Here’s some renderings of how Chester plans to redevelop the waterfront. https://www.bizjournals.com/philade...d6XmFmOpczRC3LLyUgLVP5v4jp1nUMpM7lc64s7AGDKUc
I couldn't read the article because of the paywall but my own anecdotal experience over these last months is a lot of companies have realized they can shed hella amounts of their office leases and get by just fine. What impact this will have on the office real estate market I don't know. As for condo space that area is always going to be a tough sell unless it comes in super affordable somehow.
Given that Keystone Sports/the Union have purchased so much property around the stadium, it seems like they plan on being there for a while. I believe there’s a relatively inexpensive $10 million buy out in their lease which would free them to play in another stadium (for example, if something were built as part of the Penn’s Landing redevelopment). I like the current stadium a lot, but I’m not sure it’s the best long term location for the club. If the Union is committing long term, the government of Chester should be appreciative (despite the Union falling short of preconstruction development ambitions).
It's not the lease that's an issue, it's the lack of elsewhere to play. They control the revenue here, why pay to play elsewhere?
The Sixers are actively seeking sites for a stadium so they can better control revenue (similar to the Union, as you correctly point out). The Inquirer recently ran an article citing about 5 plausible stadium locations (38th-ish & Lancaster and a South Philly site owned by Nicoletti come to mind). The Union could also continue to control their revenue in a better location, and an improved location could help better embed the team in the region’s sports psyche/spending — but your response raises a very good point: this is a Sugarman-owned team. As long as he owns, there will be no ambition to try for a better stadium situation.