This is really depressing...
- Thread starter Merdiesel
- Start date
At this time, MSE has consistently reiterated their intent to stay in Sacramento. There are repeated hints of another plan being worked on if Q+R fail, most likely a variation on the previous attempts to rezone private land for faster development, with a portion of the realized profits from the landowners going to a new arena.
Last edited:
and that's exactly what the NBA wants and (in some form) requires. The league wants their business to grow, and it has to make sure that its teams have the opportunity to increase business. If you're in a building where growth opportunity is limited, then the league wants the team in a venue where it can. This is why there's this push for new arenas; not just in Sacto but all over the league.
Well, that and Arco is a dump compared to 90% of the other teams buildings. The sticky at the top of the forum has all the problems with Arco listed.
Bottom line, it's not really a viable facility for just about any event in the near term. Yugo's and Hyundai's weren't built to last - neither was Arco.
Bottom line, it's not really a viable facility for just about any event in the near term. Yugo's and Hyundai's weren't built to last - neither was Arco.
Actually, that isn't the true. Revenue is in short supply in this small market. There is a lack of luxury boxes; TV revenues are miniscule compared to places like NY, LA or Chicago; and a severe lack of corporate base.
That is why tickets are relatively costly here. The average ticket buyer is being asked to make up for all the revenue sources not available here. Besides the ticket surcharge added to pay off the existing city loan to the franchise. A loan that was given to the team, because they were going bankrupt.
Sacramento is a government town. Not much in the way of corporate sponsors. Its only 90 miles to SF. Most corporations would rather be in the bay area, if at all possible. Shipping from there is much easier, among other advantages.
Meanwhile, Arco was very cheaply built, is less and less able to accomodate events and is more an more costly to maintain. It needs a new roof right now, which likely would cost millions. But it would be like putting Chanel No. 5 on a pig. A waste of money.
I don't do code inspections, but I do property management-type inspections. Arco was cheap and the signs of decline are there. I actually look around and can see that the Maloofs have done a very good job of keeping the public face of Arco in decent shape. Probably to the deteriment of the argument that Arco needs replacing, but they really do want to give the customer a good experience.
Honestly tho? Arco is a dump. If you go to just about any other NBA arena, the comparison is pathetic. There are college basketball arenas all over this country that put Arco to shame. Its an embarrassment. Parts of the interior of Arco, are actually older than the current arena, because they came from Arco I.
We all love Arco, but that's really just nostalgia, memories. Good memories. A new arena won't take away the memories and what Arco Arena has meant to Sacramento fans. It would just be nice to have a new arena to make more memories in.
That is why tickets are relatively costly here. The average ticket buyer is being asked to make up for all the revenue sources not available here. Besides the ticket surcharge added to pay off the existing city loan to the franchise. A loan that was given to the team, because they were going bankrupt.
Sacramento is a government town. Not much in the way of corporate sponsors. Its only 90 miles to SF. Most corporations would rather be in the bay area, if at all possible. Shipping from there is much easier, among other advantages.
Meanwhile, Arco was very cheaply built, is less and less able to accomodate events and is more an more costly to maintain. It needs a new roof right now, which likely would cost millions. But it would be like putting Chanel No. 5 on a pig. A waste of money.
I don't do code inspections, but I do property management-type inspections. Arco was cheap and the signs of decline are there. I actually look around and can see that the Maloofs have done a very good job of keeping the public face of Arco in decent shape. Probably to the deteriment of the argument that Arco needs replacing, but they really do want to give the customer a good experience.
Honestly tho? Arco is a dump. If you go to just about any other NBA arena, the comparison is pathetic. There are college basketball arenas all over this country that put Arco to shame. Its an embarrassment. Parts of the interior of Arco, are actually older than the current arena, because they came from Arco I.
