Honda center vs PBP

[=LarryLegend=]

I am sitting here watching the UCONN vs SDSU game and I have to admit 5 years obviously makes a huge arena. I didnt realize how nice the arena is inside! since I hate LA I have never been their before. I can see why the Maloof's would consider the arena/and they cities market. I hope Sacramento keeps our team but can you really blame them after 11ish years?

 

[ParniValjak]

The difference between PBP and Honda Center is NOT only 5 years. The year that each was built in is not that relevant here. More relevant is HOW it was built in the first place. The PBP was built on the very cheap with absolutely no room for re-development and renovations. It is not much different now than it was back when it was built.

On the other hand, Honda Center was built with scalability in mind. It has scaled exceptionally well over time. It has been renovated, updated and upgraded over the years. All the things that are impossible to do witt the PBP. Thats the real issue here. Its not so much the age of the building (although that has some significance) its how it was built in the first place and how it has been maintaned, re-developed since. This is where Honda Cetnter has a massive heads up over PBP.

Hopefully this latest "secret push" delivers Sacramento an arena that would keep the Kings for a VERY VERY long time because it would be highly scaleable arena with ability to be re-developed and upgraded in the years to come.

 

[Jim Les]

I'm an architect and urban designer. I'm also watching this game, and I went to the United Center here in Chicago a few nights ago to watch the Kings game and I took the time to check out the arena.

Let me tell you this, it's not about the inside of the arena (not the part that you can see on the TV, anyways). It's about the shops, the boutiques, the merchandise stores, the luxury suites, the restaurants, etc. It's all of the things on the perimeter of the arena (that they don't show on TV) that matter. Those are all the "extras" that the new NBA business model is dependent on. The Honda Center doesn't hold that many more people than Arco Arena, so when it comes to money generated from ticket sales at the gate, its pretty negligible. The Honda Center does, however, have all the extra stores and shops that fans spend their money in. These extra streams of income are the difference between an arena that is "NBA ready" vs one that is not. It has NEXT TO NOTHING to do with the layout of the seats

There is a famous architect and urban designer named Rem Koolhaas who wrote an essay titled "Bigness." The theory goes, that when a building becomes so large, it essentially says, F* context. That is to say, the building serves as a mini-city and is in direct competition with its urban surroundings. This is the concept that the new NBA business model is taking. Instead of having arena's downtown that serve with only one purpose, they are absorbing the other businesses that would otherwise see a bump in activity after an NBA game. So when fans go out for a game, and want to eat before-hand or afterward, they spend all of their money inside of the arena instead of spending a little at the arena, and then a little at the local shops and bars around the arena. The NBA usually gets a cut of all the profits generated for non-NBA events too. So when Disney on ice or Christina Aguilera come in to town, those shops, bars, restaurants and parking spaces at the arena all send some of that money back to the NBA. They are cornering the market of entertainment. And the beauty of their business model, is that whenever cities don't want to pay for new arena's, they take their product to a city that will pay and give them the false promise that a new arena will stimulate local economic growth, even though their arena's are LITERALLY designed to compete with local business instead of helping them.

It doesn't matter how nice the arena is inside. NOT AT ALL. once a fan is in his or her seat, he or she is not spending money unless the cotton-candy guy rolls around. The design of the arena isn't about the court or the seats, it's about getting people to open their wallets after they enter the gate before they have a seat. And it's about getting them to open up their wallets one more time before they leave. It's that simple.

 

[Glenn]

In this day and age I am beginning to wonder if bigger is better. I know in the NBA, bigger is better. We are talking about a game played on a limited area of hardwood and watched by a limited number of fans. When you are at our arena and watching the game, does the beauty of the building make any difference?

Let me come at it from a different direction: let us say that what we have is devoted only to the Kings and we didn't care whether the NCAA likes us or Prince (not Tayshaun) passes us by. This arena going forward will cost $67 mil to be paid off over a long time. Can't a basketball team make a profit in this situation? Isn't the massive move cost and the building or renovating of something bigger and "better" simply a whole bunch of money that needs to be repaid.

