Sacramento - New Arena Plan

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by SoCal Alan

Is it supposed to be built in that sliver of land bounded by the rail lines, I St, 5th St, and I-5?

It's seems pretty tight there, but I guess the point is, to have the arena on the right side of the railroad tracks of "Downtown".

Click here:
http://sacramento.granicus.com/Agend...1&event_id=663

Go to:
Item#16, click on updated pdf.
Item 16-Entertainment & Sports Complex (PDF-2279 KB) [Updated 3-1-12 @ 6:30 pm]

Look at page 39 of 45 for a diagram of the site.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by SoCal Alan

Is it supposed to be built in that sliver of land bounded by the rail lines, I St, 5th St, and I-5?

It's seems pretty tight there, but I guess the point is, to have the arena on the right side of the railroad tracks of "Downtown".

Yes your boundaries are correct. I would not call it a sliver of land. Think like a true urbanite. You know the way they build huge projects in NYC, and European cities. The site SIZE is comparable to the size of the WTC site.

The best way to envision this is to stand where the current light rail station sits (Sacramento Valley Station) which is next to the current Amtrak station. Directly in front of you, where the current UP tracks are located, and west of the future 5th street extension is more or less where the SOUTHeastern front side of the Arena will be.

Another way to envision it is: Where the current amtrak-capitol corridor tracks (4) stand will be the entire front side of the structure. Light rail will wrap around the building on its way out to Natomas and Sacramento’s beautiful new Airport.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by Web

the railroad tracks are moving north.....you can actually see them now! signals are in also and they are building the new amtrak platforms.....

Yep, it looks great so far.

Currently, the 4 amtrak-captiol corridor tracks are being moved north in front of several historic SP Buildings which will be rehabilitated. At least 3 of those structures are huge beautiful brick buildings with beautiful arched windows.

I suspect certain historical folk have issue with the Arena because it does not "fit" into their vision of the site. I love the way older cities blend the new with the old. Like London, NYC, SF, Berlin, Paris, the list is endless.

[NME22]

Renderings of the arena are here. Just click on the photo's on the right.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/02/430...#storylink=cpy

[wburg]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

You are completely distorting what's in that document by those statements.

The parking lease and the future revenues is the main focus! You don't seem to understand that revenues from parking will go up because of the Arena, and only because of the Arena. Without the Arena there is no revenue windfall. This is a good thing; it ensures profits for the city and the parking operator.

You conveniently left-out the non-public model: The concession model is where the concessionaire takes all the risk not the city.

The discussion of the non-public model spends a lot of time talking about the down sides and why it's probably not a good idea--such as the fact that we'd be stuck with the parking contract for 50 years while the arena will only last about 25--if we build another arena in 25 years, that parking revenue will still be locked up.

And the most recent arrangements with the Kings drastically reduce the income potential of any parking deal--the Maloofs get all the parking revenue from Kings games, the city gets all the parking revenue from non-Kings events, which means that the nights when there is lots of parking revenue are nights when a parking concessionaire doesn't make a cent. If that isn't bad enough, now the city is on the hook to build a VIP parking structure that the public can use on non-Kings nights, and the county is providing its own lots, both of which function as competition to the concessionaire parking. The parking value estimates were based on the concessionaire getting revenue from game nights and events at the arena, and now they're getting none of it--which slices a huge chunk out of the value of that parking concession.

Furthermore, You don't seem to have a problem when "public" redevelopment funds are used for rehabbing "historic" old hotels or apt buildings. The private millionaires that benefit from those endeavors don't seem to bother you, just the Maloofs. I think your real problem is the Arena competes for "public" funds that could go to your favorite projects.

Projects that result in more people living in the central city are a lot more important than amenities for people to visit and drive home. That includes rehab and reuse of existing buildings and construction of new residential buildings. The fact that this arena project basically sabotages every other city project in the central city is just icing on the crud-cake that is this particular arena proposal, but it's part of what is wrong with the proposal. Arenas are big and gltizy and impress people who prefer style to substance. Stuff like fixing up old buildings and doing infill projects is boring and unglamorous but it also happens to actually work. Arenas are not nearly so sure a bet--especially when literally everyone involved in the deal is borrowing money to do it! The only people who would like the economics of this deal are the same sort who thought that subprime mortgages were a sure thing.

You conveniently leave out the profits that both the Maloofs and AEG have to share with the city.

Maloofs keep all the revenue from Kings games except a small surcharge, and if they don't make enough from parking, they don't even have to pay that. AEG pays a percentage. Both revenue streams, plus the estimated cost recovery from city parking on non-Kings nights aren't enough to fill the $9 million revenue hole in the general fund--let alone pay the payments and interest on the bonds that the city will float to pay for construction.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Yep, it looks great so far.

