HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2881  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2013, 5:45 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Putting it out in the middle of rice fields (there weren't any suburbs there in 1988) was supposed to make us a "world class city," although it became the mechanism for the suburban expansion into North Natomas today. At this point the Seattle folks have already paid the Maloofs a non-refundable $30 million and have spent two years preparing arena plans for the site.

The rendering above is from the 2010 Think Big search for multiple arena plans--any new building at the site probably wouldn't look much like this, as I think the main person behind this plan moved to San Francisco after his restaurants went out of business because Sacramento wasn't grown-up enough for them. Which is too bad, because it's a swell rendering, very visually striking.

There are some concerns with the location, as already mentioned, because building an arena on any part of Downtown Plaza means demolishing part of the city-owned parking structures that are supposed to help finance an arena. Depending on which half of the mall the arena goes on top of, there will have to be some reshuffling to relocate businesses--and if they don't stay downtown, that sales tax revenue gets lost. Obviously they become good choices for vacant spaces nearby, but if those retail spaces need some work to be habitable, that's an extra expense.

In terms of location, a K Street arena is ideally situated--great freeway access on streets that were designed for high capacity, good public transit access, high-profile spot right where it's needed. And, unlike the Railyards, it wouldn't mess with a rather large pile of federal transportation money the city is already spending. But there's still the issue of how to pay for it--and the risk exposure to the city budget. And, of course, whether we'll have a team to put in it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2882  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2013, 5:32 PM
Schmoe's Avatar
Schmoe Schmoe is offline
NIMBY Hater
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,047
I have it on good authority that the Burkle group that wants to buy the Kings and build an arena at DTP is much more interested in the west end of the mall. We'll see if that's feasible, but the point is that this will be a huge catalyst. The groups wants high-end hotels, retail and housing to complement the development of the arena. This will be a great thing for downtown!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2883  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2013, 12:52 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmoe View Post
I have it on good authority that the Burkle group that wants to buy the Kings and build an arena at DTP is much more interested in the west end of the mall. We'll see if that's feasible, but the point is that this will be a huge catalyst. The groups wants high-end hotels, retail and housing to complement the development of the arena. This will be a great thing for downtown!

At this point I don't give a damn about any of it. I just want it to be decision-made- done deal or game over so we can move forward. I know of a couple of smaller deals that are held up because one party wants to wait and see what happens. But for what it's worth I think putting it smack in middle of K Street is just going to great perpetuate/exacerbate the piss poor connectivity that exists in that part of town. More embarrassing backwardness.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2884  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2013, 1:34 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
I have heard the same thing--there are property owners who are hesitant to lease to new tenants because they assume an arena will let them charge triple the rent.

An arena on the western half of the mall just seems counterproductive--it would demolish the active, revenue-generating part (the theater, Macy's, food court and auto dealership) and we'd be left with the semi-vacant boarded-up middle part (the 5th-7th Street stretch.) The earlier comment about a western-half plan mentioned demolishing the Holiday Inn, which would probably also require demolishing the parking structure across from it, which seems counterproductive if the idea is to avoid demolishing parking spaces--in addition to the futility of demolishing a hotel just to build another hotel.

The connectivity issue Ozone mentions is also there--theoretically, if you narrowed down J and L Street, with street-facing retail and better sidewalks, you could maintain a decent connection between "the Kay" and Old Sacramento, but it still adds two blocks to the walk vs. walking through Downtown Plaza.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2885  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2013, 5:03 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmoe View Post
I have it on good authority that the Burkle group that wants to buy the Kings and build an arena at DTP is much more interested in the west end of the mall. We'll see if that's feasible, but the point is that this will be a huge catalyst. The groups wants high-end hotels, retail and housing to complement the development of the arena. This will be a great thing for downtown!
Read that they were looking into building an aquarium as well. Will definitely be interested to see how it all shakes out.

I do agree with some of the comments about it disconnecting the city from Old Sac. That would be unfortunate. I suspect that it really wouldn't be the arena's fault for the disconnect, but the poor decision to have a freeway along the riverfront to begin with. That can't be undone though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2886  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2013, 5:37 AM
otnemarcaS's Avatar
otnemarcaS otnemarcaS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 395
The Hyundai dealership appears to have closed. No cars in there and it's dark.

Can't wait to see the new renderings of the arena and how it fits into the mall if all this materializes. As a kings season ticket holder and a downtown Capitol mall employee, I will be able to walk to the arena right after work. Since I live in Natomas, I'd be able to drive to Township 9 light rail station on richards blvd, park my car and take light rail in since no public transportation goes to my place in North Natomas late. I currently take the bus to work and back but last bus leaves at 6:38pm.

I'm curious if part of the arena plan will involve demolishing the 24 hr fitness. That will be too bad as with had gone through it's recent extensive renovation and expansion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2887  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2013, 6:57 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
township 9 green line doesnt run late and as of now has no parking......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2888  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2013, 4:15 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
I guess we will just have to wait until the middle of next month to see if we should really bother getting into it but I'm always down for idle speculation. And since I'm not putting up any money what I think is immaterial. However, that never stops me from opining. I'm no fan of the downtown plaza and so in theory I shouldn't care but I have some nagging questions that no one seems able to answer.

