Inside of new Bucks arena looks more and more like a dystopian sci-fi movie

It’s a bit of a slow news day, so thank goodness the Milwaukee Bucks have come through with some new interior arena renderings for us to peruse while we wait for the last dregs of the week to run out:

pano3pano1v2I don’t know exactly what’s going on with that creepy dark club with the glowy rings on the ceiling — supposedly it gives fans views of both the court and the city, though given that in real life there would be more than ten people in it at any one time, more likely it will mostly provide a view of those TV screens as you crane your neck to see the score while waiting on line for overpriced food. The “corner sponsor tower” next to it, meanwhile, is even more mysterious — presumably it should have a big sponsor logo on it, but instead it’s just three levels of blank void with more of those geometric patterns on the ceilings. The interior of the levels doesn’t appear to be raked at all, so only the people at the front railing (there is a railing, right?) will be able to see the game, from a great distance, while everyone behind them will be … dancing? Enjoying presentations from the corporate sponsor of their choosing? What the heck does any of this have to do with basketball, exactly?

NYU study: Relocating MSG would cost $5B, give it a rest already

Certain sectors of the New York City policy world (the Municipal Art Society, the New York Times editorial board) have been calling for a while for the relocation of Madison Square Garden, so that a new, grand Penn Station could be built in its place. (The old, grand Penn Station was demolished in the 1960s to make way for the current Madison Square Garden, the fourth building to bear that name.) NYU’s Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management released a study last week of how much it would cost to do this, and came up with … do I hear $5 billion?

Screen Shot 2016-05-06 at 8.23.17 AMThis isn’t really all that surprising: A billion and a half for a new MSG sounds about right given that just renovating the old one cost a billion, and acquiring new land could easily cost half that in this market. (The Rudin report looks at the price of buying up the annex to the Farley post office building across the street Morgan post office annex a couple of blocks to the southwest, but other sites would be priced similarly, if you could even find any.) And almost $3 billion for building a new Penn Station is already the price tag established by Gov. Andrew Cuomo for his plans (which would leave MSG intact but build lots of new stuff under it).

It’s also important to consider the political context, with Cuomo’s plan to expand Penn Station with MSG in place (to be paid for by some as-yet-unidentified private developer — applications were due two weeks ago, but if any have been revealed it’s news to me) going up against the MAS and Regional Plan Association’s insistence that MSG really needs to be kicked out. Given that Rudin director Mitchell Moss has already endorsed Cuomo’s plan, and his report’s conclusion is “It’s time to move on,” it’s easy to see some political gamesmanship going on here.

Still, this whole mess is a reminder that as easy as it is to envision redesigning your city to undo past mistakes (tearing down one of the greatest public spaces ever, building a kind-of-ugly sports arena in its place), there’s something to be said for actually existing architecture, both in that it’s already paid for, and in that the city has grown up around it to accommodate it. Not to say that nothing should ever get built or torn down, but it’s important to look at the true costs of doing so, and whether the money could be better spent mitigating the effects of your last mistakes.

Seattle councilmember says despite vote against arena, she still likes shiny things

One of the Seattle councilmembers who voted to block Chris Hansen’s SoDo arena plans on Monday attempted to explain her vote to KING 5’s Chris Daniels yesterday:

“I had to balance fact and fiction,” [Debora Juarez] told KING 5. “The fiction is a third arena and no NBA team, and a living breathing port with people and jobs and traffic, and that’s what concerned me the most.”…

“I really, really want a basketball team in this town,” Juarez said.

“I went to Sonics games. I want a shiny new arena in this town, I just don’t believe it belongs in SoDo.”…

However, the North Seattle district representative says she’s not about to push for a Key Arena remodel.  Juarez, who chairs the Council committee overseeing Seattle Center, says it has issues too.

“The zoning would have to change dramatically in that neighborhood, and I cannot see those neighbors saying wider streets, more upzoning, more parking, more congestion,” said Juarez about Seattle Center. “It’s reached a point in its life where it’s become a public space, a public park, a cultural icon, and that’s why I would like to see a brand new shiny arena somewhere else”.