We all love Arco, but that's really just nostalgia, memories. Good memories. A new arena won't take away the memories and what Arco Arena has meant to Sacramento fans. It would just be nice to have a new arena to make more memories in.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm afraid too many folks will keep thinking the Kings couldn't possibly leave....right up until the league announces they've approved it.
That is true, but you know what I always find confusing?
In 1999, at a cost of $84M, New Orleans build what seems to have been the last reasonably-priced arena in the NBA, seating 18,000. Since then, they seem to have jumped to $350M, then $500M. Construction costs haven't gone up THAT much!
Why is it that, say, Univ. of South Carolina can build Colonial Center, which seats 18,000, for $64M, or Virginia can be starting a new arena for 15,000 at a cost of $75M, but every recent NBA venue seems to have to cost 7-10 times as much? Sure, we want it to be nice, but can't it be an Acura instead of a Lamborghini?
Sometimes I just get the impression that, when it comes to professional sports arenas, folks aren't always treating other peoples' money like they would their own. I don't know what combination of bad planning, greed or corruption might be involved, but it seems wrong. With one of the smallest markets in the NBA, and no significant corporate sponsors, the numbers I heard started out at $800M-$1B, and as those numbers went down the Maloofs started expressing doubt that the place would be adequate.
Why so expensive? Would an arena the size of Colonial Center or New Orleans Arena, but about twice as expensive -- say $150M -- be totally intolerable?
In 1999, at a cost of $84M, New Orleans build what seems to have been the last reasonably-priced arena in the NBA, seating 18,000. Since then, they seem to have jumped to $350M, then $500M. Construction costs haven't gone up THAT much!
Why is it that, say, Univ. of South Carolina can build Colonial Center, which seats 18,000, for $64M, or Virginia can be starting a new arena for 15,000 at a cost of $75M, but every recent NBA venue seems to have to cost 7-10 times as much? Sure, we want it to be nice, but can't it be an Acura instead of a Lamborghini?
Sometimes I just get the impression that, when it comes to professional sports arenas, folks aren't always treating other peoples' money like they would their own. I don't know what combination of bad planning, greed or corruption might be involved, but it seems wrong. With one of the smallest markets in the NBA, and no significant corporate sponsors, the numbers I heard started out at $800M-$1B, and as those numbers went down the Maloofs started expressing doubt that the place would be adequate.
Why so expensive? Would an arena the size of Colonial Center or New Orleans Arena, but about twice as expensive -- say $150M -- be totally intolerable?
Your main error is in thinking construction and land costs are the same throughout the US. They aren't. It's expensive to build and maintain a business in California. Very expensive.
You're comparing costs to North Carolina and Virginia? Totally apples and oranges. Look at the costs-of-living for North Carolina and Virginia, as compared to California. I think you'll be more than a little surprised at what you find.
You're comparing costs to North Carolina and Virginia? Totally apples and oranges. Look at the costs-of-living for North Carolina and Virginia, as compared to California. I think you'll be more than a little surprised at what you find.
A great point is made by VF
hope I am not breaking any rules but take for example...
in VA ..
http://www.realtor.com/FindHome/Hom...7857C756454C&snumxlid=1058631886&lnksrc=00002
here
http://realtor.com/FindHome/HomeLis...7857B83755EC&snumxlid=1066828692&lnksrc=00002
hope I am not breaking any rules but take for example...
in VA ..
http://www.realtor.com/FindHome/Hom...7857C756454C&snumxlid=1058631886&lnksrc=00002
here
http://realtor.com/FindHome/HomeLis...7857B83755EC&snumxlid=1066828692&lnksrc=00002
Land and development costs in California are among the highest anywhere in the world. Another problem for trying to get a deal done here. The demand for construction materials, contractors and labor in New Orleans and other hurricane-hit areas will keep construction costs high for a long time all over the US.
Problem is, the longer it takes the more expensive it becomes.
Problem is, the longer it takes the more expensive it becomes.
