kennadog
Dog On It!
I wanted to add a "ditto" to the Captain's excellent post. With time at leass than a year, we've got to put our eggs in one basket or we'll end up with no basket and no eggs.
Now I'm hungry for an omelet.
New Website - www.calexpo2015.com
- Thread starter Sketcher
- Start date
Now I'm hungry for an omelet.
Nobody of note is really going to endorse the idea. Even Cal Expo doesn't appear to associated. Time is short and the downtown backed process is getting it's ducks lined up. I don't think it's wise to start fracturing the arena support into different camps. That said, I don't see too many people jumping on this one. So I doubt there is any harm there.
I'm not sure anybody is taking it seriously. What gives you that impression?
By way of background, the OP is the guy behind the website, and he is doggedly pursuing his idea despite the fact that the City Council is headed in another direction. It's not a serious proposal - regardless of the positives and negatives of the proposal itself - for the simple fact that the powers that be are a year and a half removed from dismissing it from consideration altogether. I've met the OP once and he seems like a nice guy, but he needs to recognize that he's not just fighting a losing fight, but worse, he's tilting at windmills.
On Mars. It ain't happening. And I agree on the above discussion on the quotes. Those are just fragments with no context. Could be anything they were talking about.....
GeorgeofSacramento
Bench
All this talk about having to walk to the Arena/Pavilion from your parking spot....
Look at the parking map for Petco Park in San Diego.
http://www.mlb.com/sd/ballpark/parking_map.jsp
Updated link. lol
Look at the parking map for Petco Park in San Diego.
http://www.mlb.com/sd/ballpark/parking_map.jsp
Updated link. lol
Last edited:
PurpleHaze
All-Star
Livinthedream
All-Star
I'm distracted by the fact that Barry Bonds is in the URL and I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Section 101
All-Star
It's the reason I didn't click on it.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
And not to mention, the proposer has done nothing to add to this discussion about HIS plan except for offering up a fractured phrase of 'And the band played on'. As far as I'm concerned, this is a low budget job of muckraking to distract.
SCKingsfan
Bench
lmao
GeorgeofSacramento
Bench
Link's been cleaned up. It's been "debonded". lol
http://www.mlb.com/sd/ballpark/parking_map.jsp
And as for "It never rains or gets winter storm cold in San Diego
", that's what'll happen here after the arena gets built! We also have predictions that the +100 degree days will be banned in the summer, too!
http://www.mlb.com/sd/ballpark/parking_map.jsp
And as for "It never rains or gets winter storm cold in San Diego
", that's what'll happen here after the arena gets built! We also have predictions that the +100 degree days will be banned in the summer, too!
EvilEye
Prospect
Next time you talk to these folks, ask them how they feel about the prospect of driving 2-3 hours, then paying 2-3 times what they do now to park and walking anyway....when ARCO is condemned and demolished in 5 years and the only arenas are in Oakland & San Jose.
Mike0476
Starter
I could not have said it better myself.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
I don't even know what that's supposed to prove. Based on your response I'd think that you were under the impression that I was arguing against a new arena. You should be asking yourself that question since a downtown arena has a greater chance of failing than a Natomas rebuild.
Are these people that won't go to games downtown if they have to owwwie their poor little feet current STHs?
Why is Natomas even being discussed? It was all put on the city to produce a new facility. They want to build it downtown where it makes the most sense to them. It's their dime and their decision. End of debate. I and many others happen to agree that is the best place for the community. Somehow the people in big cities all over this country seem to be able to find a way to get to their downtown ballparks and arenas and do it in great numbers. And I'm sure even the laziest of those in Folsom, Roseville and Elk Grove will manage to find their way to a downtown arena with no trouble at all. People adjust just fine when they quit whining and actually do something.
kennadog
Dog On It!
There's no evidence to support that.
As a matter of fact, the ICON report looked at costs and decided the cost difference was negligible. Demolition is amazingly expensive. Downtown has more potential sources of funds, simply because it is in a designated redevelopment area and is the biggest piece of downtown land ripe for development in the whole US. Also, ICON reported that the current arena is one of only 3 in the NBA that aren't located downtown.
Also, an arena in Natomas almost ensures a dependence on the automobile to get there. Not exactly an environmentally sound direction for any city to take, in my opinion.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
Sure there is. There's already been numerous articles addressing the possibility of inadequate parking. Potential obstacles like that certainly increase the possibility of failure. Especially when you have only a ten month window to get things solidified and rolling.
