HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2641  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 7:13 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
NME22,
Again, I agree with you 100%. Build it and they will come. Think Big. Synergy thrives on leadership, opportunity, big visions, risk takers, not on petty negative, envious naysayers.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2642  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 7:43 AM
rampant_jwalker's Avatar
rampant_jwalker rampant_jwalker is offline
legalize it-0'0" setbacks
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Preparation for the Olympics in London will cost billions. Don't hold your breath.
Well, it sounds like a pipe dream if the farthest into the future you can fathom is tomorrow, mainly because we're still knee deep in an economic recession... but so is the majority of the developed world! Compared to other Winter sports regions in Europe, Asia, and South America, I think Reno/Tahoe/Sac is in just as good of a position as any to host the games. It would be incredible for tourism, and would help speed up Sacramento's plans for lightrail to the airport, housing in the railyards, and other things. Getting a new arena built here will guarantee that Sacramento will get to host high-profile events like figure skating and hockey if Reno/Tahoe wins the 2022, 2026, or 2028 bid. Both Rio de Janeiro (2016) and Pyeongchang (2018) had to bid several times in a row before getting chosen. I think if Reno/Tahoe/Sac has the same perseverance we will eventually be hosting the Olympics. Considering that Lake Tahoe is famous for its skiing and California has so much appeal as a destination, I don't think it will be a tough sell. Fingers crossed!

Great news about the progress with the arena deal! Sounds like there's some real momentum now. Will be interesting to see what the NBA brings to the table...
__________________
_______________________________________________

A city needs to be a good museum, and an even better laboratory
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2643  
Old Posted Feb 29, 2012, 6:20 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Hm. Okay, for some reason I was thinking summer olympics. Winter olympics would be do-able, although our current arena would also probably work fine for that purpose. If we have a new one by then, great, but either way, go for it.

And did someone say "bonds"?
Quote:
The city, as arena owner, would provide the lion's share of the project costs, somewhere between $200 million and $250 million, said the source. Most of the city's share would come from a still-evolving plan to wring millions in upfront cash from the city's parking operations.

The city has spent months studying a plan to privatize those assets by leasing them to an investor. A source familiar with the issue said the city also is looking at a different model that would involving borrowing against future parking and hotel-tax revenue, although a private parking operator might still be brought in.

The hotel tax money would be dedicated to the Community Center Theater.

The new model could make more economic sense for the city than leasing the parking to an operator, the source said. But it creates risk if revenues fall short of expectations.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/28/429...#storylink=cpy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2644  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2012, 2:57 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Hm. Okay, for some reason I was thinking summer olympics. Winter olympics would be do-able, although our current arena would also probably work fine for that purpose. If we have a new one by then, great, but either way, go for it.

And did someone say "bonds"?
The companies that are going to bid on leasing the cities parking garages are going to borrow against future profits to be able to come up with $200 million right away.

What the city is considering is creating a financing authority that will be able to do the same things these leasing companies are looking to do, thus, not having to give away the city's parking to a private entity. To me, that sounds pretty smart. That's not bonds.

Last edited by NME22; Mar 1, 2012 at 3:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2645  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2012, 8:47 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Fascinating how euphemisms sneak into the language. This project isn't an arena, it's an "Entertainment and Sports Complex." And the new idea isn't a bond issue, it's an "equity-based financing authority to borrow against future profits." Still smells like "fecal emanations of a male bovine" to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2646  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 12:29 AM
Ryan@CU's Avatar
Ryan@CU Ryan@CU is offline
Away since 06'
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSac View Post
NME22,
Again, I agree with you 100%. Build it and they will come.
That's what the A's told Sacramento in the late 80's....building it is the tough part.
__________________
Wake me up when playoffs start
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2647  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 8:23 AM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 634
I'm all for arena. I can't wait for groundbreaking to start. However, I feel the arena is too big. 18,500 seats seems a lot considering the team has trouble selling out 17317 PBP. Can Sacramento really support that many seats, fill the luxury and club seats and all that stuff? The city lacks sponsorships and corporate base to have that many luxury suites.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2648  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 8:12 PM
Ryan@CU's Avatar
Ryan@CU Ryan@CU is offline
Away since 06'
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistola916 View Post
I'm all for arena. I can't wait for groundbreaking to start. However, I feel the arena is too big. 18,500 seats seems a lot considering the team has trouble selling out 17317 PBP. Can Sacramento really support that many seats, fill the luxury and club seats and all that stuff? The city lacks sponsorships and corporate base to have that many luxury suites.
Sacramento has two of the top 10 longest sell out streaks in NBA history, no other team has more than one. History also indicates that teams with new arena sell out the first year, regardless of the team. When you look at other NBA arenas, 18,500 seats is still a very small number.

We're going through a rough patch. We'll be fine.
__________________
Wake me up when playoffs start

Last edited by Ryan@CU; Mar 2, 2012 at 9:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2649  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 1:38 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistola916 View Post
I'm all for arena. I can't wait for groundbreaking to start. However, I feel the arena is too big. 18,500 seats seems a lot considering the team has trouble selling out 17317 PBP. Can Sacramento really support that many seats, fill the luxury and club seats and all that stuff? The city lacks sponsorships and corporate base to have that many luxury suites.
Think big my friend. It's so much harder and more expensive to add seats later when you need them. This region is continuing to grow, so there are more than enough people. Selling out every single game is not a prerequisite for success and profitability. Luxury boxes and premium seats is how the arena/team will make it's most money in regards to tickets.