We've been through this before, but lots of things add up to the higher cost here:
Land prices
Wages
Construction materials (costs SKYROCKETED after Katrina)
Environmental studies and compliance
to name a few. The problem with shooting for an "Acura" is you end up cutting so many corners you effectively end up with a Yugo, and hence the reason we're doing all this right now.
Land prices
Wages
Construction materials (costs SKYROCKETED after Katrina)
Environmental studies and compliance
to name a few. The problem with shooting for an "Acura" is you end up cutting so many corners you effectively end up with a Yugo, and hence the reason we're doing all this right now.
Another factor is the difference in position between New Orleans and Sacramento. In New Orleans, they built the arena before they had a team. There were no pressures on them in terms of specifics. They just needed to build a decent middle of the road arena in the hopes of attracting a team. (which they ended up doing) I've been to New Orleans Arena. There's nothing fancy about it and its an average to slightly below average facility in terms of modern NBA facilities. In New Orleans's case, the city held all the leverage since there was no team there at the time to make outrageous demands in terms of extras and miscellanous attractions within the arena
In Sacramento's case, there's a team already there and the team has all of the leverage. The Kings are threatening to leave and as a result have the ability to scare the city into building a top of the line arena on par with the best in the NBA. The city would love to settle for a place like New Orleans Arena but that just won't happen in this case because the Kings organization won't have it and will demand that a top of the line arena be put forth on referendum.
But that's a comparatively small factor when compared to land, labor, and material costs. Plus on average, building codes and environmental regulations in California tend to be higher than states like Louisiana.
In Sacramento's case, there's a team already there and the team has all of the leverage. The Kings are threatening to leave and as a result have the ability to scare the city into building a top of the line arena on par with the best in the NBA. The city would love to settle for a place like New Orleans Arena but that just won't happen in this case because the Kings organization won't have it and will demand that a top of the line arena be put forth on referendum.
But that's a comparatively small factor when compared to land, labor, and material costs. Plus on average, building codes and environmental regulations in California tend to be higher than states like Louisiana.
Haas Pavilion (UC Berkeley): seats 11,877, built 1999, cost $57.5M
Galen Center (USC), in LA's Exposition Park area: seats 10,258, built 2005-2006, cost $147M, but includes 3 practice courts, offices, restaurant, 22 luxury suites, two buildings with about 2500 parking spaces, and several other small buildings.
http://usctrojans.cstv.com/facilities/usc-galen-center.html
Developing enormously expensive real estate projects definitely isn't my area of expertise, but it does seem weird to me that you could build two arena complexes seating a total of 20,500 people in the middle of LA for under $300M, post-Katrina, but couldn't put that many seats in the Sacramento area for even 50% more than that. Last time I was in LA it was a lot more expensive than Sacramento. But what do I know?
Galen Center (USC), in LA's Exposition Park area: seats 10,258, built 2005-2006, cost $147M, but includes 3 practice courts, offices, restaurant, 22 luxury suites, two buildings with about 2500 parking spaces, and several other small buildings.
http://usctrojans.cstv.com/facilities/usc-galen-center.html
Developing enormously expensive real estate projects definitely isn't my area of expertise, but it does seem weird to me that you could build two arena complexes seating a total of 20,500 people in the middle of LA for under $300M, post-Katrina, but couldn't put that many seats in the Sacramento area for even 50% more than that. Last time I was in LA it was a lot more expensive than Sacramento. But what do I know?
Well, 1999 is forever ago in terms of real estate and construction costs.
The proposed Sacramento arena, would be something like twice the size of the Galen Center and have far more amenities, including almost twice the luxury boxes. It also looks like a one concourse arena. That's one of the problems with the current Arco.
My guess is the arena is on land already owned by USC. No land purchase costs = huge savings.
Also, its completed. Plans for Arco have to take into account inflation and the ever present possibility of unforseeable costs. A contigency amount ahs to be built in.