This is way off the modern path but at some point, given our economy, we might have to reign in our egos and just play the game in a place big enough. We just might make more money this way. I don't know if that is true or not.

The University of Minnesota has an odd arena built 70 years ago and no one is clammoring to spend several hundered million to replace it. It's paid for. It makes money. They aren't even clammoring to play at the Target Center.



Addition: oh, goody, an idea in direct oppostiton to an expert. Maybe what makes the Sacramento experience unique, the fans famous for their ferocity, is that when they go to a game, they have nothing to do but watch a game ----------------------- and yell. I have to presume that building a basketball arena so people can watch basketball is boring for an architect and urban designer.

 

[Jim Les]

Addition: oh, goody, an idea in direct oppostiton to an expert. Maybe what makes the Sacramento experience unique, the fans famous for their ferocity, is that when they go to a game, they have nothing to do but watch a game ----------------------- and yell. I have to presume that building a basketball arena so people can watch basketball is boring for a designer.

I agree that Arco's compactness is what makes it soo intimidating. It is what makes Arco so unique. I remember reading an article by Kenny Smith once where he complained about all the "extras" in modern arenas. He essentially argued that they were distractions that took fans away from the experience of watching a game. And I agree with him. You also mentioned college gyms. The main difference is that college's don't pay (or are not supposed to, anyway) their players. So they don't need the extra streams of revenue to be competitive. The NBA does pay their players. Too much, actually, which is why we're seeing small market teams with older arenas (read: smaller arena's with less "extras") struggle to be competitive. The problem is larger than Sacramento and the local government. The problem lies within the business model of the NBA. The NBA simply cannot afford to stay afloat without getting generous new buildings every decade or so for free. This translates into billions of dollars that are given to the NBA by taxpayers. It's pretty ridiculous if you think about it. And, while I'm no economist, I have to imagine that this trend is unsustainable and the NBA is creating a bubble that will eventually burst.

Oh, and designing a building for enjoying a basketball game isn't boring for a designer. Unless of course, it is being designed by a designer with no imagination

I would love to design a new arena/sporting/entertainment complex for the city of Sacramento that both the Kings and the city could enjoy and profit from, but I'm afraid that would require some basic concessions from David Stern and the NBA that they simply aren't willing to negotiate. I'm also a recent graduate, so I don't have that much influence to begin with.

 

[Glenn]

I'm also a recent graduate, so I don't have that much influence to begin with.

There's time. You're just a baby.

I think my point was that creating a debt of $400 mil takes a bit off the profit. A paid for arena or even one where about $3 mil a year is paid back is not so difficult. That's a lot of gear to sell and food to serve.

But then, Staples IS a beautiful city. I get the idea and see clearly that building one of these things in downtown Sacto won't stimulate downtown Sacto. Nice note.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I don't see what all the hoopla is over fancy arenas, I never have. It seems like more of a keep up with Joneses kind of competition where every city feels like it has to have what other cities have than it does any type of actual necessity. People have been convinced that we need a new arena when in reality, it is a luxury. Sure Arco ain't purty and shiny but it serves its purpose. I bet if you took a poll most people are fine with Arco. Arco isn't the reason the Maloofs have been losing money. The team is. Before any new arena folks jumps down my throat, yeah yeah...I've heard all the reasons why we need a new arena a 1000 times. I just don't buy it. It's about prestige and image, not need.

 

[Glenn]

I don't see what all the hoopla is over fancy arenas. It seems like more of a keep up with Jones kind of competition where every city feels like it has to have what other cities have than it does any type of actual necessity. People have been convinced that we need a new arena when in reality, it is a luxury. Sure Arco ain't purty and shiny but it serves its purpose. I bet if you took a poll most people are fine with Arco. Arco isn't the reason the Maloofs have been losing money. The team is. Before any new arena folks jumps down my throat, yeah yeah...I've heard all the reasons why we need a new arena a 1000 times. I just don't buy it. It's about prestige and image, not need.

