Ailene Voisin: Arco Arena's limited size negates option of renovation

[Mike0476]

It's about time someone in the Sacramento media wrote an article on the need for a new arena and how renovating is not an option. Voisin compared ARCO Arena to Minnesota's Target Center since they were built at almost the same time (two years apart).

Blog:

http://blogs.sacbee.com/sports/kings/archives/2011/02/while-awaiting.html

Article:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/04/3376819/ailene-voisin-arco-arenas-limited.html

 

[Trueblood]

I hope the sacbee jokers finally see this and put to rest the option of renovating Arco.

As for the Target Center, it is 2 years younger than Arco but it's light years ahead of it. They're talking about a new renovation but they just had one 6 years ago where they replaced all the seats, added a matrix board and upgraded other elements of the arena. When I walked in there, I was surprised how modern it looked. When I got home, I checked wikipedia and they mentioned that all the seats were replaced in 2005 which is why it looked so brand new.

 

[fansinceday1]

Post from sacbee. How do these numbers jive with all the arguments you hear about a new arena?


Once again Voisin implies that a downtown location like Target Center is somehow better for the business of basketball than Sacramento's arena, and a similar downtown placement in Sacramento would attract a higher percentage of the population.

The numbers do not support the hypothesis. Compare Minnesota's downtown results to Rubberband land's numbers:

In 2010 both teams had almost similar paid attendances; 400,000 in Minnesota, 397,000 in Sacramento.

Sacramento's arena is smaller, so Sacramento actually has a higher paid utilization: About 56% compared to only 50% in Minnesota.

But Minnesota has a metro population which is 54% LARGER THAN Sacramento! Therefore Sac has a much, much larger share of market!

Are Minnesota fans willing to pay more for each ticket? Nope. Sacramentans pay 66% MORE than Minnesotans: $58 vs. $35.

How about the stadium design touted in Voisin's piece? Did it generate more revenue? Nope. Arco produced $103 million, while Target Center, with its alleged bells and whistles, produced only $95 million.

But Minnesota paid twice as much to "build it right", so the argument goes, so it must be more valuable? Er, no. Arco is worth more, according to Forbes. Arco is valued at $58 million, while Target is worth $14 million less.

The higher investment DID NOT pay off, the downtown arena does NOT serve a greater percentage of the population, and the revenue per customer is a lot lower. In fact, revenue per fan in Sacto is $97, vs. only $29 in Minnesota.

Ailene, you chose to contrast the two markets. Perhaps you should run the numbers before going out on a limb!

Refs:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/20...
http://www.forbes.com/lists/20...

Interesting #'s

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Minnesota fans are notoriously fair weather and they have sports teams in all 4 major pro sports so plenty of options to choose from which Sacramento does not.

If you don't understand how a downtown arena is better for business in the city then it is clear you haven't spent much time in a city that has one. It's not just about the arena and the team.

 

[kennadog]

Post from sacbee. How do these numbers jive with all the arguments you hear about a new arena?


Once again Voisin implies that a downtown location like Target Center is somehow better for the business of basketball than Sacramento's arena, and a similar downtown placement in Sacramento would attract a higher percentage of the population.

The numbers do not support the hypothesis. Compare Minnesota's downtown results to Rubberband land's numbers:

In 2010 both teams had almost similar paid attendances; 400,000 in Minnesota, 397,000 in Sacramento.

Sacramento's arena is smaller, so Sacramento actually has a higher paid utilization: About 56% compared to only 50% in Minnesota.

But Minnesota has a metro population which is 54% LARGER THAN Sacramento! Therefore Sac has a much, much larger share of market!

Are Minnesota fans willing to pay more for each ticket? Nope. Sacramentans pay 66% MORE than Minnesotans: $58 vs. $35.

How about the stadium design touted in Voisin's piece? Did it generate more revenue? Nope. Arco produced $103 million, while Target Center, with its alleged bells and whistles, produced only $95 million.

But Minnesota paid twice as much to "build it right", so the argument goes, so it must be more valuable? Er, no. Arco is worth more, according to Forbes. Arco is valued at $58 million, while Target is worth $14 million less.

The higher investment DID NOT pay off, the downtown arena does NOT serve a greater percentage of the population, and the revenue per customer is a lot lower. In fact, revenue per fan in Sacto is $97, vs. only $29 in Minnesota.

Ailene, you chose to contrast the two markets. Perhaps you should run the numbers before going out on a limb!

Refs:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/20...
http://www.forbes.com/lists/20...

Interesting #'s

Actually UC Davis's report says that downtown arenas and stadia can revitalize an areqa, if its planned correctly. Its a very interesting research paper. They looked at a lot more cities and arenas/stadias The link is in here somewhere.

 

[BMiller52]

Post from sacbee. How do these numbers jive with all the arguments you hear about a new arena?


