News 10 on arena
- Thread starter kennadog
- Start date
kennadog
Dog On It!
It will be quite a while before we see any arena, even if this deal goes through. However, if a new arena doesn't get built in a reasonable time period, Sacramento will no longer have any arena venue for concerts, ice-skating shows, the circus, the Kings or any other event requiring an arena venue. Most of the events at Arco are non-basketball. Kings will leave and Arco will be demolished.
Of course, then you won't have to worry about ticket prices at all. Of course, if you want to see anything you'd have to drive to the bay area and pay for gas, more expensive parking and still expensive tickets prices. (Boy, do I remember what that was like pre-Arco.) I also remember a four-hour drive home through rush hour traffic after a weekday afternoon A's game in Oakland.
Of course, then you won't have to worry about ticket prices at all. Of course, if you want to see anything you'd have to drive to the bay area and pay for gas, more expensive parking and still expensive tickets prices. (Boy, do I remember what that was like pre-Arco.) I also remember a four-hour drive home through rush hour traffic after a weekday afternoon A's game in Oakland.
The entire NBA is going to be down on attendance beacuse of the economy. As far as markets go, Sacramento has been a safer bet than places like New Orleans and Atlanta over the years. When teams are down on talent and don't compete for the playoffs, the attendance sags. It happens in all cities. Just be glad that we have a shot at getting an arena built. An entertainment venue is the key thing here. Like kennadog said, Arco Arena is going to be torn down sometime in the not too distant future no matter if the Kings stay or go.
ZZE916
Bench
I don't believe this. I've lived in Sacramento for 36 years, and I remember those days of driving to the Bay Area for entertainment (what a pain). I also remember going to Memorial Auditorium (which also seems to be standing after who knows how many years) for at least one Ted Nugent concert, and James Brown, Sly and the Family Stone, etc. The reason for replacing ARCO is related to basketball. Period. It is still a viable general entertainment venue. The Cow Palace is 67 years old, and as antiquated as it gets.It will be quite a while before we see any arena, even if this deal goes through. However, if a new arena doesn't get built in a reasonable time period, Sacramento will no longer have any arena venue for concerts, ice-skating shows, the circus, the Kings or any other event requiring an arena venue. Most of the events at Arco are non-basketball. Kings will leave and Arco will be demolished.
Of course, then you won't have to worry about ticket prices at all. Of course, if you want to see anything you'd have to drive to the bay area and pay for gas, more expensive parking and still expensive tickets prices. (Boy, do I remember what that was like pre-Arco.) I also remember a four-hour drive home through rush hour traffic after a weekday afternoon A's game in Oakland.
Last edited:
No, it also relates to turnaround times between events, etc. Arco takes up to twice as long to turn around between events, limiting the arena usefullness as a "general-purpose" arena, especially when dealing with ice and dirt (ice skating/hockey and monster trucks come to mind). The only way to make $$$ with an arena now is cramming in as many shows as you can. The current arena is woefully behind the curve on being able to do that.
The amenities are lacking and the concourses are crowded.
If the Kings move, the arena will be sold off to developers and the current arena razed. Without the Kings/Monarchs here, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there are not enough events to keep the arena filled enough to make any $$$ at all. How are you going to replace 60+ nights of packed crowds a year in Sacramento?
And why wasn't there an arena in Sacramento (before the Kings were lured here) if there was the demand? It took an "if we build it, they will come" mentality to get one built to begin with.
If the Kings leave, no team is going to consider coming here if the existing Arco is what they have to look forward to.
kennadog
Dog On It!
Memorial Auditoruim cannot accomodate most of the activities that take place at Arco and always had terrible acoustics. Larger shows just have far more equipment and need a large volume of tickets to support their operational costs. Memorial Auditorium is way too small, hasn't the concessions and has inadequate loading and marshalling areas. It also has no way to accomodate ice shows. By the way, the city hasn't been doing such a great job of maintaining Memorial Auditoirum either.
Arco was built on the super cheap and it shows. The Palace of Auburn Hills, built the same year as Arco, cost twice as much as Arco. Not that I blame the Kings owners at the time. It was all private money that built Arco and is partly why the ownership was headed to bankruptcy before the City, then the Maloofs stepped in.
Actually, the city already paid for more than one consultant study and every study done has concluded that Arco is at or very near the end of it's economic life and can't be remodeled and enlarged due to an inadequate foundation. There are already larger shows skipping Sacramento as pointed out in the Bee a while back.
