13 ms·

I think beyond the obvious large sports stadiums, local high schools are among the worst offenders. New tax levies for 'schools' almost always pass despite much

I think beyond the obvious large sports stadiums, local high schools are among the worst offenders. New tax levies for 'schools' almost always pass despite much of that spent on new sports fields meant for the exclusive use of sports teams that constitute only a very small percentage of the student body population (not to mention the overall population). Meanwhile, the school will not even have safe ways for children to ride bikes to school and bus service cannot even be properly maintained.

rory 5y ago
How about Opera Houses? Why should the federal taxpayer pour millions into the Kennedy Center just so rich old congresspeople can pretend to enjoy the plotless hellscape of "Cats"?
- robert_foss 5y ago
  I think the difference is that football is a money making endeavor for the team owner. Opera isn't making money for anyone and needs help if it is to exist. Giving money to football teams is not much of a step removed from putting it directly in the pockets of the already rich owners of the teams.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    Actual opera fans are frothing at the mouth right now at the suggestion that Cats is opera. But this idea that opera is stuffy high culture is the same mistake people make with Shakespeare--it's pop culture, just removed from its context. Imagine upper-class twits a century from now screening an Adam Sandler movie.
    - User23 5y ago
      That’s why Opera has so many long boring bits. Attendees weren’t expected to pay attention as if it were a High Mass. It was a social event, a place to see and be seen, as well as trade gossip and so on. The performance itself was somewhat analogous to the TV on in the background at a bar.
      - whatshisface 5y ago
        How would that work with the arrangement of having rows of seats all facing the show? At a modern theater there's hardly any way to talk to anybody.
        ghaff 5y ago
        Sure, going to either an opera or the latest Marvel blockbuster is often a social event to some degree. But the idea that the entertainment itself is just background noise like a few musicians at a cocktail party is just bizarre.
      - passerby1 5y ago
        When did it become trendy to parade one's illiteracy and narrow-mindedness?
        CRConrad 5y ago
        Was it ever not?
    - rory 5y ago
      > But this idea that opera is stuffy high culture is the same mistake people make with Shakespeare These things ARE high culture today. Whether or not they were high culture when they were first produced doesn't change that in the slightest.
      - mbg721 5y ago
        That's true, but it just highlights how bizarre and arbitrary high-culture is. I don't know how to say "Hey everybody, we're all going to get laid!" in Italian while preserving Rodney Dangerfield's voice.
        rory 5y ago
        Absolutely. The arbitrariness doesn't only apply to performance, either. Fancy people like old stuff. Jackson Pollock. Dubliners.
    - tombert 5y ago
      Isn't what makes Shakespeare "high culture" is its ability to stand the test of time? I'm sure there were plenty of mediocre or terrible plays from other writers at the time that no one cares about now, and are thus not "high culture". Shakespeare's stuff has been consistently read/performed for centuries, indicating that there might be something a bit more to it than the average play. Pop culture doesn't necessarily imply not high culture. I could be wrong obviously, but I would be extremely surprised if Adam Sandler movies have centuries of longevity to them; I think even people who like his movies will acknowledge that they're not spectacular films. Of course the "test of time" test isn't always an indicator of quality. There are plenty of old books that I had to read that I thought were terrible, and moreover there are plenty of modern music that I think is fantastic that no one else will really care about.
      - JackFr 5y ago
        > Of course the "test of time" test isn't always an indicator of quality. Today's superhero movies = yesterday's westerns. "I can't believe they made so many of these and just how bad most of them are."
      - jancsika 5y ago
        > I'm sure there were plenty of mediocre or terrible plays from other writers at the time that no one cares about now, and are thus not "high culture". I don't think that is historically accurate. From what I've read "high" vs. "low" culture changes over time, very often based on aesthetics. Brahms wrote both high and low art by the late 19th-century audience's standards. Today it's all just Brahms, who is a "classical composer", hence all "high art." Most importantly, there is no reason at all to believe that it cannot change again in the future. E.g., Brahms goes viral and gets treated as some kind of KPop sensation. Then we get some young punk doing cosplay as a steampunk Musikwissenschaftler claiming that Hungarian Dance No. 5 no longer slaps as high as it used to.
    - zeruch 5y ago
      High culture vs low culture has always been at least partly arbitrary. I'm not an Opera fan in general, but used to love that there was a cafe in town that once a month hosted 'opera' night, where amateur and pro opera singers (some from the SJ and SF opera camps) to sing whatever they want. Sometimes you'd get someone singing pop tunes as arias, sometimes you'd see legit arias sung in full costume, sometimes just the local belting out of Carmen in sweatpants. It felt delightfully local, accessible, and devoid of highbrow/lowbrow nonsense.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    The owner is making money, but so are the players, the referees, the concession staff, parking attendants, stores and shops that sell licensed apparel, and the bars, restaurants, and other adjacent businesses. Not to mention the marketing team, strength and conditioning coaches, web developers, and others who work for the team. And although temporary, it does create new construction jobs. This is true for football, soccer, baseball, basketball, and other sports. But this is less true when the stadium is built and then surrounded with parking lots that you have to drive to to go park your car. It's more true when the stadium is built in a neighborhood or at least a walkable area. Recently Columbus was going to lose the much beloved Columbus Crew soccer team. We had a stadium off of I-71 that was, you guessed it, surrounded by parking lots and not much else. You couldn't grab a beer before or after the game. People couldn't go camp out at a nearby bar and while you're not in the stadium you're close by and part of the atmosphere. Fortunately the state and local business leaders rallied together to #SavetheCrew and we were able to keep the team and we're building a new stadium next to Nationwide Arena in downtown Columbus where you can walk to the stadium. Hell, you can actually bike there from the suburbs using an existing bike trail and check-in your bike. Similarly, Ohio Stadium on the campus of Ohio State University is very walkable. People go and grab brunch before the noon game, they buy apparel, etc. So I think that yea, a football team is likely to make money for the team owner and cities and governments should be weary of this. And I also haven't read the article so maybe the benefits I mentioned are washed away somehow, but I can't imagine Columbus without Ohio State football, Bluejackets hockey, or Crew soccer. I think it makes the city a better place, even if the owner (of the latter two) makes money.
