Articles Regarding ARCO's Suitability for Upgrades/Retrofits

C

CPR

Prospect
#1
#1
Anyone have links handy to the various articles and columns that have been in the Sacramento Bee over the years about the studies that were done on Arco by structural engineers, architects, etc.? I remember that it was determined some time back that Arco cannot be upgraded due to the foundation of the building and that the building was generally constructed in a very frugal manner.

I have continually wondered why the City and the Maloofs did not make a greater effort to explain these issues to the public on the previous attempts to get arena deals in place. The complete studies and reports have never been made available for public consumption, have they? I do not recall that happening. I really believe it would help the cause considerably if they were made public and a PR campaign explaining them went along with their release. It is clear from reading comments on the Sac Bee's website regarding today's release of the Cal Expo arena proposal and from talking with people around town that very few people realize or fully understand what is practically feasible with the current arena.

It would be wise if the NBA, the Cal Expo Board, and the Maloofs finally took some time to explain the nuts and bolts behind why the current Arco is not going to be viable long-term. A lot of people get it, but unfortunately most folks do not. It is hard to take issue with the people who do not when it has yet to be properly explained as part of an overall PR campaign for a new building.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#3
#3
It has been made public. In addition, we have a bunch of threads discussing what led to the inevitable conclusion that Arco was, indeed, dated...

We've got a thread going currently that lists reasons why Arco needs to be replaced so I was tempted to close this one. I do think there is one slight difference between the two threads, however, and upon reflection I'm reopening this one.

You know who is to blame for a lot of the misunderstanding? THE SACRAMENTO BEE! While people like Melody Gutierrez and MaryLynne Villegas and a few others actually have been pretty forthcoming about the real problems of Arco, some of the staff of the Bee apparently hate and detest the Maloofs and everything they're associated with.

There is a long-standing tradition, it seems to me, of negative reporting, omissions of stories about the Maloofs and their generosity to the Sacramento community, etc.

The reasons for replacing Arco are clearcut and obvious once you're able to find them and this should have been made clear by the area's only big daily paper. It wasn't, however, and at least part of the blame has to be laid directly at their "feet."
 
Last edited:
kennadog

kennadog

Dog On It!
#5
#5
PurpleHaze said:
NCAA calls Arco Arena "shabby" in rejecting future March Madness tourney games there. Mayor Johnson says situation embarrassing but no surprise - vows to take lead in getting something done about it:(

http://cbs13.com/cbsnational/sports/ncaa.arco.arena.2.1200401.html
Click to expand...
"Shabby" barely covers it. All reports were made public as they were reports done for the City. All concluded Arco was near the end of its "economic" life. In other words, no longer functional for many of the events usually held in an arena. I'm sure links are in one of these threads. It used to be you could go the city council website and see them.

Bottom line is that its' never been a question of "if" Arco needs replacing. The argument has really been about costs and who pays them. There is zero chance that the Maloofs can afford a new arena without some public funding help. I say if the developer of the railyards can be promised $1 billion dollars in pure subsidy, an arena ought to get some help. (Notice how fast the railyards have been developed - decades and no real groundbreaking yet :rolleyes:)

If the Kings leave, Sacramento will have no pro team and no arena for the many more events that happen in arenas.

Ironically enough, I think the Maloofs are partially "to blame" for people's impressions of Arco. They've done a darn good job of keeping the public areas as functional, maintained and clean as possible, because they really do believe in doing the best they can for their customers. This summer was the first time I was really aware of just how much Arco has deteriorated. It's really an embarrassment for a metropolitan area as big as Sacramento.

The only other explanation for why so many Sacramentans think Arco is "fine" is they apparently need to get out of Sacramento a whole lot more. Go see what other cities are accomplishing in architecture, entertainment and attractivenss of public areas. Go see an arena in other cities. You'd be hard-pressed to find one as crumbling and creaky as Arco, not to mention one as close to functionally obsolete.
 
kennadog

kennadog

Dog On It!
#9
#9
You must log in or register to reply here.