that closer to New York or LA?" is the second most common, and I think it really says all there is to say about the issue in question here. Whatever the notional value of a sports franchise is to a city's prestige intranationally, it won't be enough to overcome said city's provincial nature in a wider context. To highlight this, I'd again use Birmingham as an example of a very large city that's virtually unknown overseas... a Brummie in Canada is likely to be greeted with "ohhh cool, I went to London two years ago!".

3. "The only city worse than here, eh?" is uncommon, but I've still seen it. This is indicative of a level of infamy mostly acquired through news reports and could hardly be said to make somewhere an "it" destination. Compton is well known, but I'd hardly say it's one of LA's "it" neighborhoods.

4. The least common response is "oh, big Lions fan?". The person responding this way is likely someone who's spent a significant amount of time in North America (or with North Americans) and is looking to show off their relatively vast knowledge of the place. This isn't indicative of any wider trend, though.

So, the primary benefit of a sports franchise, so far as name recognition goes, is internal. That leaves us with the chicken/egg question of whether a sports franchise enhances a city's profile or whether an enhanced profile attracts a sports franchise.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

purely anecdotal, but my favorite city in the US is Charleston, SC, who is probably somewhere around 15th-20th on the list of cities to get an(other) pro sports team.

 

[aqib]

LA is barely even a true city.

Even LA felt the need to go out and get the Dodgers and Lakers to vault itself into the top tier.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Even LA felt the need to go out and get the Dodgers and Lakers to vault itself into the top tier.

They only got the Dodgers because NYC didn't let O'Malley move to Queens. LA will always be Hollywood first.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Really don't think you can put Toronto and Montreal in that same sentence. And I like Montreal alot. With exception of Canadian views, and maybe a few Americans, they'd look at it this way but to majority of Americans (or world for that matter) I don't think they'd see Toronto anywhere near the "it" place NY LA etc would be.

Maybe there should be scale of "it" factor.

NY LA 1

Montreal around 5
Toronto around 7

So why is Montreal above Toronto. Toronto is the number city in canada. Just because you don't like Toronto?

Ultimately it doesn't. It's all relative anyway.

For example Melrose Munch said:



If you're from NY or LA every other city on this continent is a podunk backwater. DC's borderline. Chicago, Montreal and Toronto are piss-ant cities trying to pretend they're 'It' compared to New York and LA. New York and Los Angeles are up in the rarefied atmosphere with London (UK, not Ontario ), Tokyo, Paris and the like.

Should a guy from Chicago or Toronto give a ****? No. In the same way somebody from Columbus, Ohio or Jacksonville, Fl. shouldn't give a **** about what people from Chicago and Toronto think about their cities.

I think Chicago should be up there. Frankly it's a huge global city and the 4th largest Financial Center on the planet.

 

[tsanuri]

Even LA felt the need to go out and get the Dodgers and Lakers to vault itself into the top tier.

Considering those happened in 58 and 60. That's quite a stretch. And don't forget that at the time there were no west coast teams in any of the major sports.

 

[kdb209]

They only got the Dodgers because NYC didn't let O'Malley move to Queens. LA will always be Hollywood first.

Actually, they got the Dodgers because NYC demanded they move to Queens.

C & P from some old threads:

He did everything but beg Brooklyn for permission to build a new ballpark in Brooklyn to replace dilapidated Ebbets Field and help the Dodgers move into a modern age where fans could drive their cars to a ballpark in a relatively safe part of town, and was shot down every time by the politicians running Brooklyn at that time.

And, to add to it, the City Commissioners actually refused to allow O'Malley to buy land for a new ballpark.

Two words - Robert Moses.

Unelected, but arguably the most powerful man in NY - builder, urban planner, development chief, and head of multiple public authorities - Moses drove the shape of New York from before the depression through the post-war years.

O'Malley had picked out a site in Brooklyn (Atlantic & Flatbush Ave) and Moses said "No". Moses dictated that if any new ballpark would be built in the city, it would be built at Flushing Meadows in Queens (site of the 1939 and later 1964 World's Fair and where Shea Stadium was subsequently built).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he argued for yrs for a new local stadium. Finally he gave up on one being built for his team.

Yup. O'Malley tried for several years to build where the Barclays Center is today, but Robert Moses said no - you either build in Flushing or nowhere. The Dodgers moved, the Mets came, and the city built Shea on Moses' approved site.

 

[Fallenone]

purely anecdotal, but my favorite city in the US is Charleston, SC, who is probably somewhere around 15th-20th on the list of cities to get an(other) pro sports team.

I've been to Charleston. Have to admit it a Jewel of a City. Ask anyone living there if they feel they Need a Pro Sports Team to feel complete. Would take it over a lot of Cities with championship teams.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Actually, they got the Dodgers because NYC demanded they move to Queens.

C & P from some old threads:

Fair enough.

 

[Killion]

........ for further reading Melrose Munch, the Pulitzer Prize winning book by
Robert Caro (1974, Knopf) called The Power Broker: Robert Moses & the Fall of New York.

 

[aqib]

Considering those happened in 58 and 60. That's quite a stretch. And don't forget that at the time there were no west coast teams in any of the major sports.

I am going off what Rosalind Wyman (the LA City Councilwoman who lured the Dodgers) said:

http://www.foxsportswest.com/mlb/lo...nor-official-instrumental-in-L?blockID=900083

 

[blueandgoldguy]

So why is Montreal above Toronto. Toronto is the number city in canada. Just because you don't like Toronto?

