Sacramento - New Arena Plan

[ozone]

Thank you wburg for being much more articulate than I.

I think "plunking an arena" down at Cal Expo is not like an Arco Arena redux and that it would affect a lot of good things -but only if it's comes with a trolley/tram connection. Here's my reasoning:

It would be mutually advantageous. Cal Expo's function/activities and facilities would work well with a multi-purpose arena -creating an opportunity for the two entities to work together. There's no such opportunity in Natomas or even at the Railyards for that matter. A new arena at Cal Expo would reinvigorate the aging, underused public amenity.

Cal Expo is much 'closer-in' (to the central city and center of the metro population) than North Natomas. The next logical step for the Arden Fair/Cal Expo area is to morph into something more urbane -maybe a "second downtown" -ala Century City. It has many of ingredients already. There's no way that North Natomas is even close to that. And if you add a streetcar/tram you'll start to see a lot of infill housing like what's happening in LA. Addtionally it would be a big boast to North Sacramento which can really use it.

The developer of the Railyards was never that keen on the idea of an arena and does depend on it to spur it's development. How does it really help the Railyards anyway? It just makes it more complicated and causes more peripheral problems -like traffic/parking on residential streets.

innov8 just because it's a state owned property doesn't mean the legislature won't allow an arena to be built there. Look at Assemblymember Jones's legislation that would allow the Children's Museum access to the state owned "1849 scene" site in Old Sac. (Unfortunately, the historic preservationists are opposed to the idea so that seems unlikely).

Arco Arena is pathetically sub-urban and I really don't think a Railyards arena will do that much for downtown. Cal Expo is the best location.

...and finally neuhickman79 sorry if I offended you...I wasn't seriously trying to be snippy and uppity w/ you -more like goof'n.

[TowerDistrict]

The point i was trying to emphasize is that the Cal Expo location is deliberately out of the way. The only reason the city would want it there would be to keep it out of the way - not to spur development and push new transit alternatives and dense development.

There has been a decade of research and public input on the downtown area, and the railyards area, and it's all coming together now. As for the railyards, this City and Thomas Ent. have light rail lined up, the freeways there, the street orientation and drawings all thoroughly planned with bus, bikes, and even 2nd phase of streetcar route proposed. So not only is the railyards location ideal, but it's 10 years ahead of any other location. It's primed.

Truthfully, it doesn't matter if they pick Cal Expo over the Railyards to me... either way the railyards is going to be an incredible project, and you're right... its success doesn't hinge on the arena in the slightest. My point is that noone wants urban growth and development in the Cal Expo area, except maybe a few city planners and skyscraperpage geeks like us. A far cry from the kind of focus this region and the city in particular have on the Railyards.

[wburg]

Actually, the idea of a more urban look & feel in the vicinity of Cal Expo lines up neatly with the SACOG Blueprint and the draft land-use alternatives specified in the new Sacramento General Plan, and would probably appeal greatly to community activists in the central city (if not those in East Sacramento.) I wouldn't be surprised if Mayor Fargo got behind the idea too: one thing she said to the Planning Academy class next year was that the problem is not how to fix downtown, the problem is how do you fix the suburbs? Creating multiple urban-core areas throughout the city, in order to encourage a multipolar transit pattern instead of the daily downtown-to-suburbs model, and encouraging higher densities in specific areas, is a step towards fixing the suburban model we have gotten too used to over the past half-century.

The streetcar idea is a couple years old so I assume at least some level of preliminary feasibility study has been done, and even though it gets strained sometimes there is already transportation infrastrucure in place.

A lot of people, especially those living in Arden/Arcade and North Sacramento, pretty much consider Arden Fair to be "downtown" already, and there are already hotel towers across the highway.

A note about Measures Q/R: It's tough to say, because it probably wasn't written down, but the unspecified half-billion dollars in sales tax revenue intended for "other city purposes" was probably earmarked to provide infrastructure for the railyards. Cal Expo is already well-positioned for vehicular traffic, can be easily made part of the city rail system, and one situated where the article above says they'd want it is visible from the Amtrak passenger trains leaving town to the east, providing some nice city exposure.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by ozone

innov8 just because it's a state owned property doesn't mean the legislature won't allow an arena to be built there. Look at Assemblymember Jones's legislation that would allow the Children's Museum access to the state owned "1849 scene" site in Old Sac. (Unfortunately, the historic preservationists are opposed to the idea so that seems unlikely).

HA! Now you just sound nuts. Sorry, but there is no way a 19,000 seat arena
will be built at CalEXPO. Then you also mentioned a trolley/tram connection?
No way that’s ever going to happen there either. Do you think the states
going to pick up the bill for adding lanes to the freeway and other road
improvements to make an arena feasible? Do you think the developer’s gonna
spend an additional $50 million plus to upgrade the freeway for the arena?
It all sounds way out there to me… I could be wrong though?
The East Sac. Home Owners will also never let it happen... I think I've said that before too.

