How does the new institutional ecology of city politics structure opportunities for urban growth? We draw on policy agendas theory to explore two central aspects of this question: the process by which urban actors attempt to reach development policy goals by “shopping” for alternative institutional venues and the conditions under which extraurban institutions—such as state and special-purpose governments—provide favorable alternative decision settings. We conduct a comparative case study of two prominent megaprojects—Chicago’s new Comiskey Park (1986-1991) and Seattle’s Safeco Field (1994-1995)—in which policy-making authority shifted from city government to extraurban venues. Our analyses illustrate how the interplay of several factors, including the resources and capacity of relevant coalitions and the issue politics that surround the project, shape venue-shopping opportunities for urban megaprojects. In advancing these arguments, this research underscores the more general significance of venue shopping in urban growth policy processes.
AndersonR.2003. After further review. Seattle Weekly, February12.
2.
AgranoffR.McGuireM.1998. The intergovernmental context of local economic development. State and Local Government Review30 (3): 150–64.
3.
AltshulerA.LuberoffD.2003. Mega-projects: the changing politics of urban public investments. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
4.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D.1993. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
5.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D.MacLeodM. C.2000. The evolution of legislative jurisdictions. Journal of Politics62:321–49.
6.
BurnsP.2002. The intergovernmental regime and public policy in Hartford, Connecticut. Journal of Urban Affairs24 (1): 55–73
7.
BurnsP.2003. Regime theory, state government, and a takeover of urban education. Journal of Urban Affairs25 (3): 285–303.
8.
BurnsP.ThomasM. O.2004. Governors and the development regime in New Orleans. Urban Affairs Review39 (6): 791–812.
9.
CaganJ.DeMauseN.1998. Field of schemes. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
10.
CampbellJ.1988. Collapse of an industry: Nuclear power and the contradictions of US policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
11.
Chicago Tribune. 1986. Stadiums, subsidies and squakers. Chicago Tribune, News, p. 14.
12.
ClarkeS. E.SaizM. (2003). From waterhole to world city: Place-luck and public agendas in Denver. In The infrastructure of play: Building the tourist city, edited by JuddD. R., 168–201. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
13.
CollierD.MahoneyJ.SeawrightJ.2004. Claiming too much: Warnings about selection bias. In Rethinking social inquiry, edited by BradyH.CollierD., 85–102. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
14.
DoldB.PapajohnG.1986. Addison Sox aid unlikely: Governor. Chicago Tribune, News, July26, p. 1.
15.
EglerD.1986. Mayor tries new game plan for stadium. Chicago Tribune, News, June28, p. 4.
16.
EglerD.McCarronJ.1986. Sox stadium is safe at home. Chicago Tribune, News, December6, p. 1.
17.
EisingerP. K.2000. The politics of bread and circuses: Building the city for the visitor class. Urban Affairs Review35 (3): 316–33.
18.
FainsteinS. S.JuddD. R.1999. Global forces, local strategies, and urban tourism. In The Tourist City, edited by JuddD. R.FainsteinS. S., 1–20. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
19.
FosterK.1997. The political economy of special-purpose government. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ. Press.
20.
GeorgeA. L.BennettA.2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
21.
GibsonT. A.2004. Securing the spectacular city. New York: Lexington Books.
22.
GrahamS.MarvinS.2001. Splintering urbanism. New York: Routledge.
23.
Green-PedersenC.WolfeM.2009. The institutionalization of environmental attention in the United States and Denmark: multiple- versus single-venue systems. Governance22 (4): 625–46.
24.
HansonS. E.2008. The contribution of area studies. Newsletter of the APSA Section on Qualitative & Multi-Method Research6 (2): 35–43.
25.
HulaR. C.HaringC.2004. Shaping urban agendas: An examination of state intervention in local policy arenas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
26.
JonesC. O.StrahanR.1985. The effect of energy politics on congressional and executive organization in the 1970s. Legislative Studies Quarterly10 (2): 151–79.
27.
JonesM. D.Jenkins-SmithH. C.2009. Trans-subsystem dynamics: Policy topography, mass opinion, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal37 (1): 37–58.