So: Juarez likes basketball, and likes shiny things, but didn’t like this shiny thing, because it might not have basketball and also JOBS! And TRAFFIC! That’s clear as … something not very shiny.

Proponents of the arena responded in appropriately measured tones:

There’s still a chance that this eventually leads to everyone taking a step back and figuring out what makes the most sense for Seattle, outside the emotional debates about bringing back the Sonics. But for the moment, the future looks not very shiny at all.

Seattle council rejects closing street for SoDo arena by single vote, madness ensues

The Seattle city council met last night to vote on approving the final piece of Chris Hansen’s SoDo arena plan that was initially okayed by the council way back in 2012, and — whoa, didn’t see that coming:

Stunned gasps emerged from a crowd at Seattle City Hall on Monday as Councilmember M. Lorena González cast a decisive vote that could effectively torpedo a proposed Sodo District arena.

In a 5-4 decision, the Seattle City Council voted against giving up part of Occidental Avenue South to entrepreneur Chris Hansen for his arena. Though a Memorandum of Understanding between Hansen, the city and King County runs through November 2017, odds of a new deal being struck by then seem remote.

What the heck happened? Lobbying from the Port of Seattle, certainly — the councilmembers who voted to keep the street open all name-checked port workers in their speeches, including Kshama Sawant declaring, “I do want to help bring back the Sonics, but I cannot do that on the basis of undermining our working waterfront and good-paying unionized industrial jobs.’’ (She also called the Port a “cesspool of corruption” but said she was voting out of solidarity with Port workers who are “trying to stand up against these forces of gentrification.” Now I really need to hear this speech.) But with five women on the council voting no while all four men voted yes, there may have been something else at work as well: The Seattle Times’ Geoff Baker cited one source (unnamed, take with grain of salt — Geoff, try to ID your sources better in the future, please) as saying “the three female council members who were undecided had become increasingly put off in recent days by the personal attacks [councilmember Sally] Bagshaw was taking from male sports fans on social media and certain talk-show hosts on Sports Radio KJR.”

Regardless of whether it was insider lobbying, obnoxious talk-radio hosts, or both, the Hansen plan is now, if not dead, floating listlessly in limbo, with no way to clear space for the arena that had its funding approved four years ago. Bagshaw says she hopes the city will now conduct a cost-benefit analysis of renovating Key Arena instead; Hansen released a statement saying, “We now need to take a little time to step back and evaluate our options.” There will likely be renewed talk of a new arena in the suburbs, though the leading candidate there, in Tukwila, still lacks anyone to actually pay for it.

In any case, if this is indeed the end of the SoDo arena saga, it’s a darn weird one. It certainly didn’t help Hansen’s case that he was no closer to getting an NBA team than when he started this whole quixotic battle years ago — “If you let me build an arena I’ll bring the Sonics back someday maybe I can’t say when” was never the best rallying cry — but still, you can count the number of sports venue projects that got right up to the finish line before being voted down by a single vote on … actually, this is the first I can think of. Whoever’s writing reality’s plot twists, you need to make them more believable, even if it is sweeps month.

NBA commissioner: No Seattle expansion team in immediate future

Seattle isn’t getting an NBA expansion team anytime soon, you guys:

“Whether or not the arena in Seattle is shovel ready is not a factor that we are considering in terms of whether or not we expand at this point,’’ Silver told The Seattle Times during the Associated Press Sports Editors commissioners meetings in Manhattan…

“We’re going through a collective-bargaining cycle right now, it’s no secret,’’ Silver said. “So, certainly, it’s not something that we would be thinking about as we’re focusing on ensuring that we’re going to have labor peace for the foreseeable future.

“I think that after we complete the extension of our collective-bargaining agreement, I think that would be the natural time, at least, for owners to consider whether or not they would like to expand. … Right now, we are not hearing it coming from within the league. We are hearing from some groups outside the league. But from within the league, there’s no strong push to expand at the moment.’’

