Here’s what the Sacramento Kings arena will look like, if you’re a computer-rendered avatar

The “final” renderings of the new Sacramento Kings arena are out, and they look to involve lots of aluminum mesh, an interior designed as a backdrop for a black-and-white minimalist comic (Adrian Tomine, maybe? Hey, he’s from Sacramento!), and hip young white people staring blankly into the sky. (What’s with the guy in the porkpie hat whose arm is permanently attached to his girlfriend?) Commenter MikeM has already dubbed it the Jiffy Pop Arena; other suggested nicknames, disparaging or otherwise, are welcome.

As far as the actual effect on seeing a basketball game goes, it’s tough to tell much from these, except that it follows the typical modern wall-of-luxury-seats-and-screw-those-people-in-the-upper-deck model that I’ve complained about at the Brooklyn Nets‘ Barclays Center. Though if everyone’s more interested in the sky, it doesn’t matter if they can see the game, right?

In other sports venue design news, the Atlanta Braves have announced that they’ve hired Populous (formerly HOK) to design their new building in Cobb County, which isn’t really news given that just about everybody hires Populous to design their baseball stadiums. Still no word on when they might finalize their long-awaited stadium operating agreement, meanwhile (which will go a long way toward detailing the level of public subsidies the stadium would require), or what’s up with their possible demand for state tax breaks, or the lawsuit against the property-tax extension to pay for the place, or the charges that Cobb County violated open meetings laws in approving the project. Just lookit the pretty pictures — okay, there aren’t any pictures yet, so everyone just imagine your own versions in your mind. It’s crowdrendering!


17 comments on “Here’s what the Sacramento Kings arena will look like, if you’re a computer-rendered avatar

  1. Maybe I’m just hungry but a Crown Roast wrapped in foil came to mind. And then I realized the “crown” part was probably intentional. Duh.

    What hath Jerry wrought? Now everybody has to put a hole in the side of their stadium so fans can stand outside and admire the big scoreboard?

  2. The lawsuit has been filed. I think they actually have a very good case.

    http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/pageburner/blogs/post?oid=12633532

  3. Now everybody has to put a hole in the side of their stadium to reduce capacity and help boost attendance % while at the same time providing a “reasonable” upgrade demand 10 years out should they actually start to need all the seats.

    See Centurylink’s plans to add another 4% to the capacity (and the reporter doesn’t even consider mentioning who would be paying). http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawks/2021960210_centurylink04xml.html

  4. I can’t wait to see what the Summer sun reflecting off this monstrosity will do when it is 100 degrees in the shade.

  5. The term sheets with the City said this arena would have a capacity of 18,500+. With this design, do you think they met this goal?

  6. The Summer sun reflecting off this giant aluminum spaceship will be a significant issue, though certainly this *must* already be accounted for in the Environmental Impact Report. The huge main entrance opening like a window, along with the self-proclaimed “loudest fans in the NBA” I’m sure won’t be a noise nuisance to surrounding businesses and residents.

  7. Yes, the EIR mentions it. But it says that because there are multiple facets, the glare would be short term and, therefore, insignificant.

  8. In order to be considered for the “fast-track” provisions in Steinberg’s bill, a building has to be LEED Gold (or Silver, I can’t remember which) certified. I think that’ll be a problem for that building. That much glass will make it pretty hard to heat and cool.

  9. Regarding the fast-track provisions in Steinberg’s SB-743, does this project meet those provisions simply because the City and the Kings ownership group say so? or is there hopefully some third party verification required? For instance, the “Achieve a per attendee reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles..” item – would Caltrans have to agree and sign off on this? I recall the EIR justifying this by claiming that downtown is closer than Natomas for most event attendees, though don’t think they factored in the (by their estimation) 15 minutes drivers will be sitting idle on the J St. exit from I-5 waiting to try to find parking downtown.

  10. Tim, I find the entire EIR process to be pretty fascinating. I did not know that the groups proposing projects like this produced the EIR, for example. Yes, they contracted that work out, but I’m sure it was with explicit instructions to show it would have no impact.

    One of the provisions in Steinberg’s bill made it so if it affected traffic at only one intersection, it complies with the new law. Well, guess what? Only one intersection is impacted, according to the report. Sure, the wait times there go from 31 seconds to 10 minutes, but hey, it’s only one intersection. All the other intersections are unaffected. Har. If you know the Boat Section, you know how stupid that claim is. Both ramps from 50 to North I-5 will also be affected; I-5 South to J Street will be affected; US 50 will be affected; I Street to I-5 will be heavily impacted after games. Wanna hear more?

    One thing they don’t have to reconcile in the report is that they say event attendees will arrive at 6, and since rush hour ends at 5:45, commuters will not be impacted. Well, if you’re planning to get to J Street at 6:00, you’re not going to be filling downtown restaurants; you’ll be hustling to get to the arena before game-time. This is relevant because it means you’re not eating downtown — so the economic benefit is diminished.

    If you plan to eat at some new Hooters near the arena, you’ll have to be in commute traffic. If you want to avoid commute traffic, you’ll be eating somewhere near home. You won’t be able to get off at J Street at 6, AND have a meal downtown (unless it’s an ArenaDog).

  11. I am also concerned about the 49 events that they are projecting to occur during the week and during the day. Add arena traffic to an already busy downtown, where parking is difficult if not impossible to find.

  12. Sacramento seems to not have that many educated, informed people living there. A lot of people there seem to buy the nonsense that this will revive the city. It won’t. Anyone that drives around the Rust Belt will tell you that stadiums can’t revive a city’s downtown. You need mass transit, jobs and proper schools. Unfortunately, not a lot of Americans seem to believe in proper mass transit in most of flyover country.

    After seeing that interview with Vivek on Real Sports, I don’t trust this guy at all. He’s all about himself, and am sure he has figured out a way to profit off of the Kings. If he gets the arena, he profits; if he doesn’t, he will sell it to Seattle or London. People in Sacramento think he’s the Messiah; I think they’re about to get burned!

  13. Roger,

    It is the city residents who are fighting to stop this thing. The vast majority of those who show up at pro-arena rallies live in surrounding communities – Rocklin, Roseville, Rancho Cordova, El Dorado Hills, Placerville, Folsom, Davis, Woodland, West Sacramento (for those outside the area, this is a different city located in a different county), and unincorporated areas of Sacramento County. Since they will not have to pay for it, they are all for it. Just look at the leadership of the4000 and its spokesman: Steinberg – resident, Ted Gaines – non-resident, Josh Woods – non-resident. The most prolific commenters on local media have also admitted to being non-residents.

  14. @RA, always nice to have a local’s perspective on things.

    I’d also bet a lot of the supporters are kids and the uneducated that don’t understand how this will affect their community and pocketbooks.

    It’s the NBA right? What could go wrong? As long as you have a team, you’re a world-class city, lol.