Wouldn't much of outside of this behemoth be pretty uninviting and therefore do nothing to improve street life? What other cities have put a sports arena in the middle of their downtown? What about traffic and parking? Do we really think the majority of the fan base is going to use light rail?

I have no doubt that the arena would spark development and be a big boost to downtown's economy. But I kind feel I'm seeing the same old Sacramento scenario. Most people around here seldom look at the whole environment and only give lip-service to increasing downtown's population. Those that know-- understand that the only way to achieve a healthy city and insure it's long-term success is to have a well-populated urban core. After the initial boom is over and the newness has worn off I wounder how a downtown plaza arena will attract new residents?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2889  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2013, 5:25 PM
Schmoe's Avatar
Schmoe Schmoe is offline
NIMBY Hater
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by NME22 View Post
I do agree with some of the comments about it disconnecting the city from Old Sac. That would be unfortunate. I suspect that it really wouldn't be the arena's fault for the disconnect, but the poor decision to have a freeway along the riverfront to begin with. That can't be undone though.
I asked about this and was told that the city is insisting on the plan finding a way to, at the very least, maintain the current tunnel connecting that area to Old Sac. My source said that the plan actually would make much of the points of interest in the plaza area closer to Old Sacramento.

I am definitely curious to see how it all unfolds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2890  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2013, 6:20 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Here's a quick crude concept I came up with this morning.



When considering what's around the downtown plaza I thought it would be better to put the arena along L Street rather than J. I'd use St Rose "park" to move people around the arena. I don't really see how that section of L Street could be be greatly improved. But if streetscape improvements were made along J Street, 4th, 5th and 7th streets it could work out really well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2891  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2013, 6:26 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmoe View Post
I asked about this and was told that the city is insisting on the plan finding a way to, at the very least, maintain the current tunnel connecting that area to Old Sac. My source said that the plan actually would make much of the points of interest in the plaza area closer to Old Sacramento.
I don't know what making much of the points of interest in the plaza area closer to Old Sacramento even means.

Also I wonder why these proposed investors are now focused on the Downtown Plaza instead of the Railyards? Has anyone read/heard an explanation for the sudden change? I find it curious that Bay Area investors would pour big money into a lousy Sacramento team.

Last edited by ozone; Mar 4, 2013 at 7:05 PM. Reason: Because I wanted to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2892  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2013, 6:58 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
I believe and others I know who have some insight on the current arena push believe
this is KJ’s attempt to save face before the Kings leave. Making it look as if he did
everything he possibly could before they are sold to Seattle folks.

To little to late KJ… but I hope I’m wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2893  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2013, 3:38 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Also I wonder why these proposed investors are now focused on the Downtown Plaza instead of the Railyards? Has anyone read/heard an explanation for the sudden change? I find it curious that Bay Area investors would pour big money into a lousy Sacramento team.
The investors haven't shifted anything. These are new investors with a different plan, who happen to already own a piece of property downtown. Makes sense to use the property you already have with some built in infrastructure and without additional environmental concerns that come with the railyards.

Not sure if your comment about pouring money into a lousy Sacramento team was rhetorical or not. The obvious reason would be that an investor would see big potential in an endeavor they put big money in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2894  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2013, 12:13 PM
NikeFutbolero's Avatar
NikeFutbolero NikeFutbolero is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
I believe and others I know who have some insight on the current arena push believe
this is KJ’s attempt to save face before the Kings leave. Making it look as if he did
everything he possibly could before they are sold to Seattle folks.

To little to late KJ… but I hope I’m wrong.
If you think this is an attempt to save face by KJ then you're an uninformed idiot. The only reason the Kings aren't in Anaheim right now is because of KJ. KJ has done absolutely everything he can and is continuing to do so, to save the Kings.

Inform yourself before making asinine comments.
__________________
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2895  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2013, 5:45 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by NME22 View Post
The investors haven't shifted anything. These are new investors with a different plan, who happen to already own a piece of property downtown. Makes sense to use the property you already have with some built in infrastructure and without additional environmental concerns that come with the railyards.

Not sure if your comment about pouring money into a lousy Sacramento team was rhetorical or not. The obvious reason would be that an investor would see big potential in an endeavor they put big money in.