Since Chris Hansen’s MOU for a new Seattle arena expires in November 2017, this means in the next year and a half we’re either going to see: 1) a big push by Hansen to try to get another team to relocate (your guess is as good as mine who he’d target, since there aren’t a ton of ready candidates looking to move), 2) a big push by Hansen to get the MOU extended, or 3) both of the above. Getting a team was always going to be the hardest part of Hansen’s Sonics 2.0 plan — yes, even harder than figuring out how to make his arena turn a profit — and it looks like that road isn’t getting any easier anytime soon.

Phoenix mayor explains grooviness of using taxes for Suns-Coyotes arena: It’s cheaper than two arenas!

Phoenix mayor Greg Stanton made his pitch for a new publicly funded arena for the Suns and Coyotes yesterday, and he didn’t provide much more specifics than when he leaked it the day before: He will use tax money, but he won’t raise taxes to pay for it, and he’s for it because he thinks it will bring more spending to downtown Phoenix.

“I as mayor will do everything I can to pursue a course that makes a new facility home to the Suns, the (Phoenix) Mercury and the Coyotes,” Stanton said, noting the WNBA franchise as well. “Building two new sports arenas in our region simply doesn’t make fiscal or common sense.”

He’s right there, as far as it goes: One arena is definitely cheaper than two, albeit a lot more expensive than zero. So does building one new sports arena make fiscal or common sense for Phoenix?

Stanton’s funding plan, based on what little he’s revealed about it, would be a bit of a Rube Goldberg scheme, avoiding new taxes by siphoning every last bit of value out of existing ones. Currently, Phoenix levies hotel and car rental taxes and uses the proceeds to pay off a bunch of past construction projects, including the Suns’ existing arena (opened in 1992), a Sheraton hotel, and other buildings. (Note: This is separate from the county hotel and car rental taxes that pay off the Arizona Cardinals stadium and which were partly ruled unconstitutional in 2014.) The current arena will be paid off in 2022, however, and the hotel plus a downtown biotech building are in the process of being sold off, which would free up those tax revenues to be used for something else.

Great, free money, right? Not exactly. First off, the “something else” could be pretty much anything — in the most extreme example, the city could just cancel the hotel and car rental taxes once the existing arena is paid off, and either leave taxes low as an inducement to visitors or levy new ones to fund other needs. And on top of that, selling the Sheraton to get out from under its debt load isn’t without a cost: The buyer is effectively getting the building for free by paying off $300 million in remaining debt, and the city will lose any future profits it would be getting from the hotel. (The Sheraton currently loses money, but that’s partly because any revenue it brings in goes right back out to help pay off its construction debt.)

In short, then, Stanton is saying that the city’s decision in 1990 to build a new arena for the Suns is an open-ended commitment to keep on building new arenas for the Suns into eternity, while selling off any city assets necessary to make that possible. That’s a legitimate political position, I suppose, but you can see why he chose not to frame it that way. Or to put a price tag on it. Because people are cranky enough about it already.

Phoenix mayor to announce again just how groovy a new Suns-Coyotes arena would be

If there was any doubt about Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton really wanting to build a new arena for the Suns and Coyotes after the last time he said his city needed one to keep its teams (and also, weirdly, to get the Harlem Globetrotters to appear), it should be dispelled once Stanton gives a speech today about doing just that:

According to sources who have reviewed the mayor’s planned remarks, Stanton will outline his vision for building a new taxpayer-funded arena during his fifth State of the City speech. The mayor is scheduled to speak before a crowd of hundreds of business and political leaders at the Sheraton Grand Phoenix hotel in downtown about noon.

Stanton will use his most visible stage of the year to make it clear that he prefers the arena be a joint-use facility shared by the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League teams, those sources said.