    - alistairSH 5y ago
      And I also haven't read the article so maybe the benefits I mentioned are washed away somehow The financial benefits are rarely worth the initial expense for professional sports stadiums. Th article didn't claim governments shouldn't kick in any money, only that funding it wholly (or nearly so) via public funds is a bad use of tax revenue. DC has two recent examples. Nationals Stadium (baseball) and Audi Field (soccer). Both in the same neighborhood downtown (southwest waterfront). The baseballs stadium cost ~$1 billion. It was financed with bonds sold by the city and remains owned by the city. Rent to the baseball team and a portion of ticket/concession/etc are being used to pay back the bonds. As of a few years ago, it looked like the cost was basically a wash. But, that ignores opportunity costs of doing other things with that money (assuming it could be borrowed for other projects), so it's hard to say for sure if the stadium was better than other options.[1] Audi Field's financing was quite a bit more complicated, with multiple land trades with 3rd parties, and mixed financing (the team paid a significant amount of construction costs). The team leases thee stadium for a nominal $1/year, so I have no idea how the city recoups it's investment. Part of that deal also pulled $30 million from public school funding, which seems like a big miss to me.[2] All that said, the neighborhood where the stadiums are located was a derelict slum and industrial site before. It's massively revitalized. Does that development offset the costs of buildings/maintaining the stadiums? That's not clear. And both stadiums seem to have had a better mix of public/private financing than some of the NFL stadium deals of past decades (which are usually more expensive to start as well). 1 - https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/nats-park-billion-dollar-gamble/65-70abe9a1-32f6-48f2-853e-9ce61fe63932 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/nats-park-billio... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Field
  - ghiculescu 5y ago
    If people who actually like opera won’t fund it then then why should I, not an opera fan, fund it? I like tennis but I would not force you to subsidize its existence.
    - IMTDb 5y ago
      The same argument can be made about anything subsidised: sport, art, research, healthcare, ... . Yet, a significant portion of what you experience has been indirectly affected by these subsidies. I am willing to bet that opera has had a tremendous impact on the music you listen to, to keep a direct example. Just arguing that "I don't immediately benefit from it, so I should not be paying for it" is probably a bit extreme.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        Yep. I sort of agree with the point about stadiums and certainly about the Olympic games. (I was very opposed to Boston thinking about bidding on some Olympics or other.) But cities/states subsidize a lot of things from public transit to parks to parades to cultural venues to say nothing of schools out of taxes. To say all that should be completely privatized is, yes, an extreme position.
        II2II 5y ago
        I suppose I am going to sort-of go against my stated opinion of funding for professional vs. amateur sport here, since I am going to claim that the Olympics aren't entirely bad. At least the lower profile winter games aren't entirely bad. (Yes, I classify the Olympics as professional sport. Even when professional athletes were denied, it it hard to deny that the training many countries offered to their athletes would qualify as professional.) I was growing up in Calgary during the '88 Winter Games. As a child, it was pure excitement even though I wasn't particularly into sports. Somewhere in my parent's archive of my childhood are a couple of scrapbooks containing news clippings of what excited me from day to day, as well as the school's map to track the day-to-day progress of the torch relay. I don't know how I managed to snag that when a couple of hundred other kids and adults could have, but I did. But this isn't to suggest that the excitement of the day is important. Roughly a decade later, I secured an IT job with a human performance lab at the University of Calgary. As much as I believe that professionalism in sport is contradictory to societal benefit, research related to improving physical performance is important. That was a legacy of the '88 Olympics. Sometimes outcomes are beneficial even though they are difficult to tally up. As far as I can tell, the Vancouver games were beneficial as well. One of the outcomes was a mass transit line that reached capacity decades before anticipated. While that may sound like a negative, it does prove there is an underlying demand for reliable public transit. A more tangible benefit came from the conversion of Olympic facilities into community facilities. My recollections are of the a new False Creek community centre being used to host events to celebrate First Nations (North American Indian, for the Americans) culture and the dated Riley Park Community Centre being replaced with a modern facility. (I forget if the new facility included a pool, but the new rink was better than the old one.) Overall, I would say that we should be funding facilities and programs that address the needs of society as a whole from a social perspective. That being said, properly planned funding of professional facilities can still serve that goal. While my example involved the Olympic Games, something similar could be said of facilities built for private interests. Provided the rent was in proportion to what is being offered and the facilities served the needs of other clients.
  - rory 5y ago
    I'm replying to a post about high school sports fields. Not known for their profitability. And at least kids can go run around there when a formal practice or game isn't happening.
    - brewdad 5y ago
      Not necessarily. Most of the school stadiums near me are closed during school hours. After school they are used by various teams until well after dark. Then, on weekends, they are usually rented out to local athletic leagues (youth and adult) unless the school teams need them. They are largely unavailable to the general public unless they are willing to pay for exclusive use.
- falcolas 5y ago
  > pretend to enjoy the plotless hellscape of "Cats" ...Low blow man, low blow. Cats (the musical) is a lot of fun, and has some fantastic musical pieces.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    Q: What's grey and wrinkly and writes gloomy poetry? A: T.S. Elephant.
  - rory 5y ago
    I'm 40% kidding :). Memory is good, at least.
- CPLX 5y ago
  Cats isn’t opera of course. And when you do see pop culture musicals in opera houses that part of the operation is almost certainly profitable and helping to subsidize the rest.