Actually you aren't hurting anybody's feeling because in this case, it is the perception of the Maloofs that is the problem. Hopefully, maybe they are changing their minds as the reality of what they want becomes a dollars and cents issue.

 

[Jim Les]

I think my point was that creating a debt of $400 mil takes a bit off the profit. A paid for arena or even one where about $3 mil a year is paid back is not so difficult. That's a lot of gear to sell and food to serve.

This is true. But the problem, in my opinion, is that it is only true when owners are faced with that cost. When that cost is then passed off to the taxpayer (more or less) then the owner now has a harder/better/faster/stronger arena with multiple streams of income without having to really pay for it. It is essentially a $400 million gift. Long term, this probably can't keep up as cities and taxpayers will eventually catch on, but in the short term (which seems to be all the NBA and the maloofs can think about) it can be very profitable.

I really think the problem of needing new arenas is a red herring. The real problem, in my opinion, is that the NBA is spending more money than they are bringing in, so they're trying to get creative with new venues to generate income. The simplest solution for the NBA is to have taxpayers fund a new arena with all the "extras" that then funnel all the added revenue back to the NBA. They're essentially double-dipping into the pockets of NBA fans and taxpayers.

Cash-strapped cities like Sacramento are always going to have a hard time keeping up with this kind of tactic. And if this continues, I really will not be surprised to see other small market teams lose their franchise to either A) larger markets, or B) other small markets that are willing to use tax dollars to build an arena in attempt to raise the city's profile. There are enough suckers out there for this scheme to last quite a while, I'm afraid.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

This is true. But the problem, in my opinion, is that it is only true when owners are faced with that cost. When that cost is then passed off to the taxpayer (more or less) then the owner now has a harder/better/faster/stronger arena with multiple streams of income without having to really pay for it. It is essentially a $400 million gift. Long term, this probably can't keep up as cities and taxpayers will eventually catch on, but in the short term (which seems to be all the NBA and the maloofs can think about) it can be very profitable.

I really think the problem of needing new arenas is a red herring. The real problem, in my opinion, is that the NBA is spending more money than they are bringing in, so they're trying to get creative with new venues to generate income. The simplest solution for the NBA is to have taxpayers fund a new arena with all the "extras" that then funnel all the added revenue back to the NBA. They're essentially double-dipping into the pockets of NBA fans and taxpayers.

Cash-strapped cities like Sacramento are always going to have a hard time keeping up with this kind of tactic. And if this continues, I really will not be surprised to see other small market teams lose their franchise to either A) larger markets, or B) other small markets that are willing to use tax dollars to build an arena in attempt to raise the city's profile. There are enough suckers out there for this scheme to last quite a while, I'm afraid.

You nailed it. All the club suites, boxes, food, shops, etc. benefit the NBA and the owners, not the fans or players. Sure it's nice to look at a pretty new arena but personally I'd rather go to an old arena and have cheaper tickets.

 

[Fear the Putin]

You nailed it. All the club suites, boxes, food, shops, etc. benefit the NBA and the owners, not the fans or players. Sure it's nice to look at a pretty new arena but personally I'd rather go to an old arena and have cheaper tickets.

I've been to both the Honda Center and ARCO Arena.

Sure, the Honda Center looks nice, inside and out; and resembles Staples Center inside, but like you, I can care less about amenities looks, and the rest. The atmosphere will always be better in Sacramento from what I experienced when it comes to basketball games.

The problem is, players and owners are embarrassed when they have an old shack as an arena. Players especially who play in every single arena in the NBA and realize the magnitude of difference between ARCO and various other state of the art arenas.

 

[Trueblood]

The difference between PBP and Honda Center is NOT only 5 years. The year that each was built in is not that relevant here. More relevant is HOW it was built in the first place. The PBP was built on the very cheap with absolutely no room for re-development and renovations. It is not much different now than it was back when it was built.