Finally, I couldn't tell what the financing was for Galen. If alumni donations were substantial, that means no interest (and no debt service). Another huge savings in cost. And possibly the students voted for a student fee increase like they did at Sac State. Again, no interest and no debt service.
That's just off the top of my head.
The proposed Sacramento arena, would be something like twice the size of the Galen Center and have far more amenities, including almost twice the luxury boxes. It also looks like a one concourse arena. That's one of the problems with the current Arco.
My guess is the arena is on land already owned by USC. No land purchase costs = huge savings.
Also, its completed. Plans for Arco have to take into account inflation and the ever present possibility of unforseeable costs. A contigency amount ahs to be built in.
Finally, I couldn't tell what the financing was for Galen. If alumni donations were substantial, that means no interest (and no debt service). Another huge savings in cost. And possibly the students voted for a student fee increase like they did at Sac State. Again, no interest and no debt service.
That's just off the top of my head.
Land acquisition is a very large cost in an arena situation anywhere. Here in Cal its so expensive and that is part of the problem. But the land around Arco is already owned by MSE and that is why I think a Natomas location is desired by the team. Plus they get their exclusivity by standing alone out there, not downtown in a redeveolpment of the railyard with Bass Pro etc. all around.
The Maloofs own the 85 acres that Arco resides on. There is 100 acres next door to Arco that is owned by the city. That has been talked about as a secondary site if the railyard doesn't work. The positive is that this land would not need to be purchased to build a new arena and the necessary infrastructure for Arco (sewer, roads, etc.) already are in place. I could reduce the cost of a new arena by a significant amout. I'm conservatively guessing maybe 1/5th less than the railyard.
land use
If an arena is to be built in Natomas, why not build it on the Maloof property, that they donate to the cause, in addition to putting up some of the money for a new arena? It should not be entirely paid for by the taxpayers. No facility should be paid for entirely by the taxpayers unless they the city gets some revenue from it. Some people may argue that the lease payments proposed is enough.. That is a trivial amount when compared to the entire cost. Or simply build it and give it to the Maloofs. It is the same thing as letting them lease it for 30 years. The bottom line is that it would give the area more tax dollars than the proposed lease does that will soon be rejected. I still think that the players, NBA and owners of all teams should contribute more to the cause of building this arenas so they have a location to conduct their "business" in.
If an arena is to be built in Natomas, why not build it on the Maloof property, that they donate to the cause, in addition to putting up some of the money for a new arena? It should not be entirely paid for by the taxpayers. No facility should be paid for entirely by the taxpayers unless they the city gets some revenue from it. Some people may argue that the lease payments proposed is enough.. That is a trivial amount when compared to the entire cost. Or simply build it and give it to the Maloofs. It is the same thing as letting them lease it for 30 years. The bottom line is that it would give the area more tax dollars than the proposed lease does that will soon be rejected. I still think that the players, NBA and owners of all teams should contribute more to the cause of building this arenas so they have a location to conduct their "business" in.
The problem with that is, ARCO already sits on those 85 acres. You have to build another arena before the current one can be torn down. If you tear down ARCO to build a new arena, then the Kings/Monarchs, ice shows, concerts, truck pulls, wrestling, graduation ceremonies, etc. have no place to go during the 3-5 year time frame it will take to tear down ARCO and build the new arena.
I could get a plan passed by the public
actually I never said anywhere in that post that the Maloofs should build it themselves. I know that would never happen, even though it is THEIR responsibility to provide a place for their business not the taxpayers.
but yes, I could put together a plan that would be approved by the voters. However the Maloofs proably would not agree to what they had to put into so that a facility would be built where they could continue to operate their business here. Of course, I would never announce that a plan was in place, until I had the details worked out, so I could show the taxpayers what they get for their money and how much it will cost. I would not ask people to approve something that doesnt have the details set in stone.
There are too many people like you that feel that the city of Sacramento and other areas must cater to the NBA and provide facilities so they can run their business. They should expect that they will have to build it themselves, but maybe ask fr public subsidy. That is not out of the question.
