do you think Sacramento will get a new arena built for the Kings? (taxes, live)

[wburg]

Originally Posted by sacramento916

I really do hope Sacramento can pull off building an arena, I think it will really help kickstart the development of the railyards.

It might--if the project was actually taking place in the Railyards, not in the parking lot of the Amtrak depot across the tracks from the Railyards.

[shelato]

Jane Jacobs would disagree. In the Life and Death of Great Cities she talked about the conditions in which urban areas thrive. She advocated a variety of mixed uses, a variety of different kinds of building, a variety of ages of buildings a variety of schedules of people coming in, out and through the neighborhood and lastly a high concentration of people living in the neighborhood itself. An arena is the type of large disruptive single purpose land use that interrupts all of these conditions. If the railyards is successfully redeveloped it will be despite, not because of an Arena being built in that neighborhood.

Much more likely an arena is going to create a dead area in whatever neighborhood it goes into. Remember arenas are mostly empty most of the day, most days of the year. Look at Power Balance Pavillion right now, that neighborhood really isn't a center of urban activity. Then look at the Convention Center or Cal Expo all of these places are pretty dead most of the time, most of the year. Yes Cal Expo hums during the State Fair, but the rest of the time its dead. In an 82 game season, the Kings will have only 41 home games. Those games last for about 3 hours. When people come of the arena after those games there is the potential for a lot of business for 30 minutes in the neighborhood as people depart from the arena. But after that it will be pretty dead. But its tough to make a business thrive on the traffic count from just a half hour for 41 games in a year. So its likely there won't be enough shops clustered near the arena to capture that business. There may be other nights when the arena is going to be used for other activities like Disney on Ice, but these other activities are going to bring a lot less people to the arena because the arena is optimized for basketball and not these other activities. More importantly most days and most nights the arena is going to be mostly empty. This is why the Maloofs don't want to own an arena its a bad investment.

The arena is a big single use area. But single use blocks tend to create dead blocks in urban areas. The East End Project was a huge single use project built near Capitol Mall. But that project didn't revive that neighborhood, instead it created a pretty dead lifeless neighborhood. Large single use projects overwhelm urban blocks and create dead zones. A block with an arena is block without housing, with out offices with out retail. Its just empty.

Clark Construction Group, LLC – Feature project

Large single use projects belong out in suburban areas. Large single use projects destroy the urban vitiality that is necessary for urban life to thrive.

[Malloric]

When did arenas become infrastructure again? I 100% agree with that though. San Francisco did a pretty good job taking care of the infrastructure for AT&T Park. Sacramento is really lacking in the infrastructure department. The bridges over the rivers are all in dire shape after years of neglect and deferred maintenance. There are a few bright spots. It's nice to see infrastructure working going at the Railyards. Last time I was down that way the excavation work for the intermodal was underway.

As wburg points out, much better to think small than think stupid(ly big). The railyards just finished toxic cleanup, paving the way for construction to begin. I'm, of course, referring to the Curtis Park railyards. Public transit is limping along with a good number of things. I've still got hopes for the Del Paso/Arden corridors.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by shelato

Large single use projects belong out in suburban areas. Large single use projects destroy the urban vitiality that is necessary for urban life to thrive.

Then how do you explain Raley Field; it has not destroyed anything.

How do you explain the Giants Ballpark in SF. That entire neighborhood has
been completely revitalized with housing (lots of housing), businesses, restaurants, light rail, and a college campus.

The ballpark was built first, then all else followed.

[Chimérique]

The people of this area who don't want an arena for the Capitol of the largest state in Union, and for a region of 2.3 million people, and a city of almost 500,000

are sick in the mind,

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

The people of this area who don't want an arena for the Capitol of the largest state in Union, and for a region of 2.3 million people, and a city of almost 500,000

are sick in the mind,

I call them negative nancys, naysayers, anti-sacramento, anti-entertainment, anti-sports, anti-family, anti-music, anti-everything. These are the same people who tried to prevent Raley Field from being built, or the Crocker Art Expansion; they are just plain sick, sick, sick.

[wburg]

Interesting.

Does AEG want to help Sacramento in order to protect the Los Angeles Lakers? | ranSACkedmedia

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

I call them negative nancys, naysayers, anti-sacramento, anti-entertainment, anti-sports, anti-family, anti-music, anti-everything. These are the same people who tried to prevent Raley Field from being built, or the Crocker Art Expansion; they are just plain sick, sick, sick.

Or perhaps they're simply anti- the use of public funds, again, when the last batch still hasn't been repaid. Given the present state of the economy, perhaps they feel there are better uses they could be put to like improving infrastructure for the benefit of all rather than doing something for a relatively small and select group of sports fans/fanatics and those who can afford over-priced tickets.

Just a thought!

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Or perhaps they're simply anti- the use of public funds, again, when the last batch still hasn't been repaid. Given the present state of the economy, perhaps they feel there are better uses they could be put to like improving infrastructure for the benefit of all rather than doing something for a relatively small and select group of sports fans/fanatics and those who can afford over-priced tickets.

Just a thought!

If a benefactor appeared and said he would fund the entire project, the naysayers of this region would find another reason to oppose it based on:

environmental law, jealousy, parking this or that, traffic this or that, endless meetings and committees to derail it, historical issues, made up scandals. They would think of something.

If it seemed they could not win in the end, despite years (decades) of irrational opposition, they would start to demand a piece of the profits.

Exactly how was Raley Field funded, and who opposed it and why?

[Malloric]

I'm not aware that anyone matter opposed to Raley Field. There was some general whinging about where it wasn't built. Raley Field was funded as it should have been: Privately.

I happen to think the current plan for the arena is not the best. It has some upsides being close to the Intermodal which will already have a large amount of parking that will be empty at the time the Kings play. On the other hand, it'll also be squished between an Amtrak station, a courthouse, a railroad museum, and a freeway. It's in a guaranteed to be dead after 5 o'clock corner of the city. In other words, the one and only advantage of the downtown location is it being located near public transit. I bet you could run shuttle buses from the Amtrak station to Natomas for a lot less.