Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Mayor's task force learns about thriving arenas
by Kathleen Haley, published on December 17, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Storyline: Arena / City / Kings
Loading images
Do not build a big shed.
That was the advice sports facility designer Dan Meis gave to a task force that is exploring ideas for an arena and entertainment center in Sacramento.
Meis, who designed Los Angeles’ Staples Center, is on Mayor Kevin Johnson’s 12-member voluntary “Sacramento First” task force, which includes real estate, finance and communications executives.
Meis does not hold the design of Sacramento’s Arco Arena in high regard, calling it a “shed in the parking lot.”
The task force listened to Meis and other presentations Thursday morning at the South Natomas Community Center. About 20 people attended the meeting, which focused on thriving sports and entertainment in other cities.
The panel will analyze ideas for a sports and entertainment complex and make recommendations to the City Council. Chris Lehane, task force co-chairman, has said the group’s recommendations may be ready in mid-March.
Meis urged the task force to reject a "cookie cutter" design and come up with a center that is unique to Sacramento. He also said the task force should look at how the neighborhoods and the arena could interact in a positive way.
The task force should not limit its analysis to routine research of the last few arenas that have been built, Meis added.
Another presenter, Jack Bair, senior vice president and general counsel of the San Francisco Giants, said that AT&T Park's location was based on the site’s special features. It is on the waterfront, bringing “drama” and “sparkle” to the park, Bair noted.
“We actually went strategically with a place we thought had staying power,” he said.
AT&T Park has generated nearby business growth, Bair said, adding that it has made the Mission Bay neighborhood feel safer.
The task force will meet again in January to discuss ideas for arena-related jobs and economic development, Lehane said. The time and location of the meeting have not been announced.
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
DON'T USE TAXPAYER DOLLARS
In these times of so many other pressing fiscal needs that are far more important than a sports arena, I believe the ARCO site, with its inherent infrastructure already in place, and the building itself, should be taken advantage of, rather than the alternatives of either reuse of CAL EXPO, which will require extensive and utterly unworkable infrastructural retrofitting, or the RAILYARDS, which already have a build-out program unsuitable for just plopping an arena and all its accompanying uses smack dab in the middle of...
Further, retrofitting ARCO as a TRUE MULTI USE FACILITY could attract investment capital and even government funding that would not be available if it was to be programmed for merely sports use.
True, that the consultants weighing in on this project have built grand facades and have enhanced areas surrounding their projects. But Sacramento's situation is unique, with the only alternatives to ARCO thus far proposed being extraordinarily costly and less effective than using what resources are in place at the ARCO site.
We MUST choose the least cost, most bang for the buck, option, in order to free whatever public resources will be burdened with financing this project to better serve the community and its need to resolve issues like poverty, housing, education, etc...
SAVE A PUBLIC BUCK! REBUILD ARCO!
As a city looking to strengthen its identity for the future, do we really want to keep our big events on the outskirts, where future sprawl & driving will be inevitable, and In-n-Out & Malabar are your best & most convenient culinary options for a big night out? ...to which we reply, "Well, at least we don't have TRAFFIC."
Being 20- Something, I've been going to Arco Arena since I was a kid. Kings games, concerts, monster trucks, Disney on Ice, graduations... I even played basketball there in High School for playoffs. I get way nostalgic about the place. Its a shed, but a nice shed which we've all enjoyed. I even had my first tailgating beer in that parking lot (Ahh...Section H12). But even still, I'd be pretty disappointed, and a lot of Sacramentans would be as well, if we settled on solving the situation by placing another newer shed next to, or on top of ol' Arco, just because the concrete arches and pavement are already there. I think we'd all like to be part of something big for the progress of our city.
Downtown Sacramento, the Railyard, Concerts, Pro Sports, and people wanting to have a good night out will be around a lot longer than this recession or those stucco Natomas retail "sheds," and I think we should plan accordingly.
It is not 'good planning' to plop such an intensive use in an already intensely used area, and it is not 'good planning' to spend precious resources attempting to put a square arena peg in a round Cal Expo hole...
