Actually, when Arco was first built, it was pretty empty out there. Development has been stalled more than once for flood/levee issues in that part of the county. But it is only minutes from downtown and there is a LOT more development near it now.
Nothing is wrong with the location of the land actually. The problem is there is no way to raise money to finance a new arena on that site, without a huge government subsidy of some source. like municipal bonds, hotel/rental car tax, restaurant tax, sales tax increase, etc. Those have all been porposed with resounding noes in Sacramento. What they are trying to do with the last proposals (with Cal Expo, the convergence plan and now with viosionquest/others) is lure in a developer who will build an arena in exchange for be able to development some land and make there money from the development, e.g., housing, retail, commercial, theme park.
The whole thing might have been easier and certainly less costly, if Arco Arena could have been remodeled. However, consultants, including sopme for the city, have all concluded that the foundation will not support the upgrades that would be need. Arco was built on the super-cheap. The Palace of Auburn Hills, which has been renovated, was built the same year as Arco. Arco's cost was half that of the Palace. That is a ginormous difference in cost for projects of that size.
Does that answer your question?
Edit: Vegas is pretty much an extension of the LA market. There pretty much Laker fans down there and only a relatively short drive from the LA area. Anyway, they don't seem to be getting an arena built either, at least not right now.
Nothing is wrong with the location of the land actually. The problem is there is no way to raise money to finance a new arena on that site, without a huge government subsidy of some source. like municipal bonds, hotel/rental car tax, restaurant tax, sales tax increase, etc. Those have all been porposed with resounding noes in Sacramento. What they are trying to do with the last proposals (with Cal Expo, the convergence plan and now with viosionquest/others) is lure in a developer who will build an arena in exchange for be able to development some land and make there money from the development, e.g., housing, retail, commercial, theme park.
The whole thing might have been easier and certainly less costly, if Arco Arena could have been remodeled. However, consultants, including sopme for the city, have all concluded that the foundation will not support the upgrades that would be need. Arco was built on the super-cheap. The Palace of Auburn Hills, which has been renovated, was built the same year as Arco. Arco's cost was half that of the Palace. That is a ginormous difference in cost for projects of that size.
Does that answer your question?
Edit: Vegas is pretty much an extension of the LA market. There pretty much Laker fans down there and only a relatively short drive from the LA area. Anyway, they don't seem to be getting an arena built either, at least not right now.