new Minn. Twins b-ball park .. what a shock...

[jeffjcalweb]

yet another example of a city being able to figure out how to fund and build a new arena (ok b-ball park).

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2452645

cut to the chase: mostly publicly funded, built down town, expected price in the $500mil range.

figure it out sac politicians, its not impossible.

 

[Ryle]

Best part about it:

"The 42,000-seat stadium, which will be funded by a 0.15 percent Hennepin County sales tax increase and $130 million from owner Carl Pohlad, is earmarked for the west edge of downtown Minneapolis -- to be built with a striking skyline view a few blocks from Target Center, where the NBA's Timberwolves play."

Sounds familiar to what the Maloofs indicated they would be willing to kick in (15-20%) and the sales tax the County is considering.

 

[DocHolliday]

Also remember everything is MUCh cheaper in Minnesota. You can get a house that costs 600K here for 250K there.

 

[KevinMartinsGirl23]

Also remember everything is MUCh cheaper in Minnesota. You can get a house that costs 600K here for 250K there.

Yeah I am moving there for college- I am paying so much less for everything there than I am here in california, it's ridiculous...

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Also remember everything is MUCh cheaper in Minnesota. You can get a house that costs 600K here for 250K there.

yes, it is cheaper, but STILL $500 million, none the less. I think it will almost be that much for our arena in the railyards, but it will also be linked to fund the creation of not only the arena, but other facilities surrounding it as well. If I was the mayor of this fine city, I'd make sure that no matter what, without the arena, everything else for that site be put on hold until something gets approved.(God, I miss Joe Serna, we'd probably already have a new arena a few years ago if he were still with us)

 

[BigWaxer]

500 mill is more then they are estimating the cost for our arena.. Less tax, less people less money from the owner so what gives in our case?

 

[Warhawk]

500 mill is more then they are estimating the cost for our arena.. Less tax, less people less money from the owner so what gives in our case?

Our politicians are idiots?

That's the obvious answer....

 

[JB_kings]

500 mill is more then they are estimating the cost for our arena.. Less tax, less people less money from the owner so what gives in our case?

This is the first I've heard anyone put a $500 million dollar price tag on the arena. Where are you getting this from?
The rumored tax talked about trying to return 600 million over 10 years, but that doesn't relate to what it costs to build a new arena. The American Airlines Center (Mavs) is the most expensive one I've heard of and it only cost 420 million. That place has to be the Taj Mahal of arenas. For example, the AT&T Center (Spurs) was completed a year after AAC and only cost just under 200 million. Even the highly remarkable Conseco Fieldhouse cost just under 200 million. Also, consider there might be other railyard projects that are included. The city has it's transportation depot and light rail extention to fund. Not their words, just my guess.

 

[Warhawk]

This is the first I've heard anyone put a $500 million dollar price tag on the arena. Where are you getting this from?

He said it's more than the cost of the arena - I think the cost has been extimated between $300-400 million, IIRC.

 

[kennadog]

This is the first I've heard anyone put a $500 million dollar price tag on the arena. Where are you getting this from?
The rumored tax talked about trying to return 600 million over 10 years, but that doesn't relate to what it costs to build a new arena. The American Airlines Center (Mavs) is the most expensive one I've heard of and it only cost 420 million. That place has to be the Taj Mahal of arenas. For example, the AT&T Center (Spurs) was completed a year after AAC and only cost just under 200 million. Even the highly remarkable Conseco Fieldhouse cost just under 200 million. Also, consider there might be other railyard projects that are included. The city has it's transportation depot and light rail extention to fund. Not their words, just my guess.

You do realize how very much cheaper everything is in Texas and Indiana? You can't remotely compare them to new construction costs in California. And you have to add for inflation. Those arenas were planned and began construction sometime ago. We aren't even into real planning yet. Soft costs are much higher here as well as construction materials, labor and land.