We have already spent lavishly on the current ARCO site, and we need to use that which has already been built, which is signficantly more than mere 'concrete', to effectively avoid economic waste.
You may wish to live through a build out near Cal Expo, but the residents of McKinley, Midtown, and Arden do not, and have voiced so time and again as development efforts rear their ugly heads.
Long term thinking does NOT dictate the most expensive alternative -- rather, it mandates that which is possible, beautiful, significant, useful, and ECONOMICAL...
'Functional obsolescence'??? By your logic we should have torn down 80 percent of the older structures that we strive to save in this town... and erected in their places Buzzy Oates tilt-ups or other decorated boxes to keep the economy going at the expense of the public tit...
'Everyone' has NOT 'looked at' an ARCO retrofit -- in fact, since the early 90's *some*, including your group, had their hearts set on a downtown arena as a predisposed outcome, and we've had a ballot measure or two on the issue -- which have failed miserably... And in these times of harsh economic realities, a boosterist approach blind to the costs simply will not fly...
Any building could be subject to retrofit -- if it wasn't structurally sound at present, games could not be held there... and this consideration should be lent equal, if not greater, attention as a least costly option, especially if presented with equal attention to its potential to be replaced by a thing of permanence, utility and beauty... rather than a treatment that would make it appear like the ugly step sister of all options under consideration...
I don't care whether ARCO was built for a buck-fitty... It's what we have, and to the extent possible we must use what we have sunk costs into, rather than the lavish and opulent spending for a facility that the community will end up paying for... We simply cannot afford to do otherwise... and this time, it's the economy that dictates...
No one more than myself would LOVE to re-plan and redesign a lavish facility, a la Santiago Calatrava's or Frank Gehry's great public edifaces that serve public need...
But WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!
What we possibly COULD afford is a retrofit of architectural significance based on a TRUE MULTI PURPOSE PROGRAM, that could attract investment capital and government funding from pockets that wouldn't give us the time of day at present.
ARCO is an ugly duckling currently, but it has great bones, and great possibilities -- and it's what is no doubt most easily and effectively and financially feasible... Things of permanence, utility, and beauty can be made even of ugly ducklings...
Its crucial to plan carefully to avoid bottlenecks on every surrounding freeway offramp & side street, but Downtown Sacramento has been hoping to establish a sense of "destination" to help bolster economic activity, what better way than to bring in15,000-19,000 people into the area on train, lightrail, bicycles, foot, cars and taxis 200 nights a year? With AT&T park referenced in the article, taking BART from the East Bay & Muni to the game is a lot of fun. I think with putting an arena downtown, people will learn to use (and finally have the option to use) other methods of getting there.
But thanks for the sentiment...
Overall, I'm just hoping we can build a new arena somewhere more logical than Natomas. Suburban sprawl is over and probably won't be back for quite some time. Honestly, I'd totally go to more games if I could walk, bike, or (easily) bus to an arena downtown and I don't even like basketball all that much.
Kevin Johnson is no Willie Brown....
This entire conversation sounds like people debating about what will happen on the Kings when we get Cisco and Kevin Martin back. Will they fit in? Will Kevin take too many shots? Will Tyreke's stats suffer? WHO CARES??? We'll be better with them.
We'll be better with a new arena.
And if you have no idea what I'm talking about just know that I'm exactly who you want more of in your neighborhood. I venture to the arena and eat at restauraunts in your cities (and in San Jose when I go there). I pay sales taxes and parking there. I clog up the streets, sure... but I also bring in revenues and support your services. This entire process would be a lot easier for everyone involved if we all just realized that this is natural, economic growth.
We outgrow infastracture and housing and public transportation, and now we have outgrown our public asset, ARCO Arena. For those naysayers who believe ARCO is not "structurally obsolete," call the Kings and ask to tour the arena. I've seen the guts with my own eyes, and I've read about the studies Mattew mentions. But don't believe me, trust the NCAA who passed on bringing tens of thousands of visitors to Sacramento this Spring due to the poor condition of ARCO.
They also passed on bring tens of thousand of dollars into YOUR neighborhood.