OK yeah I understand why DTP is all the table and that this is as much about real estate as it is about basketball. Those putting up the dough get to call the shots. I'm OK with that --to some degree. It's still OUR city and we ultimately should get to decide. I'm not talking about a ballot measure as much as public opinion. Since there's just not a lot of precedent here and I don't know enough about the details I remain highly skeptical. I worry that the taxpayers of Sacramento are somehow going to get totally reamed in the transaction because our leaders are desperate and therefore easily manipulated and/or corrupted. And we DO have a history of that. We'll see. I really just want this whole Kings saga over. I can't wait for mid-April to come.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2896  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2013, 1:24 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
OK yeah I understand why DTP is all the table and that this is as much about real estate as it is about basketball. Those putting up the dough get to call the shots. I'm OK with that --to some degree. It's still OUR city and we ultimately should get to decide. I'm not talking about a ballot measure as much as public opinion. Since there's just not a lot of precedent here and I don't know enough about the details I remain highly skeptical. I worry that the taxpayers of Sacramento are somehow going to get totally reamed in the transaction because our leaders are desperate and therefore easily manipulated and/or corrupted. And we DO have a history of that. We'll see. I really just want this whole Kings saga over. I can't wait for mid-April to come.
I agree with most of what you're saying. One thing that sits better with me than is the past is that the city is now dealing with legit business people and not the Maloofs. Burkle appears to be interested in developing a lot of downtown and filling in some vacant lots with businesses. Be they hotels, aquariums or what have you. So this feels more like an investment in the city, than the previous attempt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2897  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2013, 5:48 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikeFutbolero View Post
If you think this is an attempt to save face by KJ then you're an uninformed idiot. The only reason the Kings aren't in Anaheim right now is because of KJ. KJ has done absolutely everything he can and is continuing to do so, to save the Kings.

Inform yourself before making asinine comments.

Yeah, what do I know? This story speaks volumes about what I already
knew. Who sounds asinine now? Oh, and if you believe KJ saved the Kings
from going to Anaheim, you read and believe to much local media. The NBA
intervened because the Lakers were not going to allow another NBA team
into the LA market… it was all about the Lakers' TV revenue, it’s that simple.
Jerry Buss pressed other owners to reject the Maloofs' relocation bid where
Buss would stand to lose $500 million in TV revenue over 20 year if the
relocation were to happen.


Stern: Sacramento group's bid to buy Kings doesn't measure up

By Tony Bizjak, Dale Kasler and Ryan Lillis
tbizjak@sacbee.com

Published: Friday, Mar. 8, 2013 - 7:26 pm

Last Modified: Saturday, Mar. 9, 2013 - 7:42 pm

OAKLAND – Last week, a triumphant Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson announced a potential Kings purchase group had submitted a fair and competitive offer to keep the team in town. Friday night, NBA Commissioner David Stern said no, not quite.

Speaking to the news media before a Golden State Warriors game in Oakland, the commissioner delivered a bombshell, saying a Sacramento group's counteroffer to buy the team does not measure up in dollars to a tentative deal the Kings recently signed with a group that hopes to move the team to Seattle.

"The counter bid has got very strong financial people behind it, but it is not quite there in comparison to the Seattle bid," Stern said. "There is a substantial variance."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/08/524...#storylink=cpy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2898  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2013, 4:45 PM
Schmoe's Avatar
Schmoe Schmoe is offline
NIMBY Hater
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
OK yeah I understand why DTP is all the table and that this is as much about real estate as it is about basketball. Those putting up the dough get to call the shots. I'm OK with that --to some degree. It's still OUR city and we ultimately should get to decide. I'm not talking about a ballot measure as much as public opinion.

The plans should be made public by March 21st in time for a City Council vote on March 26th.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2899  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2013, 3:07 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
Yeah, what do I know? This story speaks volumes about what I already
knew. Who sounds asinine now?
I'm not sure Stern's comments mean what you think it means. If you listen/read the whole press conference, Stern specifically said he expects the Mastrov bid to match Seattle by the time the NBA meets. You have to ask yourself why Stern would let Mastrov increase their offer to match Seattle if Stern was just going to deny Sac in the end. A low bid is an easy out for the NBA if they truly want the team to go to Seattle. It's not a guarantee the Kings will stay or Mastrov will match, but you may have jumped the gun on this one.

To your previous point, I don't doubt that you know people who told you that KJ was not really trying to save the Kings, but score political points. I've heard that thrown out there. However, with all the animosity that people have towards the Maloofs, he doesn't need to go through all this for political points. Just blame the Maloofs. Problem solved. In fact, what he is doing is actually potentially more dangerous to his political career. He's almost guaranteeing in public that the Kings will stay. He's putting it on his own shoulders. Politicians take the credit for things that are successful and blame others for things that are not. KJ has already taken ownership of this Kings situation. It's not in his best interest to lose the team.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2900  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2013, 5:48 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
If Sacramento is somehow able to match Seattle's bid, that means Seattle has more reason to raise their own bid. Stern wants this price war to bid up as high as possible, so of course he isn't going to do or say anything to dissuade either team from jacking their bid as high as possible in a bidding war. The higher the bid goes, the more money they get, and what is most important to the NBA is not whether the team goes to Seattle or Sacramento, but how much money goes to the NBA. A higher bid for the Kings raises the potential value of every NBA team--and their perceived value to potential host cities (and potential former host cities.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:38 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.