least likely to deliver economic impact. That said, this is all from the perspective of a government choosing to *subsidize* a stadium, not whether it should be allowed or privately financed.

Suburban means it's a drive straight there and drive straight home crowd requiring special purpose and expensive infrastructure to support that. I'm not sure it delivers more real estate tax than most other uses (especially if you gave tax breaks to bring it in) assuming there are other development possibilities (which is almost certainly true anywhere a large stadium would be desirable).

Football only delivers a dozen or so events and maybe some concerts/festivals. It is a big ol' empty building in the way the other 350 days of the year. It isn't creating many jobs even if it needs a lot at once.

On the other hand, take a look at (what is it called this month?) the former MCI Center. You have 100 home games between 2 major tenants and dozens and dozens of other events. It's only a couple of blocks wide so it doesn't really disrupt the city a whole lot and it has retail on the ground floor; you could practically miss the fact there's a stadium there. Metro's current management issues aside, the potential of the metro system only needs incremental special infrastructure.

An RFK where you're in the city, but next to a natural barrier (or other) in a quieter area anyways is a decent compromise. It sort of works at M&T in Baltimore. I suspect it kind of works in Cincinnati as well. Probably others.

That's not to say a stadium shouldn't be built in the suburbs, but I just don't think a county government has much business expecting a return on investment.