The Arizona Republic’s sources didn’t specify how Stanton would begin to pay for this, though they did indicate that the mayor would promise not to raise taxes to do it. Using existing taxes, such as the hotel and car rental tax that is currently paying off the Suns’ current arena, is another story — as, presumably, would be asking for state sales tax kickbacks to pay for arena construction.

As to whether this will be Coyotes CEO Anthony LeBlanc’s promised arena announcement to come by the end of the month, that’s anybody’s guess, though it sure sounds like he’s still trying to see who’ll provide the most lucrative bid:

At the same event, LeBlanc told The Republic that the deal would have to allow for equally shared revenues, in which each team would keep the revenue they generated and that both franchises would share non-event revenues, such as naming rights and advertising. The Suns currently have control over revenue at Talking Stick Arena.

“The Coyotes have had multiple conversations with the city of Phoenix and we continue to have detailed discussions,” LeBlanc said in an earlier statement. “However, as we’ve consistently stated, we also continue to have discussions with other Valley locations. It would be premature at this point to indicate a selection has been finalized.”

LeBlanc also trotted out the standard talking points from the new-arena playbook to practice them on the assembled pols:

The trick for the Coyotes, of course, is to come up with an arena plan that isn’t just lucrative, but is more lucrative than the deal in Glendale where they were getting a mostly free arena plus more than $6 million a year in operating subsidies to boot. It’s possible, just maybe, if taxpayers handle the construction costs and there are enough new revenues to split with the Suns, that it could work out to the Coyotes’ benefit. But you can see why they’re busily playing three different sites off against each other to get the best deal — when “we need a new arena and for somebody to cover all our operating losses because nobody comes to our games because we’re a hockey team in the freaking desert” is the agenda, you need all the leverage you can get.

So I wouldn’t expect a Coyotes announcement in the next two weeks, really, not when there’s still more hardball to be played. Talking about it incessantly to get people all excited about where an arena will go instead of why the Phoenix area should be building its third arena in 25 years, though? That’ll definitely happen.

Warriors’ departure for SF wouldn’t doom Oakland arena, but it wouldn’t help, either

Good piece in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle by Rachel Swan looking at what the Golden State Warriors‘ (eventual) departure for a new arena in San Francisco would mean for Oakland. It’s especially welcome because it doesn’t waste time on any alleged costs to the overall Oakland economy — Oracle Arena may provide less spinoff spending than any other arena in the nation, given that virtually 100% of fans see nothing more of Oakland than the walk from the parking lot or the BART — and instead examines a new SF venue’s impact on possible arena glut:

“[Oracle Arena] will not only lose the team, it will also lose some events to the Warriors’ new [Chase Center] in San Francisco,” [Stanford economist Roger] Noll said. “It’s not going to be the Cow Palace, but it’s not going to be the venue of choice, either.”…

For the last few years the venue has turned a small profit for the authority, [Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority head Scott] McKibben said. … He’s optimistic that the arena will reap more money for Oakland and Alameda County once the Warriors leave. Without the team, the Coliseum Authority will collect all the proceeds from luxury suites, signage on the building, sponsorships and ticket sales. And it won’t have to block off 40 to 60 days a year for basketball, he added…

The big challenge, [Long Island University economist Geoffrey] Propheter said, will be steering those headliners away from the Warriors’ new home.

This is the arena management story in a nutshell: Sports teams generally aren’t big money-makers, and you can actually do better just booking concerts if a team leaves — Swan cites Seattle’s Key Arena as an example here. On the other hand, Key Arena is a cautionary tale as well, because if Chris Hansen’s SoDo arena ever opens, Key is going to have a hard time filling its calendar, and Oracle Arena could face a similar fate, which will cost Oakland taxpayers since they own the place.

The Bay Area is way bigger than Seattle, of course, and it can probably support two arenas. (The Cow Palace is probably doomed, but it’s been that way for a while.) There are only so many concerts, though, and once all those are booked, any additional arenas become surplus — and we’ve seen what happens then.