Currently, the 4 amtrak-captiol corridor tracks are being moved north in front of several historic SP Buildings which will be rehabilitated. At least 3 of those structures are huge beautiful brick buildings with beautiful arched windows.

I suspect certain historical folk have issue with the Arena because it does not "fit" into their vision of the site. I love the way older cities blend the new with the old. Like London, NYC, SF, Berlin, Paris, the list is endless.

Not me--the juxtaposition of old and new in a downtown is important, and there are plenty of good examples of that right here in Sacramento. The problem with the latest renderings is that they put the arena directly in between the passenger depot and the tracks where trains arrive, which effectively destroys all of the work done so far to create an intermodal depot, including the underground tunnels currently under construction! The most recent idea for the site was from the Urban Land Institute, who suggested a "transit plaza" between the passenger depot and the tracks, rather than a single structure (an earlier plan) but in either case the idea was to create a modern building and plaza between the tracks and the depot. The latest version of that report even said that an arena wouldn't be incompatible if they placed it up against the highway to avoid directly blocking the line of sight between the depot and the tracks. But the current rendering and location seem to work in direct opposition to their recommendation, and the long-term efforts of the city to expand our train station into a full-sized intermodal depot.

[BrianSac]

wburg, You are distorting the facts regarding the Arena deal as usual.

If rehabbing historic residential structures were so desirable and profitable then the private sector should not need any public money.

Every single historic residential building project should be scrutinized and maligned like the Arena deal. Every single one of them.

These half-way house residential “public give aways” that sabotage the efforts of projects that actually make Downtown desirable for the middle and upper middle class should be put to a public vote, so we can vote them down.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by wburg

Not me--the juxtaposition of old and new in a downtown is important, and there are plenty of good examples of that right here in Sacramento.

We actually agree. The juxtaposition of the old and new is important --- and the best example of that will be a modern functional Arena aligned with an historic depot, and the historic gigantic SP structures with a modern inter-modal transit station to the west of the Arena.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by wburg

The problem with the latest renderings is that they put the arena directly in between the passenger depot and the tracks where trains arrive

They are moving the tracks north, remember.

Originally Posted by wburg

The most recent idea for the site was from the Urban Land Institute, who suggested.....but in either case the idea was to create a modern building and plaza between the tracks and the depot.

The Urban Land Institute (ULI) recommends Arena. ULI does not emphasize the “necessity” of a "plaza".

[innov8]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

As I understand it, this parking deal involves city garages only, not parking meters.

Parking rates can go up regardless of who controls the rates whether it be the city or a private company. But this deal includes rate setting mechanisms.

The Arena parking deal involves a guaranteed piece of any revenue increases not anticipated at the time of the lease.

The term sheet earmarks $5Mil from MOPA funds for legal fees. (Kings and AEG are putting in 6.5M for legal fees). David Taylor is a construction partner for the Arena. I doubt he will let 800 K street suffer. The two projects can benefit each other in the long run.

After taking a walk on the east side of the arena project today, I really think the railyards is the right place for the arena. I really think it will have a very positive impact on the immediate 5 block area, but also the K street Mall, Downtown Plaza, the River Front, and Old Sac. I think its great that the inter-modal station will sit right along side it with light rail. I like mixing the new Arena with the historic train depot and the historic Southern Pacific buildings. Having 18,500 people descend upon the area nightly will have huge positive impact on downtown.

Unfortunately, I see the lease of parking by the city over 60 years and the
selling of city land as generational theft. If this happens the city will have
lost one of its biggest revenue generators with the rosy hopes of backfilling
the $9 million annual loss into the general fund. What I have noticed over
many, many years is that nearly all revenue projections generated by the
city are nearly always to high and missing the mark by underperforming.
This term sheet has rosy revenue projection where as they should be on
the more conservative side. I’d rather be pleased to see revenue beat
expectations on the conservative side than watch the city cut services
again because we were lied to another time.

Pure and simple, in the long run, spending all this money now is generational
theft at the expense of the next three generations. The city is about to
mortgage its future parking revenue to build a new arena now. Has anyone
seen data on how much the city will lose in revenue over 60 years if this
goes through? I bet is over a billion, and that’s just a conservative guess.

When I was a young guy, I learned a few lessons about how short term
gratification endeds up costing me in the long run. This will be no different
except that several generations will wonder why their getting the shaft with
few city services.