The City, in a failed meeting, proposed $400 million. The Maloofs were proposing $600 million. I'd have to look it up, but there is an arena that was "remodeled" at a cost of over $400 million. In California I'd say $600 million is closer than $400 million. And every day that passes increases the price tag.

 

[Amanjoy]

I remember when Jesse Ventura was the Governor of that state and he said that the Twins wouldn't get a new stadium until they fixed up his old high school or something like that! I guess all it took was a couple years of that guy being out of office to get it done. Maybe with different city officials now...we can actually get things done.

 

[Warhawk]

You do realize how very much cheaper everything is in Texas and Indiana? You can't remotely compare them to new construction costs in California. And you have to add for inflation. Those arenas were planned and began construction sometime ago. We aren't even into real planning yet. Soft costs are much higher here as well as construction materials, labor and land.

Some of the items that account for more expensive construction, including those you mentioned, are seismic and environmental concerns.

Sacramento, even though it is not near any major faults (the closest major one being the Green Valley fault near Fairfield/Benecia, with the larger ones in the Bay Area itself - Hayward, San Andreas, etc), still is considered to be in Seismic Zone 3 in the California Building Code. Seismic Zone 4 is the highest zoning, which starts at the Solano County line.

Environmental impact reviews and mitigation costs can be significant and the review process can drag on for years, especially when some start lawsuits not on merit, but to tie up the project to promote an agenda.

Add to that the increased cost of materials (plywood, steel, concrete, etc - all up significantly) due to Katrina and rising gas costs....

 

[kennadog]

Some of the items that account for more expensive construction, including those you mentioned, are seismic and environmental concerns.

Sacramento, even though it is not near any major faults (the closest major one being the Green Valley fault near Fairfield/Benecia, with the larger ones in the Bay Area itself - Hayward, San Andreas, etc), still is considered to be in Seismic Zone 3 in the California Building Code. Seismic Zone 4 is the highest zoning, which starts at the Solano County line.

Environmental impact reviews and mitigation costs can be significant and the review process can drag on for years, especially when some start lawsuits not on merit, but to tie up the project to promote an agenda.

Add to that the increased cost of materials (plywood, steel, concrete, etc - all up significantly) due to Katrina and rising gas costs....

Yep. Even before Katrina a surge in the price of cement caused havoc with a lot of development budgets for my clients.

There should be much less possiblity of environmental concerns in already developed areas. The really long lawsuits are usually ove previously undeveloped land. If its at the current Natomas site, the impact would be minimal, if any. If its downtown, there could be some objections over traffic impacts, etc. I donm't think much is going to slow down development of the railyards, tho, once the ongoing toxic cleanup is finished.

There are so many costs involved besides the "hard costs." Architects; loan fees; escrow account costs; legal fees with multiple financing sources, likely to be astronomical); city fees, permits, inspections, impact fees; course of construction insurance; utility costs during construction; any offsite improvements required bt the city; and on and on. Meanwhile, inflation marches on.

 

[JB_kings]

The railyards has probably had more environmental impact studies than Three Mile Island. You have to remember they've been at this for a number of years already. Almost all versions of the plans have included an arena. The last I heard they were just hammering out the issues over who pays for the cleanup once the excavation starts (developers or UP). They've been at that for a while, but none of the parties is that far apart. You also have to understand that the biggest trouble spots, environmental and historical wise, is the area near the shops and depot. That's where the most problems have been. They've been recycling ground water for years there to address that problem. Most of all the surface contaminates were hauled away years ago. That said, the proposed arena site is well north of the trouble areas. They will test the soil during excavation, but I doubt it will be anything significant. They can't excavate too far because the ground water level is right around 15 feet during high flood years. Just be glad that the site is well away from the historical chinese community area. They would have to have archiologists sift through before any bulldozers roll.

 

[kennadog]

As long as its NOT atop any Indian burial grounds.

 

[KingsFan54]

Our politicians are idiots?

That's the obvious answer....

Amen to that.