On the other hand, Honda Center was built with scalability in mind. It has scaled exceptionally well over time. It has been renovated, updated and upgraded over the years. All the things that are impossible to do witt the PBP. Thats the real issue here. Its not so much the age of the building (although that has some significance) its how it was built in the first place and how it has been maintaned, re-developed since. This is where Honda Cetnter has a massive heads up over PBP.

Hopefully this latest "secret push" delivers Sacramento an arena that would keep the Kings for a VERY VERY long time because it would be highly scaleable arena with ability to be re-developed and upgraded in the years to come.

This.

Honda Center was way ahead of it's time while PBP is the equivalent of what they built in the late 60's and 70's. I've been to every arena in the league and arenas in San Antonio and Miami were built 9 and 6 years later than the Honda Center yet are worse than it.

But let's not fool ourselves. This is about more than the arena. This is about the tv deal. It's no coincidence that the Anaheim rumors starting going full force when the Lakers inked their massive TWC deal.

 

[macadocious]

Honda Center has 80+ boxes, Arco (I refuse to call it PBP) has 30ish.

That is the reason they cannot stay at Arco. At an average of 250K per box for the year, that is a $12MM difference.

 

[Section 101]

Honda Center has 80+ boxes, Arco (I refuse to call it PBP) has 30ish.

That is the reason they cannot stay at Arco. At an average of 250K per box for the year, that is a $12MM difference.

But those boxes are already sold, they won't be getting money for the other events and they wont get full money from NBA games.

Basically, boxes are the same as seats.

 

[JB_kings]

But those boxes are already sold, they won't be getting money for the other events and they wont get full money from NBA games.

Basically, boxes are the same as seats.

30 boxes times every event all year long versus 80 boxes for 45 events only. Remember that the arena management company (Samueli) gets that revenue during non-basketball events. And some of the profit over a certain percentage goes back to the city. The Maloofs will have wrangle revenue out of only Kings basketball events.

 

[JB_kings]

Honda Center has 80+ boxes, Arco (I refuse to call it PBP) has 30ish.

That is the reason they cannot stay at Arco. At an average of 250K per box for the year, that is a $12MM difference.

Same here. They paid the Maloofs to call it somethng else. When they pay me to call it by another name, then I will. Until then I call it Arco. And no they didn't pay me either, but they were first.

 

[kennadog]

I remember when people refused to call it Arco.

I've been to some other arenas, too. Five years isn't the only difference. Arco cost $40 million to build. Palace of Auburn Hills opened the same year cost $80 million and has been renovated at least once. Honda Center cost $23 million and has also been remodeled in the last ten years. San Antonio, a similar-sized market has 60 luxury suites and more club seating.

The NBA isn't the only one unhappy with Arco. The NCAA won't accept it any more for tournament play. (Gee, they're playing at the Honda Center this year.) And the Bee reported that some events won't come to the arena any more. I know the circus almost quit coming here a couple of years ago. They do not like our arena.

A lot of what's wrong is behind the scenes and matters more to other events more than basketball. Only two loading docks, with one currently unsafe to use. Most areans have 4-5 loading docks. Only one kitchen. Terrible locker rooms and the visitor locker room has only cold water. Only one lower concourse, making ingress and egress more difficult. I'm surprised the fire marshall even let's the arena still be used. If there was a fire or earthquake in Arco, many would die in the crush trying to get out. I've been to the United Center and to Staples. They hold more people and yet you can leave without being crushed from all sides. Heck, I didn't even have to brush up against anybody. I could walk out freely.

The marshalling area at PBP is too small for the size of some major events. The ice rink is crosswise to the court, requiring removal of many seats for an ice show. Most arenas the rink and courst are aligned. The ice-making equipment is antiquated and it takes two days to covert from basketball to ice. Modern arenas can do it in about 2-3 hours. They can acutually accomodate a hockey game and a concert on the same day.

Also, the roof leaks. Why spend millions on a roof for a building that is consultants have termed nearly obsolete economically and engineers say the foundation can't support the kind of remodeling needed.