Originally Posted by BrianSac

The term sheet earmarks $5Mil from MOPA funds for legal fees. (Kings and AEG are putting in 6.5M for legal fees). David Taylor is a construction partner for the Arena. I doubt he will let 800 K street suffer. The two projects can benefit each other in the long run.

That’s quite an assumption to think Taylor will follow through on 800 K when nearly
every project he has done downtown has needed subsidies from the city.
In this case, the land is still free but I don’t think that’s enough for him to
take a loan out and build the project himself.

[BrianSac]

http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/...6.photogallery

Drawing 5: The current light rail station sits to right. Light rail tracks are already there to extend the light rail to the inter-modal station which you see to the left of the Arena. You connect with Amtrak-Capitol Corridor trains by walking in tunnels and/or the light rail bridge over 4 Union Pacific (UP) tracks.

Drawing 6: Shows the current historic Amtrak Depot with improvements to frwy onramps.

Drawing 7: North side of Arena. You see the new Union Pacific (UP) tracks in front of the giant SP structures. See light rail bridge over the UP tracks. Also you see the East side of Arena where 5th street will be extended.

Drawing 8: Closer view of North side of Arena with SP structures and light rail bridge.

They are currently building pedestrian and bicycle tunnels which connect with Old Sacramento, and I and 5th streets, and Historic Depot (which will no longer be the Amtrak station).

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by wburg

to avoid directly blocking the line of sight between the depot and the tracks.

The truth comes out. You are dead set against the Arena because you don’t want the VIEW of the Southern Pacific (SP) buildings blocked in any way! That’s nimby talk.

I love those structures too, but you can barely see them now! I don’t like those enormous giant TIN shacks (what were they used for?). Those tin shacks have been an eyesore for too long.

I’m glad we didn’t let the naysayers vote down the SP railyards decades ago and forsake the thousands of jobs SP brought to Sacramento last century. Not to mention the history SP brought to Sacramento. But, I guess its ok to do that now by voting down any project that doesn't fit with our "historic" sensibilities, or "appear"s too big, or benefits the middle and upper classes, or will dump $100 million plus yearly into the Downtown economy.

Instead, let's get all the negative nancy's, and their grandmothers worked-up into tizzy so they vote it down. We can start by using that propaganda newspaper New&Review to write scathing articles every month about all involved in the Arena - KJ, AEG, Maloofs, whos next?, every city council member who votes YES.

I walked the site. It will work. People will enjoy the structures all the same with the Arena there. 18,500 people will be able to admire those structures every night, and spend money to support them.

[NME22]

Originally Posted by innov8

Unfortunately, I see the lease of parking by the city over 60 years and the
selling of city land as generational theft. If this happens the city will have
lost one of its biggest revenue generators with the rosy hopes of backfilling
the $9 million annual loss into the general fund. What I have noticed over
many, many years is that nearly all revenue projections generated by the
city are nearly always to high and missing the mark by underperforming.
This term sheet has rosy revenue projection where as they should be on
the more conservative side. I’d rather be pleased to see revenue beat
expectations on the conservative side than watch the city cut services
again because we were lied to another time.

Pure and simple, in the long run, spending all this money now is generational
theft at the expense of the next three generations. The city is about to
mortgage its future parking revenue to build a new arena now. Has anyone
seen data on how much the city will lose in revenue over 60 years if this
goes through? I bet is over a billion, and that’s just a conservative guess.

When I was a young guy, I learned a few lessons about how short term
gratification endeds up costing me in the long run. This will be no different
except that several generations will wonder why their getting the shaft with
few city services.

This is why having an honest discussion is difficult. The parking lease proposal is not 60 years and you know it. It is your opinion that all of the estimates are wrong by the city. Not a fact, but you're trying to pass off half truths and distortions as facts. Naysayers all say the construction costs of the arena are too low. However, Icon/Taylor has offered to cover any cost overruns. Why would they do that if they were lying to us about how much an arena would cost? Why would these private entities like Icon/Taylor and AEG be willing to invest their time and money into this project if it is a guaranteed failure as you say?

The argument has been that the city is giving away our future revenue by leasing out parking for an extended period of time. So the city comes up with an alternative plan as an option where the city keeps the parking and creates an independent finance group to leverage the parking while keeping the assets, and people scream it's bonds! Well if your conservative estimate is that we're going to make billions over the next "60" years in parking, then covering the $200 million for the arena is easy and well worth the investment. So what's the problem? Can't have it both ways.