Bucks lease revealed, doesn’t make arena deal worse than it was already

The state-run Wisconsin Center District and the Milwaukee Bucks have finally agreed on a lease for the team’s new $500 million arena that’s getting $450 million in public subsidies, and hey, look, it’s not entirely awful! The big questions, as you’ll remember, were “Who’ll pay for operating and maintenance costs?” and “Can the Bucks break the lease before the 30-year term is up?” and at least initially appears that the answers are “the Bucks owners” and “no”:

  • The Bucks owners will need to deposit a minimum of $60 million over 30 years in a capital reserve fund to pay for maintenance, and the team must pay for all maintenance, repair, and upgrade costs. (One report says this also includes operating costs; others are silent on the matter.)
  • The lease includes penalties for breaking the lease that start at $553 million in the first year and gradually decline to a bit more than $200 million by the end.
  • The team will actually pay rent! Not much rent — starting at $1 million a year, rising to about double that by the end — but so many teams pay no rent or negative rent, this qualifies as worth one cheer, anyway.

None of this makes the public arena cost a good deal, mind you. But at least the lease doesn’t look to have made it any worse.

Seattle ducked considering Key Arena reno option because rewriting is too damn hard

For anyone interested in the nitty-gritty of how the Seattle city council ended up issuing an environmental impact statement that said Key Arena couldn’t be renovated to modern NBA/NHL standards while it had another report in hand saying that it could, a report this morning by the Seattle Times’ Geoff Baker has all the nitty that your gritty could ever need:

Six weeks before the city of Seattle’s release last May of an environmental study on the proposed Sodo District arena, the woman preparing it received a telephone call.

The man phoning URS Corp. Vice President Katy Chaney was Ryan Sickman, a project manager with AECOM preparing a different report for the City Council on Key­Arena’s future. Public records released to The Seattle Times indicate Sickman and Chaney discussed how their reports differed on whether KeyArena could be modified for NBA and NHL use without demolishing its unique roof…

“Let me know if you have suggestions on whether to, and how to, revise either the EIS text or the response so that we don’t appear inconsistent between the two documents,’’ [Chaney] emailed Sickman on March 25, 2015.

Sickman two weeks later suggested a 221-word revision stating: “There are now studies in front of the city that show how the KeyArena could be reconfigured and redesigned within the building’s existing structure to accommodate both NBA and NHL franchises based upon the now accepted Sacramento Kings design model for NBA seating distribution.’’…

After the suggested changes bounced around privately between Seattle city staffers and politicians, the AECOM report’s scheduled early May rollout was postponed.

Nick Licata, who was on the council at the time, previously said, “There’s a lot of ways of not holding back information but not amplifying it. I wouldn’t say [the AECOM report] was purposely held back, but I don’t think there was much attention given to it.” That sounds about right from this latest timeline: Right as the council was about to issue a report finally moving ahead with Chris Hansen’s proposed SoDo project, the possibility of renovating Key was raised, and everybody more or less went, Oh, jeez, we can’t handle going back and looking at more options. Let’s just pretend we never saw it.

Baker also provides some detail on what happened in that “bounced around” period, drawn from city emails, particularly those of then-city policy analyst Sara Belz:

AECOM project lead [David] Stone by then was still tweaking his own delayed report and asked Belz on May 15 about mentioning the EIS — given extensive media coverage of its release and continued NHL possibilities in Seattle.

Belz took three days to reply, saying she’d checked with colleagues and “we don’t think you need to devote space in your report to the EIS or NHL stuff. Our thought is just that it might create confusion regarding the scope of your contract and analysis.’’

Again, this is way short of “coverup,” but still certainly doing their best to pretend that the two reports didn’t say dramatically different things, because nobody likes to do rewrites. The interesting bit now will be to see whether there are any repercussions, either for the city officials involved or for the SoDo project itself, especially with the council set to give final approval and opponents turning up the heat to try to block it. If last year was seen as too late to make changes based on new options, it seems impossible that the council would pursue it this year, but stranger things have happened. I think.