  - rory 5y ago
    > that part of the operation is almost certainly profitable Profitable against variable costs, not fixed + variable costs. Those shows are still receiving a taxpayer subsidy and in the vast majority of cities, wouldn't be performed in nearly as nice a building without it.
    - CPLX 5y ago
      There’s no such thing as a single fixed cost in a heterogenous situation like this, the analysis you’re making seems based on sort of casually glancing at things and coming up with an opinion. I work in this space, i actually rent performing arts centers of the kind you describe to put on conferences and have a decent understanding of the economics. The vast majority of the costs for these arts organizations is the actual art. It’s the salaries for the opera and the cost of the paintings at the art museum and so on. The actual buildings and complexes can and almost certainly are quite profitable when being used by outside parties like a touring Broadway show.
      - rory 5y ago
        > There’s no such thing as a single fixed cost in a heterogenous situation like this > I ... have a decent understanding of the economics It's patently obvious there are fixed costs to a large building. Here are some fixed costs of the one I mentioned explicitly laid out: > The Kennedy Center spends about $40 million annually to repair, renovate, operate, and maintain its buildings; these expenses are paid through federal funding. It's clear you don't understand the economics as well as you think you do, so please don't condescend. https://www.gao.gov/blog/kennedy-center-turns-50%2C-we-look-its-recent-expansion-and-ways-improve-its-use-capital-improvement-funding https://www.gao.gov/blog/kennedy-center-turns-50%2C-we-look-...
- HWR_14 5y ago
  The Kennedy Center is used frequently to host federal government events that bring in large groups of people. In that one case. Further, spaces like the Kennedy center (or amphitheaters) play a revolving set of shows which makes it difficult for any private entity to have enough skin in the game to fund it. If the stadium was owned by the city and rented to whichever group wanted it, that would be more analogous. But right now it's the X stadium, the sports team sells the naming rights, gets the revenue from other uses, etc. Instead, put them in a position where they can be outbid for the use during a home game and I might start agreeing.
  - LanceH 5y ago
    > Further, spaces like the Kennedy center (or amphitheaters) play a revolving set of shows which makes it difficult for any private entity to have enough skin in the game to fund it. It's really difficult to fund it when you have government backed competition which doesn't answer to the market. I'm not sure if this applies to the Kennedy Center, but it certainly applies to the mega stadiums which double as concert venues that seem to be popping up around here. It would be impossible to compete against a government owned venue which will certainly have at least a conflict of interest in the development of supporting infrastructure and other legislation.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Yes, there is an issue with megastadiums that double as a concert venue. Among other things, the stadium and associated concert revenue, while built with government money, go to the sports team. It's hard to get a large amphitheater going without government support. While I'm sure there are examples, but none spring to mind either currently or throughout history. But subsidizing live events of a revolving nature is different from subsidizing a billionaires sports team.
      - LanceH 5y ago
        The flip side of it is I can't imagine going entirely private either. You would have a billion dollar asset completely beholden to the local government, which could extract what they want from you.
- II2II 5y ago
  Your example brings to mind one of the many reasons why I oppose the funding of stadiums: it is about passive entertainment rather than active participation. Much the same can be said of opera houses. If the objective is to promote the arts, then direct funding to get people involved in the arts. If you want to promote sports, then direct funding to get people involved in sports. While I appreciate that the interest of some is sustained by watching the best in the field, the sad reality is that most people will be unable to partake unless it is made accessible to them. That means focusing money upon the stage and the field, not the stands.
  - drekk 5y ago
    We could do both. We spend less than 200 million a year on the arts in the federal budget. Increasing that instead of cutting it every year might even bring back some of those "useless art courses" in K-12 that got axed. I shouldn't give more tax money to Raytheon than the cultural institutions of my country. Either cut the former for once or increase the latter
    - II2II 5y ago
      Funding both is an interesting perspective. It is certainly practical. It is just that some people view the arts as impractical. While that may be true from a purely economic stance, I am left to wonder how many people would want to live in a world truly devoid of the arts. I am not speaking of the stereotypical impression of the arts here. I am speaking of creative expression, whether it is linked to social discourse or not, arts here. Even though I am a bit of a fan of utilitarian and, arguably, industrial architecture, I am can also understand the human need for aesthetic and naturalistic environments.
    - JackFr 5y ago
      > Increasing that instead of cutting it every year might even bring back some of those "useless art courses" in K-12 that got axed. I am all in favor of funding the arts in school, but I have to say every single art class I took in K-12 was absolutely useless. We learned neither art history, appreciation, or any technique of drawing or painting or anything of the sort, and none of my teachers (in an otherwise very good school district) honestly seemed like they would have been competent to teach drawing or painting or art history. Basically my experience with art in school, as it was taught, was that it was an utter waste of time. I'd love to be able draw decently or have a knowledge of art history on par with say knowledge of European history.
- yohannparis 5y ago
  I went few times to the Kennedy Center, and as a 35-year-old software engineer, I was not a token spectator. They were people of all walks of life watching Ballet, Opera, and Symphonic Orchestra. And you can watch Music Hall for $50 or Operas/Ballets for $100. This are not crazy prices compared to a normal concert/stadium seat.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  Your post is literally a "whatabout". Aren't many publicly funded opera houses/theaters owned by the city and not at the same whims of football owners? A football stadium is almost exclusively designed and used for a single, privately owned entity. It's a huge difference, not a minor one, and not one divided by class like you imply.
  - rory 5y ago