Mortgaging our future is not doing anything to stimulate the economy in this region. You do that by building projects that attract visitors and business. As much as I enjoy history, throngs of people are not visiting, moving or bringing their business to Sac because of some historic warehouses in a dirt field. That's not a draw and never will be. That's the cherry on top. You have to have a main draw, and Sac has none. You can't build housing downtown if people have no reason to move there. The railyards sit vacant right now, because the city can't attract any business without a major anchor that will stimulate the area. That's what this arena does. The types of people who buy downtown housing, are those that like active nightlife.

That’s quite an assumption to think Taylor will follow through on 800 K when nearly
every project he has done downtown has needed subsidies from the city.
In this case, the land is still free but I don’t think that’s enough for him to
take a loan out and build the project himself.

Is this not an assumption on your part?

[SoCal Alan]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Click here:
http://sacramento.granicus.com/Agend...1&event_id=663

Go to:
Item#16, click on updated pdf.
Item 16-Entertainment & Sports Complex (PDF-2279 KB) [Updated 3-1-12 @ 6:30 pm]

Look at page 39 of 45 for a diagram of the site.

Thanks for the pointers!

Any plans on building a convention center in this area. Like they have in L.A. with the LA convention center and Staples Arena?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

The truth comes out. You are dead set against the Arena because you don’t want the VIEW of the Southern Pacific (SP) buildings blocked in any way! That’s nimby talk.

I love those structures too, but you can barely see them now! I don’t like those enormous giant TIN shacks (what were they used for?). Those tin shacks have been an eyesore for too long.

No, you've got it wrong again. I'm talking about the view between the existing Amtrak passenger depot and the tracks where people get on to trains, not the view between the tracks and the Shops. That view (tracks to Shops) will be completely unobstructed, because the new location for the tracks is directly up against the shops themselves. I'm talking about people arriving at the passenger depot not being able to see the trains they're going to board! Not for appreciation, but for identification and location.

I’m glad we didn’t let the naysayers vote down the SP railyards decades ago and forsake the thousands of jobs SP brought to Sacramento last century. Not to mention the history SP brought to Sacramento. But, I guess its ok to do that now by voting down any project that doesn't fit with our "historic" sensibilities, or "appear"s too big, or benefits the middle and upper classes, or will dump $100 million plus yearly into the Downtown economy.

Instead, let's get all the negative nancy's, and their grandmothers worked-up into tizzy so they vote it down. We can start by using that propaganda newspaper New&Review to write scathing articles every month about all involved in the Arena - KJ, AEG, Maloofs, whos next?, every city council who votes YES.

I walked the site. It will work. People will enjoy the structures all the same with the Arena there. 18,500 people will be able to admire those structures every night, and spend money to support them.

This isn't about enjoying buildings, but being able to clearly define and identify the second busiest transit center on the west coast. It's not about views or aesthetics or sensibilities or appearances or grandmothers, no matter how much you want it to be. It's about the mountain of debt we have to take on to build an arena, that is being snuck in at the eleventh hour. It's a bad deal, unless you're in the construction business or an ambitious politician who wants to point at something glitzy they "gave" to the city of Sacramento.

The issue of the transit center is secondary to the financial issues of the arena. This really isn't about appearances, kids--it's about dollars and cents. This arena doesn't make financial sense no matter where it is--the location is just extra reason for criticism. If it was nestled up against I-5, or on the northern side of the Shops, or on top of Westfield, or in the Docks, it would fit better and probably function better. Then all I'd be criticizing are the financials of the project--which are awful.

The only reason this site was chosen is because the city already owns it and we can't afford to buy anything else, regardless of how constrained the site is or how many other projects we have to sabotage to do it.

More details here:

http://ransackedmedia.com/2012/03/02...-and-the-ugly/

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by SoCal Alan

Thanks for the pointers!

Any plans on building a convention center in this area. Like they have in L.A. with the LA convention center and Staples Arena?

We have a convention center and it is quite beautiful. But, it is too small to compete with the big boys in Vegas, SD, LA, Moscone Center (SF)

Getting it built took a decade. Getting "big" projects built in SAC is so difficult because:

1. Every environmental lawsuit lawyer has their base of operations in Sacramento because we are the Capitol of the largest Nimby State.

2. We have a disproportionately large amount of boots on the ground NIMBYs.

3. The old Sacramento mentality is "keep it small". "We don't need that". Our priorities are trimming our beautiful trees every year, and rehabbing one block a decade. Having endless meetings until the life blood is sucked out of every project that comes along with the end goal of making sure it doesn't get built.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by wburg

people arriving at the passenger depot not being able to see the trains they're going to board![/I] Not for appreciation, but for identification and location.

My god man, you need to get out a little.

