Thugs buy building downtown next to Arena for $40 million dollars (Sacramento: for sale, real estate)

[sacite]

Originally Posted by pistola916

The arena will seat 17,500 - that's 200 more seats than the current arena. Someone misspoke about it seating less. The arena being downtown will change the landscape vitality of downtown. We can talk all we want about whether the arena was the driving force behind the acquisition of buildings (Kaiser moving to 601 J, the proposed Vanir Tower, and developments on K Street), but it has played an influence in those decisions. We are going to see a lot more foot traffic in the vicinity during events and non-events that otherwise wouldn't exist had we just renovated the Plaza - again.

Some question the financing model but I rather have some outsider invest half on the arena and inject millions of dollars in ancillary development than have the city be responsible for all the cost of a new arena. I don't care if the arena is downtown or not, but there was going to come a time where eventually Arco needs to be replaced.

The NCAA is returning to Sacramento. The Democratic National Convention may or may not come to Sac but at least with a new arena, we are in the conversation. The NBA All-Star game could come to Sac but we don't have enough hotel rooms I believe.

People need to stop being so cynical.

Excellent. Well said. Succinct. Everything my posts are not lol.

Every investor that has backed a recent business venture in downtown has noted the stadium. Every single one of them. And some of these ventures are tied so closely to the stadium (such as the hotel, sports apparel store) that it's foolish to even deny it.

I can see the downside as well, and I understand why some are opposed to the Stadium. The underlying anxiety is that Sacramento will never again hold the small town charm that some of us have grown to love. Increased congestion, increases in rent/property values, parking fees and overall cost of living could all occur within the next couple of years. That aspect makes me nervous as well. These concerns are generally not directly voiced by the stadium's opponents, but they appear to be just below the surface of every debate.

The bottom line is that Sac has outgrown its small town reputation. instead of fighting these changes, we should welcome them and accept Sac as a burgeoning metro that is attempting to accommodate the needs of its diverse and growing population. It's actually a pretty exciting time to live in this area.

[wburg]

I never noticed that small-town charm, myself. Always considered it a myth, along with the small-town reputation. The sooner it's gone, the better, as it never fit, either as an accurate description for Sacramento or as an insult.

The hotel and the Sports Basement were projects that began planning before the arena deal went through. Some of these others deals have gone through since the arena deal, but anytime you spend huge amounts of public money, you're going to have folks wanting to get a piece of the deal. What I was saying about "squeezing the balloon"? That's what we are seeing here--a public expenditure causing the economic balloon to be squeezed, but in the direction of downtown instead of Natomas. It's happening at the same time as a national shift back towards urban cores. But it's basically the same thing that happens whenever large amounts of money get spent downtown--a bunch of new projects get announced, some of them get built. You're noticing these ones because they're happening now, whereas those other ones happened many years ago. Whether or not it marks a permanent shift in Sacramento's urban landscape depends on whether or not we get about 25,000 more people living in the heart of downtown, mostly in the CBD (from H to N Street west of 16th) and the Railyards. Downtown may get a few more visitors for a while, but until the population density of the central business district equals (or better yet, exceeds) the population density of Midtown, it's still going to go dead after 5 PM aside from the very limited areas where evening events take place, such as the 1000 block and the arena itself.

[bluevelo]

Originally Posted by CeJeH

You obviously don't go to many Kings games. You can routinely get upper level seats for $20. $75 gets you good lower level seats. Some friends and I got half of a row in the lower level corner to the Kings-Raptors (best record in Eastern Conference) game for $41 per seat. Kings game are not expensive.

As far as the Presidential Nominee not speaking there, uhhh, no **** man. The arena isn't scheduled to open u til about a week before the election...

They're not expensive because the Kings suck, and will continue to suck for the foreseeable future. The NBA demographically doesn't fit into Sacramento nearly as well as soccer does. Its just corporate welfare for Ranadive and his buddies. They are still making money on those tickets... better to have butts in the seats than a nearly empty arena. You could give me the tickets free and I'm not going to go watch thug ball.

The reason stuff is getting built downtown - um, did you see 5% growth in GPD last quarter? Near zero interest rates (hmm, funny they couldn't get those rates for the Arena, but hey oligarchs have gotta make a buck at the public trough) for one thing, and the national economy is finally picking up. Kaiser is likely looking at the zip codes of its members, and realizes that there's a lot of people who will come to a central city location for health care... I'm a Kaiser member and I sure hell don't want to go South Sac for anything - its a ghetto/zoo down where that hospital is - I go to Roseville or Morse as a last resort. South Sac is unsafe.

[Chimérique]

Ok, I just walked the 700 block of K street by the light rail too and it was THUGLY, I mean THUH..THUH... UHG... LY. -

[pistola916]

Originally Posted by bluevelo

You could give me the tickets free and I'm not going to go watch thug ball.

Code for "Blacks are ruining the game and our city."

I suggest you stick to golf, polo, tennis, or chess even.

[CeJeH]

Thank baby Jesus bluevelo is back to provide the voice of reason

[sacite]

Originally Posted by wburg

I never noticed that small-town charm, myself. Always considered it a myth, along with the small-town reputation. The sooner it's gone, the better, as it never fit, either as an accurate description for Sacramento or as an insult.

The hotel and the Sports Basement were projects that began planning before the arena deal went through. Some of these others deals have gone through since the arena deal, but anytime you spend huge amounts of public money, you're going to have folks wanting to get a piece of the deal. What I was saying about "squeezing the balloon"? That's what we are seeing here--a public expenditure causing the economic balloon to be squeezed, but in the direction of downtown instead of Natomas. It's happening at the same time as a national shift back towards urban cores. But it's basically the same thing that happens whenever large amounts of money get spent downtown--a bunch of new projects get announced, some of them get built. You're noticing these ones because they're happening now, whereas those other ones happened many years ago. Whether or not it marks a permanent shift in Sacramento's urban landscape depends on whether or not we get about 25,000 more people living in the heart of downtown, mostly in the CBD (from H to N Street west of 16th) and the Railyards. Downtown may get a few more visitors for a while, but until the population density of the central business district equals (or better yet, exceeds) the population density of Midtown, it's still going to go dead after 5 PM aside from the very limited areas where evening events take place, such as the 1000 block and the arena itself.

Well after living in the bay area it sure does seem like a small town to me . But maybe that's just me.

[wburg]

After growing up in the outer suburbs and then living in an actual small town for a few years (like 15,000 people) Sacramento seemed like a cosmopolitan big city with lots going on and plenty of things to do. San Francisco is a bigger city with even more things to do, but it was just a matter of degree, not a fundamental difference. I never got that sense of limitations that so many Bay Area transplants seem to not be able to get over.

[pistola916]

I lived in NYC for a year and lived in SF for seven. As much as I love SF, i felt trapped and claustrophobic and wasn't nearly as exciting compared to NYC or Mexico City, where I travel occasionally to visit relatives. Being a Sacramento native, I've gotten used to the provincial small town feel. Sometimes I do feel so underwhelmed but it is what it is. Gotta make the best of the situation.

But if the right job came my way,I'd hightail it back to the Bay Area.

[Majin]

I lived in Tokyo and then moved to NYC and it felt like a small town...

What is with the apple and orange comparisons from so many people? Not being the biggest city in the world != a small town. If the basis of comparison is Asian Mega Cities, every single "city" in the US is a "small town" compared to Tokyo, Seoul, and most Asian Mega Cities.

That just isn't the way the US is structured at all, with New York City being the only exception.