This week city officials announced that they want a new arena to rise where the old one stands on Baltimore Street. Some advocates say this would be good news for the west side because it's a chance to redesign the arena, which isolates itself from the neighborhood with its sole entrance and lack of street-level stores.

Others argue that an arena is not what the west side needs.

The AIA Baltimore Urban Design Committee "suggested the site be used for an urban park, a transit center and a mix of retail, residential and office space," Steve Kiehl reports today. He quotes Klaus Philipsen, co-chairman of the committee and president of ArchPlan Inc. in Baltimore:

"We're disappointed the arguments we put forth were not heard," Philipsen said. He said small, intimate blocks would be more inviting than a massive arena which, at 18,500 seats, would be even larger than the present 14,000-seat arena.

Funding is another point of contention. The city suggests using public money for most of the $300 million cost. That's par for the course when it comes to sports facilities, but economists frequently argue that building sports facilities is not an efficient use of taxpayer money. (Washington had this same debate over Nationals Park.) The Boston Globe ran an interesting story in 2006 about cities having second thoughts about who should pay.

If you had the final say on close to $300 million in taxpayer money, what would you do with it?