Every engineer and consultant has come to the conclusion that Arco is not going to be economically viable much longer for the kind of activites that are currently hosted there.
While I love the memories at Arco, it is a cheap, crappy arena. If more money had been spent on it originally, it probably could have been remodeled and updated ala the Palace of Auburn Hills. That boat sailed long ago.
(Sacramento area resident since the summer of 1967.
)
Last edited:
Kings Faithful
Starter
We do need some sort of upgrade for a stadium. I wen't to the Pepsi center down in Denver last year and that place was bangin. It would be nice to have that kind of thing down here.
ZZE916
Bench
I think my comments have been misinterpreted. Memorial is VERY antiquated, but it still stands. I have played music during the Kings games with my former band and it is a logistical nightmare, no doubt. But I still don't think the choice is a new arena or nothing. I can't see the demolition of ARCO if a new arena is not built. True, it was built on the cheap and in a very rushed manner. Let us all remember ARCO Arena 1 is still standing, although it's not being used for sporting or entertainment purposes.
Would it be nice to have a new arena? HELL YES!!! But if it is not built, the existing arena still has some life in it for general entertainment purposes. I may be wrong, but I think Sacramento would be outraged if the only venue capable of supporting such events was torn down. I just can't see it.
Would it be nice to have a new arena? HELL YES!!! But if it is not built, the existing arena still has some life in it for general entertainment purposes. I may be wrong, but I think Sacramento would be outraged if the only venue capable of supporting such events was torn down. I just can't see it.
Yes, the arena would still be "functional" and is in all probability not about to fall over, but if the Malooofs sold the team or moved it and sold the arena (as they certainly would), who would buy it and maintain Arco? Who would want an old structure like that with no real way of making money once the Kings and Monarchs were gone?
It has been discussed before (by folks much more knowledgable than I) that the most probable scenario would be the land would go to developers and they would demo the structure and develop the land, as it is worth far more that way. The Maloofs would NOT keep the arena to see if they could fill it and possibly come even close to breaking even on it.....
ZZE916
Bench
I agree, Warhawk. In order for it to remain standing, the city would need to purchase it and make whatever patches necessary to squeeze a few more years out of the old girl. Without a viable alternate venue, that may be attractive enough to actually happen.
Yeah, but HOW WOULD THE CITY BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT?
That is the point - it all comes down to $$$, and the city has a shortage now. There is no way the city will be able to fork over $$$ to buy it. They still can't finance the railyards development, much less buy an old arena and the land it sits on.....
The arena would need to be re-modeled and updated if the city ended up buying it. It would be more practical to tear the building down and sell off the land. And since the Maloofs have a loan to pay off on that building, they would just sell the land off anyway and pay it off. Developers would buy it and tear it down most likely.
Last edited:
No, the reason for replacing ARCO is not solely related to basketball. If you've lived in Sacramento for 36 years, try and remember what the population was when you moved there.
Yes, Memorial Auditorium is still standing but it was only after it was retro-fitted that it became a venue for some events. Since it can only hold about 5,000-6,000 people, it is not anything remotely close to what the area needs for large concerts, etc. that can sell out Arco easily. Remember, ARCO - set up for basketball - can seat 17,317. That's three times Memorial Auditorium. I saw the Beach Boys in Memorial Auditorium once but that is no more relevant than the groups you saw so many years ago. Times have changed, concert attendance has grown almost beyond belief and the draw of major acts simply mandates a state-of-the-art facility if Sacramento is going to be somewhere entertainers want to come.
DocHolliday
Starter
ZZE916,
Just to add in to what others have said, I have just became a North Natomas resident as I purchased a home here. Have you noticed the construction around here. As much as the housing market has fallen and gone down, North Natomas's values aren't falling as much as a lot of others. THey have dropped, but I'm talking about looking at equal sized homes in different parts of the city and what the current percentage of drop is, North Natomas isn't falling as much, because it's close to the airport and downtown.
The reason for saying that is, housing out here is desirable for may people. Also, there will be no one building out here between 2009 and 2011. The reason being is it's being deemed a floodzone to force the government to make the necessary fixes to the levvy's.
So, if a developer bought arco, arco would be demolished and houses would be built. Whether it be apartments, condos, townhomes, single family homes, or a combination of them all, that's what would happen.