The problem with Arco (I refuse to call it PBP) is that they built it for that day, and not for the future. By the time they were done building, it was obsolete and there was nothing that could be done about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2650  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 1:57 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Sounds like the parking lease is out, bonds are in!

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

Quote:
In this model, the City would transfer its parking assets to this new corporation. This structure would
enable the corporation to issue a combination of tax-exempt and taxable bonds that could generate
the necessary proceeds to help fund the Entertainment and Sports Complex (ESC) project.
Hiya Stockton! How are those bond payments doing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2651  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 6:08 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Ask Chicagoans now how they feel about leasing their 36,000-space parking meter
system to Chicago Parking Meters LLC in 2008. This year alone in 2012 parking meter rates will go
up between 25 and 75 cents per hour, depending on where you park. The one-time,
$1.16 billion up-front payment for the right to collect meter revenue for the life of the
deal, the city will end up loosing over $9 billion in revenue -- over the 75-year life of the lease.
Think these high and higher rates won’t happen here? Think again.

It should also be mentioned (as wburg has stated elsewhere) this project is going to use
the city's MOPA funds,funds from the sale of the Sheraton that were supposed to be
use for David Taylor's 800 K Street project. With SHRA dissolved and MOPA funds spent
on the arena, K Street might have an abandon dirt lot for years to come.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2652  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 7:51 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Sounds like the parking lease is out, bonds are in!

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

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.

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.

You conveniently leave out the profits that both the Maloofs and AEG have to share with the city.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout

Last edited by BrianSac; Mar 4, 2012 at 12:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2653  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 8:49 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
Ask Chicagoans now how they feel about leasing their 36,000-space parking meter
system to Chicago Parking Meters LLC in 2008. This year alone in 2012 parking meter rates will go
up between 25 and 75 cents per hour, depending on where you park. The one-time,
$1.16 billion up-front payment for the right to collect meter revenue for the life of the
deal, the city will end up loosing over $9 billion in revenue -- over the 75-year life of the lease.
Think these high and higher rates won’t happen here? Think again.

It should also be mentioned (as wburg has stated elsewhere) this project is going to use
the city's MOPA funds,funds from the sale of the Sheraton that were supposed to be
use for David Taylor's 800 K Street project. With SHRA dissolved and MOPA funds spent
on the arena, K Street might have an abandon dirt lot for years to come.

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.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout

Last edited by BrianSac; Mar 3, 2012 at 2:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2654  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 4:22 PM
SoCal Alan SoCal Alan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 242
Is there an official website that describes the Sacramento Arena project? I looked around the net for one, but I couldn't find one.

Kind of like the website that was created for the new SF 49er stadium. http://newsantaclarastadium.com.

Would love to see all the details so far, exact location, etc.,

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2655  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 6:29 PM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal Alan View Post
Is there an official website that describes the Sacramento Arena project?
...
Would love to see all the details so far, exact location, etc.,
Nope. I'd imagine after it actually gets approved (awaiting the City Council vote next week) to have something up after that. There are a couple of very, very conceptual designs they had up on SacBee yesterday. But the project itself isn't going forward just yet, so no website yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2656  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 7:29 PM
KingsFan#1's Avatar
KingsFan#1 KingsFan#1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 61
New Pictures!

The Proposal will fit nicely around the train tracks and light rail. Imagine All Star weekend in 2016 when that whole plaza area out in front is turned into All Star Central with concerts and lots of stuff to do.

The only question I have is how will the new train station fit in with all of that. The original proposal had the train station where the arena is going, so they'll probably have to put the station much closer to 9th street for it to fit. But overall, the arena is the first step in making the railyards a great destination.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2657  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 7:39 PM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 634
Overall I'm happy about the project, screw the naysayers and complainers. This project is going to inject new life into Sacramento economy and kickoff development in that area. It's better to build this now while construction cost is low. If this city waits til 2020, an arena like this could cost several hundred million dollars more.

Sacramento is not only going to need a lot of hotel rooms to get the All Star game, but will need to build several upscale hotels by then. Unless the Sheraton, the Citizen, Embassy and the Hyatt are suffice. I doubt NBA players and their families would want to stay at the Holiday Inn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2658  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 10:58 PM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSac View Post
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 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 risk not the city.

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.

You conveniently leave out the profits that both the Maloofs and AEG have to share with the city.
Good job Briansac. This is exactly what I had written yesterday, but decided not to post. I'd rather just enjoy the project coming together than argue with people who simply do not want an arena built downtown, no matter how it's financed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2659  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 11:36 PM
SoCal Alan SoCal Alan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 242
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".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2660  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2012, 12:19 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal Alan View Post
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".
the railroad tracks are moving north.....you can actually see them now! signals are in also and they are building the new amtrak platforms.....
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:47 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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