28.
JuddD. R.2003. Reconstructing regional politics. Great Cities Institute, College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago, 1–7.
29.
JuddD. R.SimpsonD.2003. Reconstructing the local state: The role of external constituencies in building urban tourism. American Behavioral Scientist46 (8): 1056–69.
30.
KassJ.EglerD.1988a. Sox will stay if legislature OKs proposal. Chicago Tribune, News, May12, p. 1.
31.
KassJ.EglerD.1988b. Progress seen on Sox stadium deal. Chicago Tribune, Chicagoland, June17, p. 3.
32.
KassJ.EglerD.1988c. Legislators vote to save Sox; bipartisan rally pushes deal through. Chicago Tribune, News, July1, p. 1.
33.
LasloD.JuddD. R.2006. Building civic capacity through an elastic local state: The case of St. Louis. Review of Policy Research23 (6): 1235–55.
34.
MayP. J.SapotichneJ.WorkmanS.2009. Widespread policy disruption: Terrorism, public risks, and homeland security. Policy Studies Journal37 (2): 171–94.
35.
McCarronJ.1986. Stadium developers win over Sox. Chicago Tribune, Chicagoland, May1, p. 1.
36.
McCarronJ.1987. Politics ties up new Sox park. Chicago Tribune, Chicagoland, July15, p. 1.
37.
McCarronJ.KarwathR.1986. City, Sox are talking stadium again. Chicago Tribune, Chicagoland, December2, p. 1.
38.
MillerL. L.2008. The Perils of Federalism: Race, Poverty, and the Politics of Crime ControlOxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
39.
MonkkonenE. H.1995. The local state: public money and American cities. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
40.
NiceD.FredericksenP.1995. The Politics of Intergovernmental Relations, 2nd ed.Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
41.
PaganoM. A.1990. State-local relations in the 1990s. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science509:94–105.
42.
PelisseroJ. P.HenschenB. M.SidlowE. I.1991. Urban regimes, sports stadiums, and the politics of economic development agendas in Chicago. Policy Studies Review10 (2): 117–29.
43.
PerryD. C.2003. Urban tourism and the privatizing discourses of public infrastructure. In The infrastructure of play: Building the tourist city, edited by JuddD. R., 19–49. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
44.
PetersonP. E.1981. City limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
45.
PralleS. B.2003. Venue shopping, political strategy, and policy change. Journal of Public Policy23 (3): 233–60.
PrincenS.2007. Agenda-setting in the European Union: A theoretical exploration and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy14 (1): 21–38.
48.
PrincenS.KerremansB.2008. Opportunity structures in the EU multi-level system. West European Politics31 (6): 1129–46.
49.
SandersH. T.1992. Building the convention city: Politics, finance, and public investment in urban America. Journal of Urban Affairs14 (2): 135–59.
50.
SandersH. T.2005. Space available: The realities of convention centers as economic development strategies. Research Brief. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
51.
SapotichneJ.2007. Regime capacity and strategic rhetoric: how to frame the debate over publicly financed sports stadiums. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, Seattle, WA.
52.
SapotichneJ.JonesB. D.2011. Setting city agendas: Power and policy change. In Oxford handbook of urban politics, edited by MossbergerK.ClarkeS. E.JohnP.Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
53.
SchattschneiderE. E.1960. The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
54.
SmithJ. M.2010a. “Re-stating” theories of urban development: The politics of authority creation and intergovernmental triads in postindustrial Chicago. Journal of Urban Affairs32 (4): 425–48.
55.
SmithJ. M.2010b. Reinventing the local state: Chicago and the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority. PhD diss., Univ. of Illinois at Chicago.
56.
SonensheinR. J.Hogan-EschT.2006. Bringing the state (government) back in: Home rule and the politics of secession in Los Angeles and New York City. Urban Affairs Review41 (4): 467–91.
57.
SpirouC.BennettL.2003. It’s hardly sportin’: Stadiums, neighborhoods, and the new Chicago. DeKalb: Northern Illinois Univ. Press.