There is MUCH more money in that then maintaining Arco and getting whatever events you could still get to come to Arco.l
Just to add in to what others have said, I have just became a North Natomas resident as I purchased a home here. Have you noticed the construction around here. As much as the housing market has fallen and gone down, North Natomas's values aren't falling as much as a lot of others. THey have dropped, but I'm talking about looking at equal sized homes in different parts of the city and what the current percentage of drop is, North Natomas isn't falling as much, because it's close to the airport and downtown.
The reason for saying that is, housing out here is desirable for may people. Also, there will be no one building out here between 2009 and 2011. The reason being is it's being deemed a floodzone to force the government to make the necessary fixes to the levvy's.
So, if a developer bought arco, arco would be demolished and houses would be built. Whether it be apartments, condos, townhomes, single family homes, or a combination of them all, that's what would happen.
There is MUCH more money in that then maintaining Arco and getting whatever events you could still get to come to Arco.l
kennadog
Dog On It!
I probably shouldn't post on most days. You don't see that stopping me.I admit it is highly unlikely te city would buy ARCO, and I do realize times have changed. I also admit that some of my comments were not relevant to the discussion. I should not have been posting yesterday...
ZZE916
Bench
A combination of a lost family member (which reulted in strong nostalgic feelings), and powerful medication turned me into a blathering idiot. Even I don't agree with much of what I wrote. I will try to clarify my position once I am able. I apologize for these ridiculous comments.I probably shouldn't post on most days. You don't see that stopping me.
ZZE916
Bench
Don't worry about it, my friend. It's just one of those times in life where I would really like to hit the rewind button. I'll be back to full force at a later date.
Ryan
I like turtles
ings arena plan for Cal Expo expected within 90 days
NBA TO ORDER STUDY OF CAL EXPO PROPOSAL
By Mary Lynne Vellinga
mlvellinga@sacbee.com
PUBLISHED WEDNESDAY, OCT. 22, 2008
The NBA and Cal Expo expect to produce a plan within 90 days to build a new Kings arena at the state fairgrounds, an NBA consultant said Tuesday.
Representatives of the league and Cal Expo have spent five months working on a conceptual blueprint for the revamping of Cal Expo into a "village" with a modern fairgrounds, arena, housing, office, entertainment and retail uses.
Now the NBA will commission a study to examine the plan and tweak it so that it's financially feasible.
That study should take about two months, said John Moag, the NBA's point man on the arena.
He expects to be back before the Cal Expo board in December or January. At that point, the board will decide whether to solicit developer proposals to execute the plan for the 360-acre fairgrounds.
"Within 90 days we're going to know whether Cal Expo and the NBA have a deal, and what the plan looks like," Moag said.
He added: "We'd pull the plug in a heartbeat if we didn't think it was going anywhere, because it is very expensive."
Moag said the NBA has spent "millions" on the effort so far. Brian May, deputy general manager of Cal Expo, said the state fairgrounds has spent $75,000 in legal and consulting fees.
On Oct. 31, the Cal Expo board is scheduled to vote on extending the negotiation period with the NBA – set to expire Nov. 21 – until the economic analysis is finished.
"We're making progress; I feel good," May said.
He said Cal Expo likely would hire its own expert to review the NBA's financial feasibility study.
A tentative plan for the Cal Expo site has been circulating for months, but the NBA and Cal Expo are keeping it under wraps because it is still evolving.
City officials were briefed by the NBA in August. They were required to sign a confidentiality agreement, said John Dangberg, deputy city manager.
"It's a great plan," he said. "We gave them our comments, and they agreed with our comments."
Moag said the city pushed to include more housing. Joining the call for more density was Mike McKeever, executive director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the regional transportation planning agency.
"He and others weighed in and said why are you going so light on residential, which was a pleasant surprise for us to hear, because we thought maybe it was too dense," Moag said. "They said, 'You're not dense enough, and what you really need to do is think bigger.' "
Moag would not disclose the number of residential units the NBA and Cal Expo are considering.
Also up in the air is the future of horseracing at the site. May said the plan may or may not wind up including a track.
"Part of the economic analysis is to determine what has financial viability and what doesn't," May said. "Nothing is set in concrete at this particular time."
If both parties agree the plan makes financial sense, they will solicit proposals from developers interested in overhauling the sprawling, 40-year-old fairgrounds complex along Business 80 near the American River.
The idea is to build enough homes, offices, retail stores and restaurants to pay for a replacement of Arco Arena – which the NBA says is obsolete – and a modern state fair facility.
