Stadia, neighborhoods and land-use: London and Oakland

Inspired by this post on declining car use in the US population and this edition of the Guardian Football's "The Knowledge", I decided to get a clearer visual image of something I already knew from first-hand experience: how isolated and generally awful sports stadia are in the US, especially those devoted primarily to American football.

I selected two contrasting stadia with a similar seating capacity: Arsenal's grounds, The Emirates, located in north London (capacity 60,361) and the Coliseum in my beloved Oakland (capacity 63,026). This is what the former looks like via Google maps:

Note its setting: despite being located next to a major motorway, immediately to the west, the Emirates is set into an actual neighborhood - it is a part of the area. You can walk from your house to the stadium, and after the match, you can easily walk to a pub and get a drink or something to eat. And no giant parking lots ("car parks") setting it off from everything else.

Now take a look at the Coliseum:

The first thing you notice is the sea of asphalt virtually surrounding the stadium. You have to walk ages just to get anywhere - and in the case of the Coliseum, that anywhere happens to be industrial areas with no amenities (unless you count broken glass as an amenity). Entirely built with the automobile in mind, the Coliseum virtually demands that fans going to see the Raiders or A's get as far away as possible as soon as the game ends.

It's true that the Emirates benefits from better public transit service, with a rail station and several Tube stops in walking distance. But there is a BART station right at the Coliseum, so the Coliseum is served to some extent by public transit as well. The major difference between the two stadia, then, is how they fit into their respective neighborhoods - the Emirates is a part of it, and invites locals to come to matches and other supporters coming from elsewhere to stay, mingle and spend money before and after matches. In strong contrast, the Coliseum is difficult to access, especially for pedestrians or cyclists, and seems designed to send people elsewhere to spend their time and money.

Other examples can be easily pointed to that support this general situation (e.g., take a look at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ or RFK Stadium in Washington DC). Capacity and size are not necessarily deterrents to siting stadia in dense areas of cities, so long as the automobile is not made king in the equation. But from an economic viewpoint - and especially, as is often the case in the US, public money is used to finance these facilities - stadia should be located in areas where their potential can be fulfilled to the greatest extent - in dense neighborhoods.

Capitalist Jesus, Catholic edition

Ayn Rand, Jesus, and a Catholic priest walk into a bar...

A series of recent developments are renewing questions about the Catholic bishops' alignment with the Republican Party, with much of the attention focusing on comments by Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput, who said he "certainly can't vote for somebody who's either pro-choice or pro-abortion."

So it's a priest is anti-choice - ok. And he's using his position as a Catholic priest to argue against voting for any candidate who is pro-choice - ok, we've seen that before. 

But then comes this:

In a wide-ranging interview published last week (Sept. 14), Chaput also echoed the views of a number of prominent bishops when he praised Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan for trying to address the "immoral" practice of deficit spending through his libertarian-inflected budget proposals. 

"Jesus tells us very clearly that if we don't help the poor, we're going to go to hell. Period. There's just no doubt about it," Chaput told National Catholic Reporter. 

"But Jesus didn't say the government has to take care of them, or that we have to pay taxes to take care of them. Those are prudential judgments. Anybody who would condemn someone because of their position on taxes is making a leap that I can't make as a Catholic."

Right - so it's ok to use the government, as a Christian, to impose your "morality" on women on something the bible says nothing about (reproductive freedom) - but it's not ok to use the government to help the poor, which Jesus "very clearly" said to do.

Please, Archbishop Chaput, tell me about "rendering unto Caesar" and camels, rich people, and needles - if you can take time from your libertarian quest, that is.

(h/t digby)