As aging stadiums across the country force cities and teams to confront costly upgrades, the choice between renovating an existing venue and building a new one carries high stakes for public budgets and team loyalty. Andrea Austin, a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig who represents public owners and professional teams on stadium projects, says the decision typically hinges on three questions: whether the public can afford its share of a new venue, whether the current location is irreplaceable, and whether the existing structure can be modernized to meet modern demands.
Before comparing costs, Austin recommends defining what a modern venue must deliver. Upgrading escalators, mechanical systems, security systems, and worn concrete is unglamorous but essential for efficient operations. For fans, fast Wi-Fi and quick food and beverage service are basic expectations, not extras. New gathering spaces—from exclusive clubs to open terraces—allow groups to mingle and circulate for a more interactive game-day experience. Teams, meanwhile, prioritize facilities that grow revenue through suites, sponsorships, and non-game events, and that help recruit top players and build fan loyalty. The real test is whether an existing building can be reshaped to deliver all those things at the right price.
Renovation likely makes the most sense in three situations, according to Austin. The first is when cost or political headwinds make a new build unattainable. The second is when the venue is an iconic community fixture, such as Wrigley Field in Chicago or Lambeau Field in Green Bay—places whose history and roots cannot simply be transplanted. The third is when the core structure is sound enough to be modernized. Most renovations proceed in phases so the team can keep playing, but Austin notes that phasing is a trade-off between finishing quickly and losing revenue from hosting fewer events during construction. NFL stadiums typically have an easier time because they host relatively fewer games, while arenas and ballparks with full calendars have less room to maneuver. Where possible, she advises consolidating the construction schedule to keep escalation costs down and reduce the risk that a renovation feels outdated upon completion.
Some venues cannot be fixed because the problem is the design. If a building’s core layout cannot be sufficiently retrofitted to meet modern needs, renovation money only goes so far. Austin points to Soldier Field in Chicago as an example of a renovation that ran into those limits. Lease terms can also force the issue: some leases include a facilities clause requiring the venue to meet first-class standards, and the lease can be voided if it falls short. She cites the St. Louis Rams’ relocation as an example of how these clauses can play out when sight lines cannot keep pace with comparable facilities. Teams and cities that sign such leases need to understand the annual cost of meeting benchmark standards and which party is responsible for improvements.
Because many stadiums are publicly owned, a city or stadium authority often sits at the negotiating table. For public owners of sports facilities, Austin recommends three steps before talks begin. First, hire an independent third party to assess what the facility actually needs—a team’s wish list and a building’s needs are not always the same. Second, ensure the investment is balanced, funding critical items like escalators, back-of-house systems, and building infrastructure, not only the suites and premium seating that generate revenue for the team. Third, know the numbers: define available reserves and confirm funding sources before discussions begin to negotiate from a clear position. Whether the answer is renovation or a new building, the goal is a venue that meets today’s standards under an agreement that works for the team and the community over the long term.