Can't speak for the poster, but in general, Montreal is regarded as the more sophisticated, cultural and historic city of the two. Just has a better reputation. Despite Toronto's status as the financial capital of Canada is seems to suffer from a rather static and sterile reputation - uninspired architecture despite the seemingly endless construction of skyscrapers downtown, homogeneous suburbs despite the record number of immigrants moving to those very suburbs in recent years, bland culture despite the vast number of museums and large cultural festivals throughout the year.

Montreal is more highly regarded in all these areas and seems to be the destination of choice more often than not. Offhand, I would rate the cities as

New York, LA - 1
Chicago -3
San Francisco - 4
Montreal - 5
New Orleans - 6
Toronto - 7

Edit: Reason I rank New Orleans so highly - New Orleans just strikes me as a city with so much depth despite it's relatively small size. Not the greatest economy obviously, but there is so just so much to see and do there...and I'm not just talking about Mardi Gras although that's the first thing people think of.

As for sports making an "IT" city, that's pretty disputable. There is little, if any, economic gain to be had in hosting a pro sports team and it will certainly not attract people to a city in any substantial way.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Can't speak for the poster, but in general, Montreal is regarded as the more sophisticated, cultural and historic city of the two. Just has a better reputation. Despite Toronto's status as the financial capital of Canada is seems to suffer from a rather static and sterile reputation - uninspired architecture despite the seemingly endless construction of skyscrapers downtown, homogeneous suburbs despite the record number of immigrants moving to those very suburbs in recent years, bland culture despite the vast number of museums and large cultural festivals throughout the year.

Montreal is more highly regarded in all these areas and seems to be the destination of choice more often than not. Offhand, I would rate the cities as

New York, LA - 1
Chicago -3
San Francisco - 4
Montreal - 5
New Orleans - 6
Toronto - 7

Edit: Reason I rank New Orleans so highly - New Orleans just strikes me as a city with so much depth despite it's relatively small size. Not the greatest economy obviously, but there is so just so much to see and do there...and I'm not just talking about Mardi Gras although that's the first thing people think of.

As for sports making an "IT" city, that's pretty disputable. There is little, if any, economic gain to be had in hosting a pro sports team and it will certainly not attract people to a city in any substantial way.

I like this. Very informative.

 

[htpwn]

Now, the reactions I get upon telling people overseas I'm from Detroit tend to fall into four distinct camps:

1. "Do you know Eminem?" is far and away the most common response. Media is the primary source of people's knowledge about the US abroad (and vice versa... ask a North American what the second largest city in the UK is and be prepared to never hear Birmingham even once). Thus, whatever international cachet Seattle has owes more to Frasier and Nirvana and Microsoft than the Seahawks or Mariners. Sports franchises may help in this regard... people may be familiar with Green Bay exclusively through TV and movie mentions of the Packers, for example.

4. The least common response is "oh, big Lions fan?". The person responding this way is likely someone who's spent a significant amount of time in North America (or with North Americans) and is looking to show off their relatively vast knowledge of the place. This isn't indicative of any wider trend, though.

So, the primary benefit of a sports franchise, so far as name recognition goes, is internal. That leaves us with the chicken/egg question of whether a sports franchise enhances a city's profile or whether an enhanced profile attracts a sports franchise.

Are these not similar, if not identical?

Is sports not a part of "pop culture"?

You can ask about Eminem in Laos, and I doubt many will know who he is.
Just like you can ask by the Lions in Europe, and many will be unfamiliar with them.

But are the Red Wings known, in say, Sweden?

An NFL team certainly put Jacksonville on the map. Or an NHL team in Winnipeg, for that matter.

Heck, Manchester is probably better known for 'United' and 'City' than, well, the city itself.

Having a major pro sports team in your city certainly does put the name out there. Is it worth the investment that city's put in? No, not even close. Various academic studies have proven that over, and over, and over. Is it going to make Edmonton into New York City? No. But it seems to me that it does have some benefits in terms of brand recognition and reputation.

Can't speak for the poster, but in general, Montreal is regarded as the more sophisticated, cultural and historic city of the two. Just has a better reputation. Despite Toronto's status as the financial capital of Canada is seems to suffer from a rather static and sterile reputation - uninspired architecture despite the seemingly endless construction of skyscrapers downtown, homogeneous suburbs despite the record number of immigrants moving to those very suburbs in recent years, bland culture despite the vast number of museums and large cultural festivals throughout the year.

Montreal is more highly regarded in all these areas and seems to be the destination of choice more often than not. Offhand, I would rate the cities as

New York, LA - 1
Chicago -3
San Francisco - 4
Montreal - 5
New Orleans - 6
Toronto - 7

As for sports making an "IT" city, that's pretty disputable. There is little, if any, economic gain to be had in hosting a pro sports team and it will certainly not attract people to a city in any substantial way.

In Canada and parts of the United States.

Old reputations die hard, and that is something Toronto has always been dealing with, even within the city itself.

Abroad, though, I'd like to think that Toronto's reputations outstrips Montreal's in most parts of the World. Certainly in Asia and the Middle East, it isn't even close.

 

[spiny norman]

Speaking as someone from Winnipeg ... now that the NHL is back, definitely YES.