New arena cost revealed at near $400M

[Section 101]

Aha! I've been operating under a total misunderstanding of this area. Building out this area in a coordinated manner just got far more complicated in my mind. Always has been complicated but I didn't know it.

I dont think it does. I'm actually surprised we havent heard from Inland yet asking the City where they prefer having the Arena and RR station. Putting them in the best spot will raise the prices of the land around them. It would be in Inlands best interest to have the best usage for all the land in the RR.

 

[Warhawk]

In looking through an Engineering News Record earlier today they had a chart showing some recent bids for large projects were all coming in at 15% or so (some more) below the estimates. Prices are down.

 

[kennadog]

The $387 mil includes repayment of the land at around $1mil per acre.

I'm sorry, you are right. I think they said they estimated the value at $18 million. Of course, one of the negotiating points might be whether the city would donate the site. Not sure the city wants to have paid for the current site and then buy and donate another plot of land in the rail yards. Much less appealing.

 

[kennadog]

Aha! I've been operating under a total misunderstanding of this area. Building out this area in a coordinated manner just got far more complicated in my mind. Always has been complicated but I didn't know it.

Thompson was the developer picked to build out the whole site with the exception of the city land for the inter-modal. Since he defaulted, Inland now has that right/responsibility, unless they choose to sell some or all of the land to another developer. Right now, I think they plan on doing the development.

 

[Section 101]

Thompson was the developer picked to build out the whole site with the exception of the city land for the inter-modal. Since he defaulted, Inland now has that right/responsibility, unless they choose to sell some or all of the land to another developer. Right now, I think they plan on doing the development.

It was Thomas that defaulted. Inland plans to develop the infrastructure then sell the land ready to build last I heard.

 

[kennadog]

It was Thomas that defaulted. Inland plans to develop the infrastructure then sell the land ready to build last I heard.

I think that's what I said. Maybe I needed to break up the sentences to be more clear.

 

[JB_kings]

I think the arena is a better use for the current city owned land. Their options of moving or not moving the depot still involved using all that land up for this intermodal facility. While it is needed, it's just not a destination place to attract people. It's really just a transportation hub and could be downsized to a smaller plot of land. Moving the arena site is a little harder because now all that benefit of having existing parking close by starts becoming not so close. They accepted federal funds to assist with the depot upgrades and they really don't want to send that money back if they don't end up using it as the transportation hub depot. So I think the options are still keep it there next to the arena site or move it to the smaller lot 40. Personally I think it sucks to have your train depot be 500 feet away from the rail tracks, but it's not my decision. I think I would work with Inland and get creative with ideas. Maybe even use the one of the old railyard buildings like the one at the far eastern end and renovate that into your new hub depot. Then turn the existing depot into a retail/resturant site.

And to further complicate this, I have a nagging suspicion that the current arena parking proposal with maybe 100 spots next to the building is just not going to fly. They will want about 1,000 to 2,000 premium spots adjacent. That could be under the I-5 freeway or in the current depot location. If you want to see where the future battles on this facility are going to be waged, this is as good as any.

 

[Section 101]

I think the arena is a better use for the current city owned land. Their options of moving or not moving the depot still involved using all that land up for this intermodal facility. While it is needed, it's just not a destination place to attract people. It's really just a transportation hub and could be downsized to a smaller plot of land. Moving the arena site is a little harder because now all that benefit of having existing parking close by starts becoming not so close. They accepted federal funds to assist with the depot upgrades and they really don't want to send that money back if they don't end up using it as the transportation hub depot. So I think the options are still keep it there next to the arena site or move it to the smaller lot 40. Personally I think it sucks to have your train depot be 500 feet away from the rail tracks, but it's not my decision. I think I would work with Inland and get creative with ideas. Maybe even use the one of the old railyard buildings like the one at the far eastern end and renovate that into your new hub depot. Then turn the existing depot into a retail/resturant site.

And to further complicate this, I have a nagging suspicion that the current arena parking proposal with maybe 100 spots next to the building is just not going to fly. They will want about 1,000 to 2,000 premium spots adjacent. That could be under the I-5 freeway or in the current depot location. If you want to see where the future battles on this facility are going to be waged, this is as good as any.

I'd rather have the arena on the otherside. Better visability from I5.

 

[twosomeca]

http://www.kcra.com/news/27994996/detail.html"The cost is much cheaper than previous estimates," said Sacramento City Councilman Steve Cohn.

I know I am very late to this, but I'd be very leery of cost overruns.

 

[JB_kings]

I know I am very late to this, but I'd be very leery of cost overruns.

It's an initial estimate. And I'm nearly postive that this number will go up. I'm sure the alarmists will go way overboard and pump the number into orbit to scare everyone. The reality is that many large public projects all face this kind of process of initial estimates followed by plan revisions and final estimates. The difference is that they don't face the same scutiny or skepticism.

 

[kennadog]

I know I am very late to this, but I'd be very leery of cost overruns.

It depends on the economy. When California real estate was pratically doubling in value every 5 years, cost overruns were the norm for private and public projects. Contractors were so busy, they had to turn down jobs. We get a lot more contractors bidding our jobs now and at lower prices.

Remember though, an estimate of project costs is often made several years before a project will see completion. No one can forecast all future economic conditions with absolute infallibity.