    I'm replying to a post about high school stadiums, which are generally owned by a public school or a town. So it's a slight whatabout to the farther-jumping whatabout above me. And I'd bet every penny I have that the average opera or theater attendee is significantly up the class scale from the average high school football game attendee.
- browserman 5y ago
  The Kennedy Center is legally required to sustain itself through private funding and ticket sales. It also offers plenty of free performances.
  - rory 5y ago
    What makes you think that? They got 40 million in federal funding this past year. It's in the annual report. Search "Federal." https://www.kennedy-center.org/globalassets/news-room/annualreport/kcannualreport_fy21.pdf https://www.kennedy-center.org/globalassets/news-room/annual...
    - browserman 5y ago
      "The Kennedy Center receives an annual federal appropriation in recognition of the Center’s role as the presidential memorial to John F. Kennedy. These funds pay only for the operation and maintenance, and capital repair and restoration of the building and grounds, ensuring that the living memorial to our 35th president remains a vibrant homage to his legacy." None of the federal money pays for expenses related to the actual programming and operations of the Kennedy Center, it pays for the building and grounds, which has a separate purpose as the federal memorial to JFK and is also used for a variety of public events and educational functions outside of the Center's performance arts programming. The parent comment asked why the government pays for opera (it doesn't, maybe through a modest NEA grant or something), not "Why does the federal government pay for federal monuments and public spaces?"
      - rory 5y ago
        > None of the federal money pays for expenses related to the actual programming and operations Is this a joke? Literally the first expense listed under federal appropriation is "Operations". In theory they don't pay the producers of shows with the same money that comes from the government. But given that operations and maintenance are necessary to hold performances, and money is fungible, the distinction is meaningless.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  It's funny how close this argument mirrors a certain episode of Yes, Minister (https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0aEz34A4o https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0aEz34A4o)
  - rory 5y ago
    High school sports are not commercial.
    - webmaven 5y ago
      Of course it is. Heck, just high school cheerleading is a huge business.
      - rory 5y ago
        That's not the same meaning of commercial used in the linked clip. High school sports are not a profitable activity for the organization running the team (the school), and building nicer facilities doesn't bring them significant monetary benefit.
        webmaven 5y ago
        Unfortunately, one reason high school sports get funding is that, just like college sports, it tends to be instrumental in prompting other sources of funding (eg. donations from alumni). Or at least that's the perception.
        rory 5y ago
        Like at prep schools? Or some huge football program in Texas? This definitely isn't the case at the vast majority of schools in the US.
        webmaven 5y ago
        I think you may be underestimating the prevalence of the phenomenon. Try some searches like "high school sports alumni" or "high school sports donations".
- vkou 5y ago
  Because the entire live theatre ecosystem can only exist with subsidies. Wages for everyone involved are low, everyone in the industry is working side gigs, and without government help, the entire thing will collapse. (I'm also unsure anyone actually enjoys Cats.) There's a few profitable companies here and there, but they wouldn't exist without a large feeder ecosystem. Source: my spouse worked in theatre for a decade.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Federal money is a different beast than city owned/funded sports stadiums. Otherwise why keep up the National Mall or Smithsonian?
- kevinschumacher 5y ago
  While I agree with your sentiment, at least the roof of the Kennedy center is open to the public day and night. Fantastic date spot. Great views!
- zeruch 5y ago
  Because the Kennedy Center isn't just an Opera House, but a venue used for any number of events, both public and private. I'm with you on "Cats" though.
sarchertech 5y ago
What percentage of a new high school’s cost is the Football field? The band, color guard, freshmen, and JV teams generally use that field as well. Many students attend games. Not to mention the fact that in many schools graduation happens on the football field.
- xattt 5y ago
  The kids that attend games have been conditioned to do so. School graduations happen in the field because it’s there already.
  - sarchertech 5y ago
    "Don't subsidize X because only a small percentage of people use it." "Actually, a fairly large percentage of people use it." "Those people don't count because they've been conditioned to use it." >it's there already Doesn't change the fact that you'd need to pay for some alternative venue if it wasn't there.
- michaelcampbell 5y ago
  I agree with your overall point, but is this still true? > Not to mention the fact that in many schools graduation happens on the football field. Maybe it's because I live where I live, but no high schools around me do this any more; it's all at local amphitheaters and the like.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    This varies greatly by region. In Ohio, athletics are mostly dominated by single-gender Catholic high-schools, and they have the facilities to match.
    - michaelcampbell 5y ago
      Fair enough; I'm in Atlanta suburbia, so quite a ways away.
- 5y ago
michaelcampbell 5y ago
> much of that spent on new sports fields meant for the exclusive use of sports teams that constitute only a very small percentage of the student body population (not to mention the overall population). Curious where you go this idea. I don't have any evidence to back up my suspicion that this might not be correct, but wondering what yours is, too.
- ianai 5y ago
  It’s how it is with local high schools near me. Coworker went to a HS with a brand new stadium but the students study in classrooms with ancient heaters. Said they had to routinely wear jackets and heavy clothes to survive class in the cold months.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quest88 5y ago
People vote for it though.
hintymad 5y ago
Isn't this part of the US culture? I mean Americans are so into sports that cheerleaders and jockeys are the most popular people in schools. Encouraging schools to build stadiums for their teams appears a no brainer. Caltech are mocked because their basketball teams couldn't make it to NCAA -- a definite WTF moment for me as I don't see how basketball ever matters in a prestigious research university. Parents cheered for toiling in sports yet despise those who toil in STEM. Practicing free throw 4 thousand times a day heroic, but solving 10 math problems a day is considered a sin? To be blunt, this kind of culture is sick and contributes to the demise of the country.
- kbelder 5y ago
  You're a decode or two out of date.
  - hintymad 5y ago
    I'd be happy if so. Somehow I remember that Caltech incident happened only a few years ago.

