Seven proposals emerge for a Sacramento arena
- Thread starter Fear the Putin
- Start date
I would have no problem with out of Sacramento City or even out of the county. Just like River Cats stadium went up right over the river in biz friendly Yolo county. Of course, not as far as San Joaquin county, but Placer (around Lincoln, Roseville, Rocklin) or El Dorado (around Folsom) would be just fine.
There's several newer sports arenas and stadiums that once were located in downtown core areas that are now quite a ways out. The Palace in Auburn Hills, Michigan is nearly 30 miles north of downtown Detroit. That would be like having a Sacramento Kings arena up past Woodland, over by Dixon or around Cameron Park or Loomis. I'm not suggesting it, but like everyone else just want something feasible to happen - soon!
There's several newer sports arenas and stadiums that once were located in downtown core areas that are now quite a ways out. The Palace in Auburn Hills, Michigan is nearly 30 miles north of downtown Detroit. That would be like having a Sacramento Kings arena up past Woodland, over by Dixon or around Cameron Park or Loomis. I'm not suggesting it, but like everyone else just want something feasible to happen - soon!
For a lot of us Elk Grove people it wouldn't make much of a difference.. 
30 mins to Stockton, 30 mins to Natomas..
30 mins to Stockton, 30 mins to Natomas..
At this point, I don't care if they float it in the middle of Folsom Lake and fans have to swim in!
AND I would hike the fifteen miles from my house in 100 degree weather to get there. BRING IT ON!!!
Edit: I'm the type of fan that would pay for an arena outright and guarantee the Kings / Maloofs permanent residency - as long as they kept it in good shape and ran it so that I turned just a little profit off of it. If only I had Bill Gates money...
Edit further:
Some people are disgusting. I've been reading through comments made on some of these stories, to see if there were still people who actually believed that Sacramento and the Kings did not need a new arena. There are, and quite obviously these people have never been to Arco. They claim that Arco is adequate, meets citizen's needs, that there are more pressing socio-cultural concerns. The concerns they list are petty, little gripes about public transport to the airport, they complain about traffic - which MAY be a minor concern about 35 times a year, if people don't pull their heads out and plan around whatever event is going on. And, YES! A pithy twenty minute hangup is well worth having a first class entertainment venue in Sacramento. I suggest concentrating on being happy about possessing a job that requires a commute back and forth between at all. If a person is going to suggest that Arco is adequate, that a new Arena isn't worth the trouble of working towards, then I will view them as being as bad for this city as Heather Fargo, and equally inept.
Last edited:
I just don't get these people. If someone cites high Kings ticket prices, low attendance, and current adequate facilities, then they are obviously not looking at the bigger picture, and they should be ignored.
Here are my points of view:
1. The Kings will not be the only entity utilizing the arena. If anyone has been to a concert, circus, monster truck show - anything- at Arco, the need for more modern facilities becomes instantly apparent. The concourses are too small, the sound quality for concerts is horrifying, monster trucks scare the he## out of anyone in the lower bowl because there's no room, etc, etc... Having Arco arena be our first class event attractor is an embarrassment.
1a. Kings ticket prices really aren't that high. Teams who offer lower prices typically have 3 - 5000 more seats in their arena, and they are of considerably worse quality.
2. The Kings do not have the lowest attendance in the league. Everyone took a hit during the recession. Also, it is understandable that former season ticket holders would feel like they wasted their money given recent team failure. Many teams are throwing out inflated attendance numbers. A successful team = sell out games. It will get there.
3. Arco is a concrete oddity built on the fly for 40 million in private funds as a stop gap measure. Many of the wooden floors and uncomfortable seats were moved from old Arco 1. The people should have understood that this would happen. I don't know why they're so against it.
If a person has no interest in going out to do things with their families and friends at large social events that require arena amenities, then fine. Keep your mouth shut and spare us your undermining tone, and avoid looking comparatively ignorant about the issue. KJ already said he would not take an arena plan funded with taxpayer money seriously, so such a person has no stake. Makes me sick.
Here are my points of view:
1. The Kings will not be the only entity utilizing the arena. If anyone has been to a concert, circus, monster truck show - anything- at Arco, the need for more modern facilities becomes instantly apparent. The concourses are too small, the sound quality for concerts is horrifying, monster trucks scare the he## out of anyone in the lower bowl because there's no room, etc, etc... Having Arco arena be our first class event attractor is an embarrassment.
1a. Kings ticket prices really aren't that high. Teams who offer lower prices typically have 3 - 5000 more seats in their arena, and they are of considerably worse quality.