The arena alone could cost $500 million, and the cost of rebuilding the fairgrounds has been estimated at $150 million.
May has said Cal Expo would not sell its 360 acres to a developer but would enter into a long-term lease. When the lease ran out, everything on the site would revert to Cal Expo's control.
If the parties move forward, Cal Expo and the NBA will be battling an economic headwind that has left developers reeling nationwide.
Moag said he thinks long-term prospects for the site remain strong.
"The whole country is cutting back, but that doesn't mean development is stopping," he said. "It just alters the schedule, if anything.
"It's not like there's a hurry to get into the market and get the debt while it's good, but on the other hand, we have to have the land ready so we can trigger it."
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1332839.html
NBA TO ORDER STUDY OF CAL EXPO PROPOSAL
By Mary Lynne Vellinga
mlvellinga@sacbee.com
PUBLISHED WEDNESDAY, OCT. 22, 2008
The NBA and Cal Expo expect to produce a plan within 90 days to build a new Kings arena at the state fairgrounds, an NBA consultant said Tuesday.
Representatives of the league and Cal Expo have spent five months working on a conceptual blueprint for the revamping of Cal Expo into a "village" with a modern fairgrounds, arena, housing, office, entertainment and retail uses.
Now the NBA will commission a study to examine the plan and tweak it so that it's financially feasible.
That study should take about two months, said John Moag, the NBA's point man on the arena.
He expects to be back before the Cal Expo board in December or January. At that point, the board will decide whether to solicit developer proposals to execute the plan for the 360-acre fairgrounds.
"Within 90 days we're going to know whether Cal Expo and the NBA have a deal, and what the plan looks like," Moag said.
He added: "We'd pull the plug in a heartbeat if we didn't think it was going anywhere, because it is very expensive."
Moag said the NBA has spent "millions" on the effort so far. Brian May, deputy general manager of Cal Expo, said the state fairgrounds has spent $75,000 in legal and consulting fees.
On Oct. 31, the Cal Expo board is scheduled to vote on extending the negotiation period with the NBA – set to expire Nov. 21 – until the economic analysis is finished.
"We're making progress; I feel good," May said.
He said Cal Expo likely would hire its own expert to review the NBA's financial feasibility study.
A tentative plan for the Cal Expo site has been circulating for months, but the NBA and Cal Expo are keeping it under wraps because it is still evolving.
City officials were briefed by the NBA in August. They were required to sign a confidentiality agreement, said John Dangberg, deputy city manager.
"It's a great plan," he said. "We gave them our comments, and they agreed with our comments."
Moag said the city pushed to include more housing. Joining the call for more density was Mike McKeever, executive director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the regional transportation planning agency.
"He and others weighed in and said why are you going so light on residential, which was a pleasant surprise for us to hear, because we thought maybe it was too dense," Moag said. "They said, 'You're not dense enough, and what you really need to do is think bigger.' "
Moag would not disclose the number of residential units the NBA and Cal Expo are considering.
Also up in the air is the future of horseracing at the site. May said the plan may or may not wind up including a track.
"Part of the economic analysis is to determine what has financial viability and what doesn't," May said. "Nothing is set in concrete at this particular time."
If both parties agree the plan makes financial sense, they will solicit proposals from developers interested in overhauling the sprawling, 40-year-old fairgrounds complex along Business 80 near the American River.
The idea is to build enough homes, offices, retail stores and restaurants to pay for a replacement of Arco Arena – which the NBA says is obsolete – and a modern state fair facility.
The arena alone could cost $500 million, and the cost of rebuilding the fairgrounds has been estimated at $150 million.
May has said Cal Expo would not sell its 360 acres to a developer but would enter into a long-term lease. When the lease ran out, everything on the site would revert to Cal Expo's control.
If the parties move forward, Cal Expo and the NBA will be battling an economic headwind that has left developers reeling nationwide.
Moag said he thinks long-term prospects for the site remain strong.
"The whole country is cutting back, but that doesn't mean development is stopping," he said. "It just alters the schedule, if anything.
"It's not like there's a hurry to get into the market and get the debt while it's good, but on the other hand, we have to have the land ready so we can trigger it."
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1332839.html
JerN820
Bench
Yeah, that's the United Center for ya! The house that Jordan built. My bro has been to Conseco Fieldhouse in Indy and thinks it's even better than that. Of course it's pretty new though.