rory 5y ago

How about Opera Houses? Why should the federal taxpayer pour millions into the Kennedy Center just so rich old congresspeople can pretend to enjoy the plotless hellscape of "Cats"?

robert_foss 5y ago
I think the difference is that football is a money making endeavor for the team owner. Opera isn't making money for anyone and needs help if it is to exist. Giving money to football teams is not much of a step removed from putting it directly in the pockets of the already rich owners of the teams.
- mbg721 5y ago
  Actual opera fans are frothing at the mouth right now at the suggestion that Cats is opera. But this idea that opera is stuffy high culture is the same mistake people make with Shakespeare--it's pop culture, just removed from its context. Imagine upper-class twits a century from now screening an Adam Sandler movie.
  - User23 5y ago
    That’s why Opera has so many long boring bits. Attendees weren’t expected to pay attention as if it were a High Mass. It was a social event, a place to see and be seen, as well as trade gossip and so on. The performance itself was somewhat analogous to the TV on in the background at a bar.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      How would that work with the arrangement of having rows of seats all facing the show? At a modern theater there's hardly any way to talk to anybody.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        Sure, going to either an opera or the latest Marvel blockbuster is often a social event to some degree. But the idea that the entertainment itself is just background noise like a few musicians at a cocktail party is just bizarre.
    - passerby1 5y ago
      When did it become trendy to parade one's illiteracy and narrow-mindedness?
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Was it ever not?
  - rory 5y ago
    > But this idea that opera is stuffy high culture is the same mistake people make with Shakespeare These things ARE high culture today. Whether or not they were high culture when they were first produced doesn't change that in the slightest.
    - mbg721 5y ago
      That's true, but it just highlights how bizarre and arbitrary high-culture is. I don't know how to say "Hey everybody, we're all going to get laid!" in Italian while preserving Rodney Dangerfield's voice.
      - rory 5y ago
        Absolutely. The arbitrariness doesn't only apply to performance, either. Fancy people like old stuff. Jackson Pollock. Dubliners.
  - tombert 5y ago
    Isn't what makes Shakespeare "high culture" is its ability to stand the test of time? I'm sure there were plenty of mediocre or terrible plays from other writers at the time that no one cares about now, and are thus not "high culture". Shakespeare's stuff has been consistently read/performed for centuries, indicating that there might be something a bit more to it than the average play. Pop culture doesn't necessarily imply not high culture. I could be wrong obviously, but I would be extremely surprised if Adam Sandler movies have centuries of longevity to them; I think even people who like his movies will acknowledge that they're not spectacular films. Of course the "test of time" test isn't always an indicator of quality. There are plenty of old books that I had to read that I thought were terrible, and moreover there are plenty of modern music that I think is fantastic that no one else will really care about.
    - JackFr 5y ago
      > Of course the "test of time" test isn't always an indicator of quality. Today's superhero movies = yesterday's westerns. "I can't believe they made so many of these and just how bad most of them are."
    - jancsika 5y ago
      > I'm sure there were plenty of mediocre or terrible plays from other writers at the time that no one cares about now, and are thus not "high culture". I don't think that is historically accurate. From what I've read "high" vs. "low" culture changes over time, very often based on aesthetics. Brahms wrote both high and low art by the late 19th-century audience's standards. Today it's all just Brahms, who is a "classical composer", hence all "high art." Most importantly, there is no reason at all to believe that it cannot change again in the future. E.g., Brahms goes viral and gets treated as some kind of KPop sensation. Then we get some young punk doing cosplay as a steampunk Musikwissenschaftler claiming that Hungarian Dance No. 5 no longer slaps as high as it used to.
  - zeruch 5y ago
    High culture vs low culture has always been at least partly arbitrary. I'm not an Opera fan in general, but used to love that there was a cafe in town that once a month hosted 'opera' night, where amateur and pro opera singers (some from the SJ and SF opera camps) to sing whatever they want. Sometimes you'd get someone singing pop tunes as arias, sometimes you'd see legit arias sung in full costume, sometimes just the local belting out of Carmen in sweatpants. It felt delightfully local, accessible, and devoid of highbrow/lowbrow nonsense.
- ericmay 5y ago
  The owner is making money, but so are the players, the referees, the concession staff, parking attendants, stores and shops that sell licensed apparel, and the bars, restaurants, and other adjacent businesses. Not to mention the marketing team, strength and conditioning coaches, web developers, and others who work for the team. And although temporary, it does create new construction jobs. This is true for football, soccer, baseball, basketball, and other sports. But this is less true when the stadium is built and then surrounded with parking lots that you have to drive to to go park your car. It's more true when the stadium is built in a neighborhood or at least a walkable area. Recently Columbus was going to lose the much beloved Columbus Crew soccer team. We had a stadium off of I-71 that was, you guessed it, surrounded by parking lots and not much else. You couldn't grab a beer before or after the game. People couldn't go camp out at a nearby bar and while you're not in the stadium you're close by and part of the atmosphere. Fortunately the state and local business leaders rallied together to #SavetheCrew and we were able to keep the team and we're building a new stadium next to Nationwide Arena in downtown Columbus where you can walk to the stadium. Hell, you can actually bike there from the suburbs using an existing bike trail and check-in your bike. Similarly, Ohio Stadium on the campus of Ohio State University is very walkable. People go and grab brunch before the noon game, they buy apparel, etc. So I think that yea, a football team is likely to make money for the team owner and cities and governments should be weary of this. And I also haven't read the article so maybe the benefits I mentioned are washed away somehow, but I can't imagine Columbus without Ohio State football, Bluejackets hockey, or Crew soccer. I think it makes the city a better place, even if the owner (of the latter two) makes money.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    And I also haven't read the article so maybe the benefits I mentioned are washed away somehow The financial benefits are rarely worth the initial expense for professional sports stadiums. Th article didn't claim governments shouldn't kick in any money, only that funding it wholly (or nearly so) via public funds is a bad use of tax revenue. DC has two recent examples. Nationals Stadium (baseball) and Audi Field (soccer). Both in the same neighborhood downtown (southwest waterfront). The baseballs stadium cost ~$1 billion. It was financed with bonds sold by the city and remains owned by the city. Rent to the baseball team and a portion of ticket/concession/etc are being used to pay back the bonds. As of a few years ago, it looked like the cost was basically a wash. But, that ignores opportunity costs of doing other things with that money (assuming it could be borrowed for other projects), so it's hard to say for sure if the stadium was better than other options.[1] Audi Field's financing was quite a bit more complicated, with multiple land trades with 3rd parties, and mixed financing (the team paid a significant amount of construction costs). The team leases thee stadium for a nominal $1/year, so I have no idea how the city recoups it's investment. Part of that deal also pulled $30 million from public school funding, which seems like a big miss to me.[2] All that said, the neighborhood where the stadiums are located was a derelict slum and industrial site before. It's massively revitalized. Does that development offset the costs of buildings/maintaining the stadiums? That's not clear. And both stadiums seem to have had a better mix of public/private financing than some of the NFL stadium deals of past decades (which are usually more expensive to start as well). 1 - https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/nats-park-billion-dollar-gamble/65-70abe9a1-32f6-48f2-853e-9ce61fe63932 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/nats-park-billio... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Field