2. The Kings do not have the lowest attendance in the league. Everyone took a hit during the recession. Also, it is understandable that former season ticket holders would feel like they wasted their money given recent team failure. Many teams are throwing out inflated attendance numbers. A successful team = sell out games. It will get there.
3. Arco is a concrete oddity built on the fly for 40 million in private funds as a stop gap measure. Many of the wooden floors and uncomfortable seats were moved from old Arco 1. The people should have understood that this would happen. I don't know why they're so against it.
If a person has no interest in going out to do things with their families and friends at large social events that require arena amenities, then fine. Keep your mouth shut and spare us your undermining tone, and avoid looking comparatively ignorant about the issue. KJ already said he would not take an arena plan funded with taxpayer money seriously, so such a person has no stake. Makes me sick.
I'd strongly recommend that you stop reading any of the comments at sacbee.com - They'll only make you jaded and very depressed about the area in which we live. People with intelligent points of view rarely post there as it's too hard to carry on a discussion while you're trying to keep from stepping in all the cesspools of excrement.
I know a number of people who used to make the occasional comment but have realized that it's just not worth the effort.
I know a number of people who used to make the occasional comment but have realized that it's just not worth the effort.
Just going off the little info provided in the Bee this week, I think a few of these proposals are nice in spirit, but a long shot in reality. The site selection needs to be closer to a real groundbreaking. This elimates the pie in the sky sites like the Riverfront and Downtown Plaza sites.
The sites in my opinion that can be realistic are the railyards and the Natomas land next to Arco. The railyards has come a long way in the last few years as they are now doing the infrastructure work for roads, bridges and moving of the tracks. A few years ago they had gotten quite far in discussions with the city and the Kings on key issues like parking. The other sites haven't even begun to tackle these yet and obviously have limitations that the railyards can overcome with total acres available.
The Natomas site can also quickly be developed. The issue there like all of them is where the money is coming from to pay for the building costs. Surrounding retail development seems to be one of those tools used to avoid public funding. I see limited potential in the Natomas site for that. The railyards does seem to have the edge there since they are motivated to develop in large scale.
But I'm worried if they can't get Cal Expo going with similar funding ideas, why is the railyards going to work? But I will be a little optimistic because there is one site with construction happening right now... the railyards.
The sites in my opinion that can be realistic are the railyards and the Natomas land next to Arco. The railyards has come a long way in the last few years as they are now doing the infrastructure work for roads, bridges and moving of the tracks. A few years ago they had gotten quite far in discussions with the city and the Kings on key issues like parking. The other sites haven't even begun to tackle these yet and obviously have limitations that the railyards can overcome with total acres available.
The Natomas site can also quickly be developed. The issue there like all of them is where the money is coming from to pay for the building costs. Surrounding retail development seems to be one of those tools used to avoid public funding. I see limited potential in the Natomas site for that. The railyards does seem to have the edge there since they are motivated to develop in large scale.
But I'm worried if they can't get Cal Expo going with similar funding ideas, why is the railyards going to work? But I will be a little optimistic because there is one site with construction happening right now... the railyards.
Cal Expo is still pretty viable, but its more market turnaround dependent due to the involvement of a private developer. The Cal Expo Board has legal authority to issue bonds for some of the financing, which is a form of government subsidy.
I wouldn't mind the Railyards site, but believe me, the city is moving like super slo mo on getting their act together to move development forward. The State has obligated some funds, but are not very happy with the lack of progress so far. The city promised the developer $1 billion in public subsidy, before they had really identified where all that will come from. That sounds like a lot, but it will be spread out over all the phases which will take decades. I'm not sure how fast they could get to constructing an arena.
I wouldn't mind the Railyards site, but believe me, the city is moving like super slo mo on getting their act together to move development forward. The State has obligated some funds, but are not very happy with the lack of progress so far. The city promised the developer $1 billion in public subsidy, before they had really identified where all that will come from. That sounds like a lot, but it will be spread out over all the phases which will take decades. I'm not sure how fast they could get to constructing an arena.
N
I heard Tripp Development was withdrawn from the arena proposals.
One of the proposals by Ali Mackani and Teamfor the downtown mall is apparently very cool. The proposal would demo all four blocks of the east end of the mall and put the arena in there with shopping on three sides of the arena. The Mall would be several levels with roof top gardens for the public to enjoy. It's expected to cost 500million but with demo and all that it should be closer to 700.
One of the proposals by Ali Mackani and Teamfor the downtown mall is apparently very cool. The proposal would demo all four blocks of the east end of the mall and put the arena in there with shopping on three sides of the arena. The Mall would be several levels with roof top gardens for the public to enjoy. It's expected to cost 500million but with demo and all that it should be closer to 700.