Once again Voisin implies that a downtown location like Target Center is somehow better for the business of basketball than Sacramento's arena, and a similar downtown placement in Sacramento would attract a higher percentage of the population.

The numbers do not support the hypothesis. Compare Minnesota's downtown results to Rubberband land's numbers:

In 2010 both teams had almost similar paid attendances; 400,000 in Minnesota, 397,000 in Sacramento.

Sacramento's arena is smaller, so Sacramento actually has a higher paid utilization: About 56% compared to only 50% in Minnesota.

But Minnesota has a metro population which is 54% LARGER THAN Sacramento! Therefore Sac has a much, much larger share of market!

Are Minnesota fans willing to pay more for each ticket? Nope. Sacramentans pay 66% MORE than Minnesotans: $58 vs. $35.

How about the stadium design touted in Voisin's piece? Did it generate more revenue? Nope. Arco produced $103 million, while Target Center, with its alleged bells and whistles, produced only $95 million.

But Minnesota paid twice as much to "build it right", so the argument goes, so it must be more valuable? Er, no. Arco is worth more, according to Forbes. Arco is valued at $58 million, while Target is worth $14 million less.

The higher investment DID NOT pay off, the downtown arena does NOT serve a greater percentage of the population, and the revenue per customer is a lot lower. In fact, revenue per fan in Sacto is $97, vs. only $29 in Minnesota.

Ailene, you chose to contrast the two markets. Perhaps you should run the numbers before going out on a limb!

Refs:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/20...
http://www.forbes.com/lists/20...

Interesting #'s

Yeah but the point is Minnesota's arena is nice still and won't need to be replaced for a while because its in a convenient location with modern amenities while Arco needs replacing now. Plus when the teams are good and the arenas are selling out is when you'll mainly see the difference in paid attendance.

 

[Warhawk]

Yeah but the point is Minnesota's arena is nice still and won't need to be replaced for a while because its in a convenient location with modern amenities while Arco needs replacing now. Plus when the teams are good and the arenas are selling out is when you'll mainly see the difference in paid attendance.

I was just going to point this out. We have a $400-$500 million or so arena situation to figure out, while theirs is still good to go for quite a while yet. That is the big difference.

 

[rainmaker]

Post from sacbee. How do these numbers jive with all the arguments you hear about a new arena?


Once again Voisin implies that a downtown location like Target Center is somehow better for the business of basketball than Sacramento's arena, and a similar downtown placement in Sacramento would attract a higher percentage of the population.

The numbers do not support the hypothesis. Compare Minnesota's downtown results to Rubberband land's numbers:

In 2010 both teams had almost similar paid attendances; 400,000 in Minnesota, 397,000 in Sacramento.

Sacramento's arena is smaller, so Sacramento actually has a higher paid utilization: About 56% compared to only 50% in Minnesota.

But Minnesota has a metro population which is 54% LARGER THAN Sacramento! Therefore Sac has a much, much larger share of market!

Are Minnesota fans willing to pay more for each ticket? Nope. Sacramentans pay 66% MORE than Minnesotans: $58 vs. $35.

How about the stadium design touted in Voisin's piece? Did it generate more revenue? Nope. Arco produced $103 million, while Target Center, with its alleged bells and whistles, produced only $95 million.

But Minnesota paid twice as much to "build it right", so the argument goes, so it must be more valuable? Er, no. Arco is worth more, according to Forbes. Arco is valued at $58 million, while Target is worth $14 million less.

The higher investment DID NOT pay off, the downtown arena does NOT serve a greater percentage of the population, and the revenue per customer is a lot lower. In fact, revenue per fan in Sacto is $97, vs. only $29 in Minnesota.

Ailene, you chose to contrast the two markets. Perhaps you should run the numbers before going out on a limb!

Refs:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/20...
http://www.forbes.com/lists/20...

Interesting #'s

So which arena, and which downtown will be more prosperous if the Kings leave? Also, aside from whatever you think about downtown Minneapolis, new downtown arenas have revitalized and added economic growth to downtowns. Don't believe me? Look at the Staples Center. Look at downtown Phoenix.

You can sit here and argue over things which don't really matter in the long run, like nitpicking Voisons article, but if the Kings leave, Sac will turn into a ghost town. Not a pace I'd live.

 

[JB_kings]

I visit other cities with active and vibrant downtowns and know that my hometown of Sacramento has a chance to be like them. But sadly they can't see what could be. I walked around the Gaslamp District in San Diego last weekend and the streets were packed, resturants and bars were full. They found a way to revitalize a huge area and they have crowds in January with no sporting events until baseball season. Sacramento can't even find a way to keep the people who work there after 6 pm. If not a new arena and some entertainment down there, what else? You have to invest in something because it won't come with nothing.