- ghiculescu 5y ago
  If people who actually like opera won’t fund it then then why should I, not an opera fan, fund it? I like tennis but I would not force you to subsidize its existence.
  - IMTDb 5y ago
    The same argument can be made about anything subsidised: sport, art, research, healthcare, ... . Yet, a significant portion of what you experience has been indirectly affected by these subsidies. I am willing to bet that opera has had a tremendous impact on the music you listen to, to keep a direct example. Just arguing that "I don't immediately benefit from it, so I should not be paying for it" is probably a bit extreme.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Yep. I sort of agree with the point about stadiums and certainly about the Olympic games. (I was very opposed to Boston thinking about bidding on some Olympics or other.) But cities/states subsidize a lot of things from public transit to parks to parades to cultural venues to say nothing of schools out of taxes. To say all that should be completely privatized is, yes, an extreme position.
      - II2II 5y ago
        I suppose I am going to sort-of go against my stated opinion of funding for professional vs. amateur sport here, since I am going to claim that the Olympics aren't entirely bad. At least the lower profile winter games aren't entirely bad. (Yes, I classify the Olympics as professional sport. Even when professional athletes were denied, it it hard to deny that the training many countries offered to their athletes would qualify as professional.) I was growing up in Calgary during the '88 Winter Games. As a child, it was pure excitement even though I wasn't particularly into sports. Somewhere in my parent's archive of my childhood are a couple of scrapbooks containing news clippings of what excited me from day to day, as well as the school's map to track the day-to-day progress of the torch relay. I don't know how I managed to snag that when a couple of hundred other kids and adults could have, but I did. But this isn't to suggest that the excitement of the day is important. Roughly a decade later, I secured an IT job with a human performance lab at the University of Calgary. As much as I believe that professionalism in sport is contradictory to societal benefit, research related to improving physical performance is important. That was a legacy of the '88 Olympics. Sometimes outcomes are beneficial even though they are difficult to tally up. As far as I can tell, the Vancouver games were beneficial as well. One of the outcomes was a mass transit line that reached capacity decades before anticipated. While that may sound like a negative, it does prove there is an underlying demand for reliable public transit. A more tangible benefit came from the conversion of Olympic facilities into community facilities. My recollections are of the a new False Creek community centre being used to host events to celebrate First Nations (North American Indian, for the Americans) culture and the dated Riley Park Community Centre being replaced with a modern facility. (I forget if the new facility included a pool, but the new rink was better than the old one.) Overall, I would say that we should be funding facilities and programs that address the needs of society as a whole from a social perspective. That being said, properly planned funding of professional facilities can still serve that goal. While my example involved the Olympic Games, something similar could be said of facilities built for private interests. Provided the rent was in proportion to what is being offered and the facilities served the needs of other clients.
- rory 5y ago
  I'm replying to a post about high school sports fields. Not known for their profitability. And at least kids can go run around there when a formal practice or game isn't happening.
  - brewdad 5y ago
    Not necessarily. Most of the school stadiums near me are closed during school hours. After school they are used by various teams until well after dark. Then, on weekends, they are usually rented out to local athletic leagues (youth and adult) unless the school teams need them. They are largely unavailable to the general public unless they are willing to pay for exclusive use.
falcolas 5y ago
> pretend to enjoy the plotless hellscape of "Cats" ...Low blow man, low blow. Cats (the musical) is a lot of fun, and has some fantastic musical pieces.
- mbg721 5y ago
  Q: What's grey and wrinkly and writes gloomy poetry? A: T.S. Elephant.
- rory 5y ago
  I'm 40% kidding :). Memory is good, at least.
CPLX 5y ago
Cats isn’t opera of course. And when you do see pop culture musicals in opera houses that part of the operation is almost certainly profitable and helping to subsidize the rest.
- rory 5y ago
  > that part of the operation is almost certainly profitable Profitable against variable costs, not fixed + variable costs. Those shows are still receiving a taxpayer subsidy and in the vast majority of cities, wouldn't be performed in nearly as nice a building without it.
  - CPLX 5y ago
    There’s no such thing as a single fixed cost in a heterogenous situation like this, the analysis you’re making seems based on sort of casually glancing at things and coming up with an opinion. I work in this space, i actually rent performing arts centers of the kind you describe to put on conferences and have a decent understanding of the economics. The vast majority of the costs for these arts organizations is the actual art. It’s the salaries for the opera and the cost of the paintings at the art museum and so on. The actual buildings and complexes can and almost certainly are quite profitable when being used by outside parties like a touring Broadway show.
    - rory 5y ago
      > There’s no such thing as a single fixed cost in a heterogenous situation like this > I ... have a decent understanding of the economics It's patently obvious there are fixed costs to a large building. Here are some fixed costs of the one I mentioned explicitly laid out: > The Kennedy Center spends about $40 million annually to repair, renovate, operate, and maintain its buildings; these expenses are paid through federal funding. It's clear you don't understand the economics as well as you think you do, so please don't condescend. https://www.gao.gov/blog/kennedy-center-turns-50%2C-we-look-its-recent-expansion-and-ways-improve-its-use-capital-improvement-funding https://www.gao.gov/blog/kennedy-center-turns-50%2C-we-look-...
HWR_14 5y ago
The Kennedy Center is used frequently to host federal government events that bring in large groups of people. In that one case. Further, spaces like the Kennedy center (or amphitheaters) play a revolving set of shows which makes it difficult for any private entity to have enough skin in the game to fund it. If the stadium was owned by the city and rented to whichever group wanted it, that would be more analogous. But right now it's the X stadium, the sports team sells the naming rights, gets the revenue from other uses, etc. Instead, put them in a position where they can be outbid for the use during a home game and I might start agreeing.
- LanceH 5y ago