The question should be asked now: Why cant the Maloofs put up the amount of property at the current site to allow a new arena to be built.
actually I never said anywhere in that post that the Maloofs should build it themselves. I know that would never happen, even though it is THEIR responsibility to provide a place for their business not the taxpayers.
but yes, I could put together a plan that would be approved by the voters. However the Maloofs proably would not agree to what they had to put into so that a facility would be built where they could continue to operate their business here. Of course, I would never announce that a plan was in place, until I had the details worked out, so I could show the taxpayers what they get for their money and how much it will cost. I would not ask people to approve something that doesnt have the details set in stone.
There are too many people like you that feel that the city of Sacramento and other areas must cater to the NBA and provide facilities so they can run their business. They should expect that they will have to build it themselves, but maybe ask fr public subsidy. That is not out of the question.
The question should be asked now: Why cant the Maloofs put up the amount of property at the current site to allow a new arena to be built.
Last edited:
Your plan would have to also be acceptable to the Maloofs, whether you think it necessary or not.
And I'm sorry to inform you but the chances you could negotiate a deal secretly without it leaking to the public are slim to none, thanks in part to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association.
Luckily there aren't a lot of people like you who are so blind to the reality that businesses need to make money to continue to exist. The NBA provides entertainment. It exists where people are willing to support that entertainment. Associated benefits include employment, prestige, name recognition, and associated service industries that all benefit from having a major professional sports franchise.
The question at the end of your post is just silly. They can - and most likely would - put up the necessary property to allow the new arena to be built. It's been discussed before.
Once again, you're arguing without a clear understanding of the facts involved.
And I'm sorry to inform you but the chances you could negotiate a deal secretly without it leaking to the public are slim to none, thanks in part to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association.
Luckily there aren't a lot of people like you who are so blind to the reality that businesses need to make money to continue to exist. The NBA provides entertainment. It exists where people are willing to support that entertainment. Associated benefits include employment, prestige, name recognition, and associated service industries that all benefit from having a major professional sports franchise.
The question at the end of your post is just silly. They can - and most likely would - put up the necessary property to allow the new arena to be built. It's been discussed before.
Once again, you're arguing without a clear understanding of the facts involved.
Sorry buddy but this is sadly business. The Maloofs have all the negotiating power not the city. The Maloofs are threatening to leave Sacramento, not the other way around and as a result its a question of how much Sacramento does for the Maloofs rather than the Maloofs for Sacramento.
There are plenty of places in the country that want an NBA teams and several of those will bend over backwards to do whatever they can to attract a team. Those cities will publicly finance an arena and declare the Maloofs to be honorary kings of their respective cities if that means they get an NBA team.
The Maloofs aren't in Sacramento as a favor to the city, they are there to run a business. Now, granted there should be some loyalty on the part of ownership but accounting comes first and foremost. And in today's NBA, teams are able to force their way into getting cities to provide top-notch arenas. It happens everywhere else and it will have to happen in Sacramento.
There are plenty of places in the country that want an NBA teams and several of those will bend over backwards to do whatever they can to attract a team. Those cities will publicly finance an arena and declare the Maloofs to be honorary kings of their respective cities if that means they get an NBA team.
The Maloofs aren't in Sacramento as a favor to the city, they are there to run a business. Now, granted there should be some loyalty on the part of ownership but accounting comes first and foremost. And in today's NBA, teams are able to force their way into getting cities to provide top-notch arenas. It happens everywhere else and it will have to happen in Sacramento.
Only one problem with your post. The Maloofs have NEVER threatened to leave Sacramento. Not even once. Those comments have primarily come from people like R.E. Graswich. The Maloofs have said, as recently as about a week ago, that even if Q & R fails, they aren't going to pick up and leave. They said they'll find a way to get this project done. At some point down the road, if nothing can be done, they may have to seriously consider moving the team but right now, they want to stay.
