Despite what you might have heard online, the proposed downtown arena isn’t going to be built. That is because, as we all know, after this weekend there will be no more downtown to build it in.

But my repeated attempts to warn the city administration of the nighness of the end have failed. (Even tried the classic “marker on a cardboard sign accompanied by incoherent yelling.”) So, under the delusion that we’ll all be around past next week, the funding framework for an arena has been agreed upon.

The deal isn’t too different from what the city was expecting: $450 million, Oilers sticking around for 35 years, the city owns the building and the land. And so forth. You can see the details from the release here.

Now we’ve said it last time the city had a big meeting on the funding of the arena – that’s only part of the picture. The design, not the funding, is the biggest issue in our opinion. That’s what will have a hope of revitalizing downtown.

So what kinds of things make a stadium or arena in to a successful catalyst for revitalization? Well, there’s a few things. Access to mass transit, a significant number of events in the building, and a commitment from the sports tenant to stay in the city – all of these things are necessary for an arena distict to thrive. And, it seems right now, that the new arena would have all of those.

But a close look at the cities that have had success with their arenas all prove one thing: an arena is neither necessary nor sufficient to resuscitate a struggling downtown. Instead, it’s the investment in the areas around the arena that spell success.

While Cleveland still faces serious problems, that city has actually come a long way from when it was best known for having a river so gross it once started on fire. A lot of the credit for that turnaround has been place on the emphasis on sports the city pursued after building a baseball field and basketball arena in 1994. But in truth, it was the smart decisions about the area around those facilities that really spurred the growth. The mayor of Cleveland at the time was quoted as saying that for every public dollar that went in those sports centres, four dollars were spent on improving nearby neighborhoods.

For other cities that have seen success with sports facilities – like the privately-funded Pacific Bell Park in California or the lower downtown area in Denver – it’s been the same recipe: arenas that were designed to blend in, not dominate, the communities around them. As well, efforts were made not only to encourage bars and restaurants in the area, but also to create attractive residential spaces. Investment in downtown infrastructure. Greater emphasis on growing and promoting local arts communities. These were all things these cities have done to build on the momentum a new arena can potentially provide.

Success visited cities that were willing to put in the time and effort in to developing the communities around the facility, instead of just hoping the arena will be a magic bullet in to itself.

Arenas and stadiums do not fix downtowns alone. They can help, but the heavy lifting needs to be done in the communities and neighborhoods around the arena. The motion passed by Council includes Councillor Sloan’s Community Benefits Agreement language, which is a step in that direction.

Evidence from other cities shows that when it comes to these types of projects, the arenas themselves aren’t the most important part. If this construction is going to be a shot in the arm to Edmonton’s downtown, we need to keep our eyes on the real prize, which is the area around the arena and not just on the building itself. That’s how we’ll build a more successful downtown.

Or rather, rebuild a successful downtown after the current one gets all rapture-fied.

Photo by Mack Male. You too can have your photo appear on the blog by adding it to our Charrette Photo Pool. Do it for the children.