  > Further, spaces like the Kennedy center (or amphitheaters) play a revolving set of shows which makes it difficult for any private entity to have enough skin in the game to fund it. It's really difficult to fund it when you have government backed competition which doesn't answer to the market. I'm not sure if this applies to the Kennedy Center, but it certainly applies to the mega stadiums which double as concert venues that seem to be popping up around here. It would be impossible to compete against a government owned venue which will certainly have at least a conflict of interest in the development of supporting infrastructure and other legislation.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Yes, there is an issue with megastadiums that double as a concert venue. Among other things, the stadium and associated concert revenue, while built with government money, go to the sports team. It's hard to get a large amphitheater going without government support. While I'm sure there are examples, but none spring to mind either currently or throughout history. But subsidizing live events of a revolving nature is different from subsidizing a billionaires sports team.
    - LanceH 5y ago
      The flip side of it is I can't imagine going entirely private either. You would have a billion dollar asset completely beholden to the local government, which could extract what they want from you.
II2II 5y ago
Your example brings to mind one of the many reasons why I oppose the funding of stadiums: it is about passive entertainment rather than active participation. Much the same can be said of opera houses. If the objective is to promote the arts, then direct funding to get people involved in the arts. If you want to promote sports, then direct funding to get people involved in sports. While I appreciate that the interest of some is sustained by watching the best in the field, the sad reality is that most people will be unable to partake unless it is made accessible to them. That means focusing money upon the stage and the field, not the stands.
- drekk 5y ago
  We could do both. We spend less than 200 million a year on the arts in the federal budget. Increasing that instead of cutting it every year might even bring back some of those "useless art courses" in K-12 that got axed. I shouldn't give more tax money to Raytheon than the cultural institutions of my country. Either cut the former for once or increase the latter
  - II2II 5y ago
    Funding both is an interesting perspective. It is certainly practical. It is just that some people view the arts as impractical. While that may be true from a purely economic stance, I am left to wonder how many people would want to live in a world truly devoid of the arts. I am not speaking of the stereotypical impression of the arts here. I am speaking of creative expression, whether it is linked to social discourse or not, arts here. Even though I am a bit of a fan of utilitarian and, arguably, industrial architecture, I am can also understand the human need for aesthetic and naturalistic environments.
  - JackFr 5y ago
    > Increasing that instead of cutting it every year might even bring back some of those "useless art courses" in K-12 that got axed. I am all in favor of funding the arts in school, but I have to say every single art class I took in K-12 was absolutely useless. We learned neither art history, appreciation, or any technique of drawing or painting or anything of the sort, and none of my teachers (in an otherwise very good school district) honestly seemed like they would have been competent to teach drawing or painting or art history. Basically my experience with art in school, as it was taught, was that it was an utter waste of time. I'd love to be able draw decently or have a knowledge of art history on par with say knowledge of European history.
yohannparis 5y ago
I went few times to the Kennedy Center, and as a 35-year-old software engineer, I was not a token spectator. They were people of all walks of life watching Ballet, Opera, and Symphonic Orchestra. And you can watch Music Hall for $50 or Operas/Ballets for $100. This are not crazy prices compared to a normal concert/stadium seat.
unethical_ban 5y ago
Your post is literally a "whatabout". Aren't many publicly funded opera houses/theaters owned by the city and not at the same whims of football owners? A football stadium is almost exclusively designed and used for a single, privately owned entity. It's a huge difference, not a minor one, and not one divided by class like you imply.
- rory 5y ago
  I'm replying to a post about high school stadiums, which are generally owned by a public school or a town. So it's a slight whatabout to the farther-jumping whatabout above me. And I'd bet every penny I have that the average opera or theater attendee is significantly up the class scale from the average high school football game attendee.
browserman 5y ago
The Kennedy Center is legally required to sustain itself through private funding and ticket sales. It also offers plenty of free performances.
- rory 5y ago
  What makes you think that? They got 40 million in federal funding this past year. It's in the annual report. Search "Federal." https://www.kennedy-center.org/globalassets/news-room/annualreport/kcannualreport_fy21.pdf https://www.kennedy-center.org/globalassets/news-room/annual...
  - browserman 5y ago
    "The Kennedy Center receives an annual federal appropriation in recognition of the Center’s role as the presidential memorial to John F. Kennedy. These funds pay only for the operation and maintenance, and capital repair and restoration of the building and grounds, ensuring that the living memorial to our 35th president remains a vibrant homage to his legacy." None of the federal money pays for expenses related to the actual programming and operations of the Kennedy Center, it pays for the building and grounds, which has a separate purpose as the federal memorial to JFK and is also used for a variety of public events and educational functions outside of the Center's performance arts programming. The parent comment asked why the government pays for opera (it doesn't, maybe through a modest NEA grant or something), not "Why does the federal government pay for federal monuments and public spaces?"
    - rory 5y ago
      > None of the federal money pays for expenses related to the actual programming and operations Is this a joke? Literally the first expense listed under federal appropriation is "Operations". In theory they don't pay the producers of shows with the same money that comes from the government. But given that operations and maintenance are necessary to hold performances, and money is fungible, the distinction is meaningless.
Dracophoenix 5y ago
It's funny how close this argument mirrors a certain episode of Yes, Minister (https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0aEz34A4o https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0aEz34A4o)
- rory 5y ago
  High school sports are not commercial.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    Of course it is. Heck, just high school cheerleading is a huge business.
    - rory 5y ago
      That's not the same meaning of commercial used in the linked clip. High school sports are not a profitable activity for the organization running the team (the school), and building nicer facilities doesn't bring them significant monetary benefit.
      - webmaven 5y ago
        Unfortunately, one reason high school sports get funding is that, just like college sports, it tends to be instrumental in prompting other sources of funding (eg. donations from alumni). Or at least that's the perception.
        rory 5y ago
        Like at prep schools? Or some huge football program in Texas? This definitely isn't the case at the vast majority of schools in the US.
        webmaven 5y ago
        I think you may be underestimating the prevalence of the phenomenon. Try some searches like "high school sports alumni" or "high school sports donations".
vkou 5y ago
Because the entire live theatre ecosystem can only exist with subsidies. Wages for everyone involved are low, everyone in the industry is working side gigs, and without government help, the entire thing will collapse. (I'm also unsure anyone actually enjoys Cats.) There's a few profitable companies here and there, but they wouldn't exist without a large feeder ecosystem. Source: my spouse worked in theatre for a decade.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Federal money is a different beast than city owned/funded sports stadiums. Otherwise why keep up the National Mall or Smithsonian?
kevinschumacher 5y ago
While I agree with your sentiment, at least the roof of the Kennedy center is open to the public day and night. Fantastic date spot. Great views!
zeruch 5y ago
Because the Kennedy Center isn't just an Opera House, but a venue used for any number of events, both public and private. I'm with you on "Cats" though.

