This dissertation project explores how three distinct networks worked for and in opposition to the proposed construction of three Temple University athletic facilities all located within the Northern Philadelphia neighborhood of Cecil B Moore. Specifically, I conduct a network analysis of the three networks of elites who advocated for the construction of Pearson and McGonigle Hall athletic facility in the late 1960s, the Liacouras Center in the mid-nineties, and the contemporary proposed construction of a new football stadium in order to gain a deeper understanding of how these pro- development networks operate, promote urban development, and to explore how these pro-development networks have evolved over time. I do the same for the networks of activists who have attempted to halt these development projects. I employ a mixed method approach which combines ethnographic field observations, in-depth interviews, and a quantitative investigation. I answer the following research questions: 1) How have the demographic characteristics of actors who were members of the Pearson and McGonigle Hall, Liacouras Center, and the Football Pro and Anti-Development Networks changed over time? 2) What strategies were employed by the Pro-Stadium Network to promote Temple development and why were these strategies unsuccessful? 3) What strategies were employed by the Stomper Network to oppose Temple development and why were these strategies successful? I find that while across development eras pro-development networks remain majority White, Democrat, Male, and most network members were working in the educational field, there are noteworthy changes in network demographics. I find there is less consistency in the demographics of anti-development networks over time. Although these networks remain majority Black and Democrat, there is a noteworthy increase in Female network members and White network members over time. In my analysis of how the Pro-Stadium Network promoted Temple development, I examine the strategies employed by the Pro-Stadium Network, focusing specifically on the network's public outreach strategy. I address why the network was not successful at convincing residents and politicians to support the building of a football stadium in Cecil B Moore. I find that the Pro-Stadium Network did not provide basic details about the project, and this was an obvious omission. I also address why the Pro-Stadium Network might have been more successful if it attempted to establish a dialogue with residents prior to announcing the plans for the stadium. However, it is not clear that even with a detailed plan the Pro-Stadium Network would have been successful. It is possible that the political currents had shifted since the last period of Temple development. In my analysis of how the Stomper Network opposed Temple development I examine the strategies employed by the Stomper Network, focusing specifically on the network's public outreach strategy. I find the Stomper Network attempted to establish a dialogue with residents immediately after the network became active. The Stomper Network was also able to check the effectiveness of its messaging with residents and to counter the claims of the Pro-Stadium Network. This contributed to the Stomper Network's ability to exploit the shortcomings of the Pro-Stadium Network's outreach strategy. I hypothesize that the possibility that a growing negative view of urban development in Cecil B Moore made the construction of the football stadium impossible. I focus some of this discussion on how the Pro-Stadium Network has received more scrutiny than the two historical pro-development networks. In doing so, I hypothesize that this growing public scrutiny of Temple development projects in Cecil B Moore and an emerging negative view of urban development may have hampered the Pro-Stadium Network's attempts to build a football stadium in Cecil B Moore. I find theories of urban growth and elite theory fit the development processes for both the Pearson and McGonigle Hall and the Liacouras Center. However, the attempt to construct a football stadium in Cecil B Moore is not consistent with theories of urban growth and elite theory. The struggle over Temple's proposed football stadium is more consistent with pluralist theory and Henri Lefebvre’s right to the city. / Sociology