[ozone]

It's silly debating someone who doesn't have any cogent arguments to make. You sound like the typical 'born & rasied' who can't see Sacramento any other way. Well I may be nuts but I'm sure a lot of people said that idea of putting a sports arena in the middle of a cow pasture was nuts too. Besides this is not a crazy idea from a mad skyscraper geek. The city and the NBA and CalExpo are all considering it. Plus it's a reasonable site for a number of reasons -Read wburg's post again.

I heard a saying this week that went something like this: "All great ideas verge on being stupid".

[TowerDistrict]

That's all very well spoken and true, wburg. I'm very familiar to the ideas of transit oriented villages, satellite job centers, and mixed use corridors in typically land use-segregated suburbs. SACOG's Blueprint is a fantastic goal for this region to strive to meet - but what I'm talking about here is an arena in the next 5 years that could serve as a model for all of that. What I'm trying to relate, is that it took Sacramentans a decade to even warm up to ideas of new urbanism, while every other major city in California was already implementing them. The Railyards/Richards area is primed for this kind of development, while Cal Expo is barely a blip on the radar.

This is my final thought... If it's an arena in 10-15 years that they're striving for - then Cal Expo is the spot. If it's within the next 10 years, then it should be the Railyards.

PS: I'm usually never for, nor against one or the other. I'm not arguing that Cal Expo is a stupid site. In fact I think the contrary... I just enjoy the discourse, and it usually works better if I pick one side to argue from.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by ozone

It's silly debating someone who doesn't have any cogent arguments to make. You sound like the typical 'born & rasied' who can't see Sacramento any other way. Well I may be nuts but I'm sure a lot of people said that idea of putting a sports arena in the middle of a cow pasture was nuts too. Besides this is not a crazy idea from a mad skyscraper geek. The city and the NBA and CalExpo are all considering it. Plus it's a reasonable site for a number of reasons -Read wburg's post again.

I heard a saying this week that went something like this: "All great ideas verge on being stupid".

You bore me to ozone... one of your strongest traits is labeling people with
names to insalt them instead of talking about the subject at hand.
Well done as always, at least you did not labeled me with a offensive slang

[otnemarcaS]

Originally Posted by innov8

HA! Now you just sound nuts. Sorry, but there is no way a 19,000 seat arena
will be built at CalEXPO. Then you also mentioned a trolley/tram connection?
No way that’s ever going to happen there either. Do you think the states
going to pick up the bill for adding lanes to the freeway and other road
improvements to make an arena feasible? Do you think the developer’s gonna
spend an additional $50 million plus to upgrade the freeway for the arena?
It all sounds way out there to me… I could be wrong though?
The East Sac. Home Owners will also never let it happen... I think I've said that before too.

I agree with you here (except the sounding nuts part). An arena just would never happen at Cal Expo. Too many additional things affecting transportation and/or traffic mitigation must occur before that site would be adequate. And the question of who's gonna pay for it will probably hold up construction of a new arena for several more years. Remember Arco Arena is used more than 200 times a year for various events. The entry and exit points into Cal Expo just won't cut it in my opinion.

Cal Expo is a great location, just not in it's current state for multiple day events. It will either be the Railyards downtown or North Natomas again.

Man, Sac is just a tough place to build an arena for Sac state, Sac Kings or anything sportswise. Too many obstacles. I even read that the hockey Reno Raiders of the ECHL will be playing in a new arena pending construction for the 2008/2009 season.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by innov8

You bore me to ozone... one of your strongest traits is labeling people with
names to insalt them instead of talking about the subject at hand.
Well done as always, at least you did not labeled me with a offensive slang

Oh god.. what nonsense. What did I hurt your feelings one time and now I'm forever on your sh't list? Jeesh. I almost always talk about the subject at hand unless drawn away by silly crap like this.

[ozone]

Report: If new arena is built, it could draw minors hockey
By Andrew McIntosh/Sacbee
Thursday, June 21, 2007


Sacramento would be an attractive market for a professional minor-league hockey team, and the region could support a club in a new 6,000- to 9,000-seat arena, according to a newly disclosed study prepared for Cal Expo in 2005.

The capital region's growing population and solid household incomes give its 1.75 million residents extra cash for sports and entertainment tickets, and a minor-league hockey team could anchor a mid-sized arena, the KPMG consulting group study found.

A Sacramento team in the ECHL's Pacific Division would join rival teams in Stockton, Fresno, Bakersfield, Las Vegas and possibly a Reno-based team that hopes to play in a new arena in 2008-09, the report said.

"Sacramento would be an attractive market for the ECHL," the report concluded after a study of the population and financial demographics of the cities that are home to the 25 "AA" league teams in the United States and Canada. "In addition, representatives of the ECHL indicated that Sacramento would be an attractive market if a suitable venue was available."

The Bee obtained the KPMG report from Cal Expo under the state Public Records Act.