sarchertech 5y ago

What percentage of a new high school’s cost is the Football field? The band, color guard, freshmen, and JV teams generally use that field as well. Many students attend games. Not to mention the fact that in many schools graduation happens on the football field.

xattt 5y ago
The kids that attend games have been conditioned to do so. School graduations happen in the field because it’s there already.
- sarchertech 5y ago
  "Don't subsidize X because only a small percentage of people use it." "Actually, a fairly large percentage of people use it." "Those people don't count because they've been conditioned to use it." >it's there already Doesn't change the fact that you'd need to pay for some alternative venue if it wasn't there.
michaelcampbell 5y ago
I agree with your overall point, but is this still true? > Not to mention the fact that in many schools graduation happens on the football field. Maybe it's because I live where I live, but no high schools around me do this any more; it's all at local amphitheaters and the like.
- mbg721 5y ago
  This varies greatly by region. In Ohio, athletics are mostly dominated by single-gender Catholic high-schools, and they have the facilities to match.
  - michaelcampbell 5y ago
    Fair enough; I'm in Atlanta suburbia, so quite a ways away.
5y ago

michaelcampbell 5y ago

> much of that spent on new sports fields meant for the exclusive use of sports teams that constitute only a very small percentage of the student body population (not to mention the overall population). Curious where you go this idea. I don't have any evidence to back up my suspicion that this might not be correct, but wondering what yours is, too.

ianai 5y ago
It’s how it is with local high schools near me. Coworker went to a HS with a brand new stadium but the students study in classrooms with ancient heaters. Said they had to routinely wear jackets and heavy clothes to survive class in the cold months.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

quest88 5y ago

People vote for it though.

hintymad 5y ago

Isn't this part of the US culture? I mean Americans are so into sports that cheerleaders and jockeys are the most popular people in schools. Encouraging schools to build stadiums for their teams appears a no brainer. Caltech are mocked because their basketball teams couldn't make it to NCAA -- a definite WTF moment for me as I don't see how basketball ever matters in a prestigious research university. Parents cheered for toiling in sports yet despise those who toil in STEM. Practicing free throw 4 thousand times a day heroic, but solving 10 math problems a day is considered a sin? To be blunt, this kind of culture is sick and contributes to the demise of the country.

kbelder 5y ago
You're a decode or two out of date.
- hintymad 5y ago
  I'd be happy if so. Somehow I remember that Caltech incident happened only a few years ago.