Livinthedream
All-Star
I look at it this way. ICON's job was to find out if it was feasible to build an arena downtown. They were introduced to the political climate as well as the other challenges that would be faced when trying to build downtown. ICON/Taylor wants the contract to build this thing, so they're not going to put themselves in a situation where they actually have little chance of getting it done. If Natomas was so much better and downtown had too many obstacles, they would have told KJ a long time ago behind closed doors that he might want to change his tune. And if KJ refused, they would have walked away rather than waste their time trying to get a project done that doesn't have a chance.
Section 101
All-Star
There are issues with natomas too, enviromental studies, building permits with the FEMA moratorium.
Also, we havent heard anything about Inland. They could be a major private financial partner to getting this done at the RR.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
Inadequate parking, or just too far a walk for some Sacramentans? From what I've read there will be plenty of parking, a half mile away.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
Both but the bigger problem would be inadequate parking. Sure there's plenty of parking spaces, but there's questions about whether enough of them will be available in time for events, especially early events. The parking in the area is public parking garages, not exclusive arena parking. Maybe it would be OK for 7:30 tip-offs but 5:00 tip-offs could be a big problem if the garages are still full. I ain't making this stuff up. This is a problem that's been addressed in the media numerous times.
Section 101
All-Star
5 pm tip offs? Doesnt happen on weekdays. I think there may have been 1 or 2 the 20 years I have had tickets and those were playoff games.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
regardless, there's no guarantee they'd be empty by six or seven either. Even Goerge Maloof said "Hey, I think Natomas is great. That's my opinion. We've got everything there. The off-ramps, the parking. It's the most natural location. Everybody is used to going there. But I also understand the downtown concept, I totally get that. Whatever works." so obviously even people closest to the situation aren't necessarily in favor of the downtown location. They're just kind of going with the flow because that's the direction the ball is already rolling in.
Livinthedream
All-Star
Wow...just say you don't want to walk and leave it at that. George Maloof has no interest in what's best for Sacramento AND, he doesn't want to lose parking revenue. When was the last time you were downtown on a weeknight at 7pm? Parking is not a problem.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
What the heck are you babbling about? This isn't about me. Learn to read properly. I was discussing valid concerns that have been addressed by both the media and those close to the situation. If you're ignorant of that, that's your problem, but do not try and turn this into an argument about me when it's about a much larger issue. Personally, I don't give a rat's patoot where it gets built as long as it gets built. I'm simply concerned about any little thing that could be a possible hangup given the limited window available to get it done. If you care at all about the future of the Kings in Sacramento, you should be concerned about that too.
But they aren't valid concerns because this is the new model for downtown arenas all across the country. Maybe because Sacramentans have gotten so cozy with their automobiles that they considered alternate models too icky or beneath them they think if they can protest loud enough they will get their way but the city is also doing some social engineering here because city planners realize that reducing automobile traffic is going to be a major priority for all metro areas in the next 50 years or so.
Livinthedream
All-Star
I know very well what this is about. But your argument centers around parking and I believe it to be a weak argument. I used to park city lot about 2 blocks from the proposed site. The lot backs up to the empty railyards. It was full during the day, but if got out of work by 5:30, it was completely empty. If people want to stay tied to their cars and don't want to walk a few extra feet, then so be it. If that's not you, then you don't have to take it personally.
The true issue is about funding the arena. If the city can find enough funding outside of taxing the general public, then it will get built and people will adjust to where and how it's built and learn to love it.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
Sure people will adjust once it's done. I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about it getting done. If solving parking issues adds more time or money it's time or money Sacramento simply doesn't have. As i'm sure you know this is something that has to get done and get done quick. There's no room for errors or complications.
kennadog
Dog On It!
And I think the people wondering about it are hyper-ventilating over a something that isn't a huge issue. They apparently have never lived or traveled much in big cities where a lot of people get around by public transit and walking. Natomas is never going to have the kind of multi-transportation access that the rail yeards are going to have.
I'd be happy to take light rail any day, or walk a half mile in an active and interesting urban area over walking across poorly lit, acres of asphalt that is not close to anything else by walking. I'l love to park near an arena and walk by a variety of restaurants and entertainment on my way to and from the arena. There are some okay restaurants in Natomas, but you can't walk there from Arco, its certainly more than 1/2 mile and then I sure wouldn't want to walk back across the Arco parking late at night. I was impressed with LA Live across from Staples and the multitude of eating, drinking, entertainment options and lots of people on the streets enjoying themselves until late into the night.
Arco has created no entertainment district or lively, energized "destination" around it. Even ICON said if its built there, it needs to be moved close to the street. That would only marginally help as the identity of the area is already pretty much plain vanilla suburbia, dominated by the usual shopping destinations and fast food or chain restaurants you can find in suburbia almost anywhere. Nothing in the area really stands out or identifies it as Sacramento.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