Though no Sacramento hockey team is imminent, ECHL Commissioner Brian McKenna said three groups of investors have approached the league in recent years to discuss a Sacramento team.

McKenna said the first involved local investors, and two others involved investors from outside the Sacramento region. He declined to name the parties.

"Sacramento supports River Cats baseball well in the summer," Mckenna said. "We think that the city could support a hockey team in winter, too, with the right facility. We're bullish."

"The missing ingredient is an arena. Arco (Arena) is not a suitable venue," McKenna said.

Sacramento hockey team owners would have to pay $2 million to join the ECHL, the KPMG report says.

Who might be interested?

State documents show KPMG first delivered the Cal Expo arena feasibility report to Nick Nicora, a California-based vice president for Ovations, a company that provides food services and concessions to sports arenas, stadiums, fairs and convention centers.

Ovations provides food services at Cal Expo but is also part of the Comcast group of companies.

Comcast-Spectacor, another affiliate, owns the Philadelphia Flyers of the NHL and the Philadelphia Phantoms, the Flyers' American Hockey League affiliate.

Comcast doesn't own an ECHL team, but its Ovations affiliate manages food concessions at several arenas where ECHL teams play -- such as the Sovereign Bank Arena, the home of the Trenton Devils in New Jersey -- and it knows the ECHL well, spokesman Ike Richmond said.

Comcast-Spectacor President Peter Luukko said through a spokesman that the Flyers might be interested in an ECHL affiliation in Sacramento. "But it probably makes more sense for a West Coast team," Luukko added.

The ECHL grants member teams such as the Stockton Thunder exclusive territory rights for a 50-mile radius.

A new arena on Cal Expo lands or anywhere east of the sprawling state fair property would put a Sacramento team just outside that protected area -- 52 miles.

Having rival hockey teams in Sacramento and Stockton might be positive for both teams, the KPMG report suggested.

"ECHL representatives did indicate that having two of its teams within close proximity could potentially have a positive impact on both franchises through the creation of a rivalry," it stated.

[Jay916]

minor league hockey?

We already have a minor league baseball team. Can we ever think BIG in this town?

[Deno]

We could also use the arena at Cal Expo for our new minor league basketball team after the Kings leave.

[Schmoe]

Hey ozone, where'd you get that clever idea for an avatar?

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by Jay916

minor league hockey?

We already have a minor league baseball team. Can we ever think BIG in this town?

I'm a big hockey fan, and by long and far minor league is WAY more exciting then the NHL. My last sharks game, the crowd almost never made a peep....now a Stockton game...fans are nuts the entire game. NHL has a watered down product and minor league is definitely the way to go. Maybe an AHL team (hockeys "AAA" farm league).

[Pistola916]

You've got to be kidding me??? Another pro team is nice and I am a hockey fan, but it's pretty much a niche sports league. The NHL would be great, however, it can't be supported without a new arena and anyways, NHL doesn't belong on the west coast or any hot humid city. They already have too many teams in the league. Sacramento needs to go after major league soccer instead.

[jsf8278]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

You've got to be kidding me??? Another pro team is nice and I am a hockey fan, but it's pretty much a niche sports league. The NHL would be great, however, it can't be supported without a new arena and anyways, NHL doesn't belong on the west coast or any hot humid city. They already have too many teams in the league. Sacramento needs to go after major league soccer instead.

Having a major league soccer team come to Sac would be about as exciting as a professional water polo team moving to Sac.

[cozmoose]

Would Maloofs be interested in owning a NHL team?
Would having two pro teams make downtown/railyard arena more viable?

[wburg]

Well, it sounds like a pro hockey team downtown would not be viable if it is within the 50 mile limit of Stockton...but at Cal Expo it's just far enough out.

One thing about the Arden area: I have sometimes noticed a phenomenon that downtown people don't want to go out to the suburbs, but they'll go out about as far as Watt Avenue, and suburb people don't want to go downtown but they'll go out as far as Arden. It seems like that general zone is a good middle ground for Sacramento to put a central feature that would be accessible to all. I can't see how the Railyards have better freeway connection than Cal Expo (Cal Expo has its own dedicated off-ramp/overpass, the Railyards has either the tiny off-ramp at Richards or the already very busy off-ramp at J Street, neither of which is direct) and the Expo site already handles large traffic volumes during the State Fair.

The site would also be close enough to a lot of post-game dining options (that one could even walk to, leaving their car in the arena lot, or ride a streetcar to) that might appeal more to the suburban/sports bar crowd (Hooters et al.)

About state funding: Due to the site's status as the State Fairgrounds, isn't there some means by which the state derives revenue from the site? It seems like an arena would push a lot more state sales tax through the property, at the very least, in addition to any other deals they might have. That sort of consideration might encourage support from the legislature.

[BrianSac]

wburg, those are all really good ideas. I concur.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by Schmoe

Hey ozone, where'd you get that clever idea for an avatar?

You inspired me. Speaking of.. I've always wanted to ask you who that guy is on your avatar.