Of the thousands of trains that descend upon Grand Central Station and Penn Station in NYC - YOU CAN't SEE a single one of them until you are at the platform. This applies to practically every city in Europe.

LA's Union Station - You can't see those trains either.

Sacramento has 4 tracks, only 2 are used regularly; it's not going to be a problem.

[CAGeoNerd]

People who oppose the new arena on the grounds that we'll lose money make me laugh. I've been reading some of the comments on the SacBee articles and it's full of people claiming it's a boondoggle or scam, etc.. when the exact opposite is true. This will make the city money.

What do opponents propose instead? Do nothing? Leave the railyards as an empty lot for a few more decades? Have it completely funded by private businesses (which will never happen)? I don't understand what is a "good" deal to the opponents, unless they have completely unrealistic expectations. I'd rather not sell of our parking, but what other solution/option do we have at this point? The public made it clear they didn't want to be taxed to pay for it, so the city had to come up with money some other way. I've seen people say "well if the arena is such a good idea, why aren't private companies lining up to build it themselves?" - Because it's not about the arena turning a profit, it's about the effects of the arena, which the city and region are the benefactors of, in all of the direct and indirect ways that it ripples through our economy and drives growth and wealth.

You have to spend money to make money. Opponents seem to think this won't attract and retain businesses and people. They think this won't spur more development downtown. They think there won't be a positive economic impact for the city and region, they think we'll be worse off! While the measure of positive economic impact isn't clear, the one clear thing is that if we don't build the arena, now at the 11th hour, our city will be a worse place to live for a long time to come.

[wburg]

The difference is that there are far better investments in the "spend money to make money" category. Investments in transit are less glamorous but higher return. Investments in housing put people where you want them to go--it has been so hard to do housing in the central city because of all the momentum to build outward into new suburbs, so we have "landscrapers" in Natomas instead of skyscrapers downtown. Investment in affordable housing is markedly unglamorous, but places for poor people to live makes them less likely to live on the street, which is an even bigger deterrent to downtown investment, and providing places for working-class people to live means they can live near their downtown jobs instead of commuting downtown, reducing the need for downtown parking lots (and, again, incentivizing infill.)

People talk about downtown Los Angeles a lot, and point to their arena projects, but what really made a difference was an "adaptive reuse" ordinance that incentivized use of existing buildings--not necessarily the most historic or beautiful ones (although there's a lot of beautiful architecture in downtown LA) but the existing ones, as recently built as 1980. The ordinance reduced parking requirements, increased maximum densities and simplified development approvals if they used an existing building, many of which were vacant, or vacant except for the ground floor. The result, between 2000 and 2008, was a tripling of their downtown population--from about 15,000 to 45,000. That many more people in a neighborhood has a profound economic effect, because people living in a neighborhood spend much more of their money there. And once people are present, and there are businesses there to serve the neighborhood, it's easier to attract visitors and get those visitors to stick around--visitors to a neighborhood don't like empty streets.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Of the thousands of trains that descend upon Grand Central Station and Penn Station in NYC - YOU CAN't SEE a single one of them until you are at the platform. This applies to practically every city in Europe.

LA's Union Station - You can't see those trains either.

Sacramento has 4 tracks, only 2 are used regularly; it's not going to be a problem.

Fair enough. If the existing depot is retained, the city doesn't have to backfill the transportation money they would have to return if they stopped using it as a depot. And if the passageways from the depot building to the tracks are clearly indicated, visibility is less of an issue--the article in today's Bee at least mentions the underground tunnels and that they would remain in use. So let's scratch exact location off my list of concerns for now (although I still think it would be better placed on the north end of the Railyards, where there is a lot more room but no city owned lots.)

The financials are still the bigger concern. The private parking contractor deal is dead, dead, dead, so while I agree with innov8's assessment about selling our parking (and yes, it was for 50 years, not 60, but that's still twice as long as the arena is expected to last), the changes to the parking plan in the past week effectively ruin any past assessments or bids to lease city parking. Instead of a parking plan where the parking tenant was guaranteed all the parking revenue from arena events, they get NONE of it. The events of the past week seem designed to sabotage the private parking plan, making the "public monetization" (in other words, bonds to be paid back by future parking revenue) option the only one left on the table.

The other source of revenue is the sale of city land, and the sale of the existing arena--both of which are based on the Army Corps of Engineers lifting the building moratorium in Natomas. Until that is lifted, the land can't be built upon and thus can't be sold, thus that money won't be available or quite a while--a few years out, at least, and as the city has discovered before, the Council's wishes don't mean a whole lot to the Army Corps of Engineers. So are we going to have to borrow that money too?