Its all in city reports. Why we keep having to cover this ground, I don't know. This is NOT just needed for basketball. PBP won't be economically viable for any events soon. This is not just about basketball, its about all the events that are or could be held there. The head of the convention and tourism burueau said bigger conventions would consider Sacramento, if they had a nice downtown arena to use. He;'s had inquiries on whether Sacramento is going to have a new downtown arena for use. They don't want to go to PBP.

As to stores and restaurants? That would be additional lease money to the arena, true, but it would be more jobs and there would be taxes paid to the city as well. The Maloofs have said they don't really want a basketball arena to bring in more that about 18,000. That's not much more than Arco currently holds. They still want that intimacy.

I want the Kings to stay, but this is not only about keeping pro-basketball here. Its about having a venue for all the types of events held at the arena. It does financially help to have an anchor tenant, though.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I've been to some other arenas, too. Five years isn't the only difference. Arco cost $40 million to build. Palace of Auburn Hills opened the same year cost $80 million and has been renovated at least once. Honda Center cost $23 million and has also been remodeled in the last ten years. San Antonio, a similar-sized market has 60 luxury suites and more club seating.

$123 million, right?

 

[Glenn]

I remember when people refused to call it Arco.

I've been to some other arenas, too. Five years isn't the only difference. Arco cost $40 million to build. Palace of Auburn Hills opened the same year cost $80 million and has been renovated at least once. Honda Center cost $23 million and has also been remodeled in the last ten years. San Antonio, a similar-sized market has 60 luxury suites and more club seating.

The NBA isn't the only one unhappy with Arco. The NCAA won't accept it any more for tournament play. (Gee, they're playing at the Honda Center this year.) And the Bee reported that some events won't come to the arena any more. I know the circus almost quit coming here a couple of years ago. They do not like our arena.

A lot of what's wrong is behind the scenes and matters more to other events more than basketball. Only two loading docks, with one currently unsafe to use. Most areans have 4-5 loading docks. Only one kitchen. Terrible locker rooms and the visitor locker room has only cold water. Only one lower concourse, making ingress and egress more difficult. I'm surprised the fire marshall even let's the arena still be used. If there was a fire or earthquake in Arco, many would die in the crush trying to get out. I've been to the United Center and to Staples. They hold more people and yet you can leave without being crushed from all sides. Heck, I didn't even have to brush up against anybody. I could walk out freely.

The marshalling area at PBP is too small for the size of some major events. The ice rink is crosswise to the court, requiring removal of many seats for an ice show. Most arenas the rink and courst are aligned. The ice-making equipment is antiquated and it takes two days to covert from basketball to ice. Modern arenas can do it in about 2-3 hours. They can acutually accomodate a hockey game and a concert on the same day.

Also, the roof leaks. Why spend millions on a roof for a building that is consultants have termed nearly obsolete economically and engineers say the foundation can't support the kind of remodeling needed.

Its all in city reports. Why we keep having to cover this ground, I don't know. This is NOT just needed for basketball. PBP won't be economically viable for any events soon. This is not just about basketball, its about all the events that are or could be held there. The head of the convention and tourism burueau said bigger conventions would consider Sacramento, if they had a nice downtown arena to use. He;'s had inquiries on whether Sacramento is going to have a new downtown arena for use. They don't want to go to PBP.

As to stores and restaurants? That would be additional lease money to the arena, true, but it would be more jobs and there would be taxes paid to the city as well. The Maloofs have said they don't really want a basketball arena to bring in more that about 18,000. That's not much more than Arco currently holds. They still want that intimacy.

I want the Kings to stay, but this is not only about keeping pro-basketball here. Its about having a venue for all the types of events held at the arena. It does financially help to have an anchor tenant, though.

Rationality >>> emotion

I understand the building is inadequte because of size and a lot of things but chose not to complicate the discussion. I don't know how to approach a discussion without having it splinter into a hundred different directions. I hope no one finds a note that says I am championing a remodel. I DID question the argument that in a generic sense a new arena is better than a remodel. I hope that's what I did. It's easy to lose track.