159 replies to this topic

[beerbeer]

The Sprint Center in Kansas City is a money maker.  

"  The  Sprint Center celebrated its third anniversary by  paying $2.1 million  to Kansas City as part of a profit-sharing  agreement, and by being  ranked the second-busiest entertainment arena  in the country by a trade  publication.The downtown venue opened in October 2007, and though  it hasn’t  landed a major professional sports franchise, it has exceeded  its goals  when it comes to financial performance, attendance from  concerts and  other events. Acting city manager Troy Schulte said the city had  budgeted receiving $1.8 million from the Sprint Center profit-sharing  agreement,…"

If the Sprint Center is an example of the downside, there is no downside.

[HartfordTycoon]

beerbeer, on 12 July 2011 - 07:19 AM, said:

If the Sprint Center is an example of the downside, there is no downside.

Exactly!!! There is no downside! Money quote from beerbeer.

[The Voice of Reason]

I struggle to see a downside either.

I mean in the world of sports arenas, it really just takes 1 major tenant, and then the place needs to be the main arena for the area, so it gets a bunch of concerts and monster stucks and maybe a convention thing or two.

Hartford, Amazingly has 2 major tenants with UConn, because our Womens team draws nearly as well as the Mens.
thats a great benefit.  Hartford is a major concert city, and manages to get every random entertainment event from Cirque to Gymnastics to Desmond Tutu.

If we could get any pro team, a new arena would be immediately viable, and I bet with just college and minor league hockey, it would be pretty damn close.

How could a new arena not draw more people?   I have hear tons of people say thing like "I like hockey, but I wont go to that dump to watch a game"   and I heard it with UCONN instead of hockey, and I heard it as an argument against going to Cirq as well once.

so I am guessing a new Arena would at least open the possibility for more attendees to events...

whatever we all know prettymuch everyone here is supportive of a new arena  

[nor'easter]

Went to Yankee Stadium on Saturday. Have not been to a new facility in decades. The facilities being built are an entertainment attraction on their own. An old venue does not work unless the fan base far exceeds capacity and a new building is not an option. If a new one is an option, you always go that way. Old venues remain only because no one will put up the money for a new one. A new one downtown is a must.  when the mall was built 30 years ago, it was a draw. that time is gone. It's the 21st century..

Edited by nor'easter, 12 July 2011 - 11:20 AM.

[Theophrastus Bombastus]

Huh?  Maybe based strictly on ticket sales, definitely not by fan experience / amenities.  Hope this doesn't kill motivation to upgrade or build new.

http://www.courant.c...,0,818505.story

[The Voice of Reason]

these reports just show the deamnd for the market, and how well the location is being managed by AEG.

In reality its doing OK, it could be doing MUCH BETTER!!!!!!

If we had a better facility it would be doing much better and if on top of that we could draw a Pro team in the NBA or NHL it would jump up the list dramatically.

[Theophrastus Bombastus]

Good to see something new, no matter how pie-in-the-sky.

http://www.courant.c...53.photogallery

http://www.courant.c...0,3405456.story


8:45 a.m. EST, November 15, 2011

Howard Baldwin unveiled his vision for the XL Center at the Metro Hartford Alliance breakfast Tuesday morning at the Bushnell, which includes the return of the NHL to Hartford by 2017, according to Rick Green via Twitter.

[HartfordTycoon]

http://blogs.courant...-in-five-y.html

http://www.courant.c...0,3405456.story



Howard Baldwin is now saying that he is trying to move forward with a renovation plan and has unveiled the specifics this morning. It looks like we are headed for a renovation instead of a new building but it does look to be fairly extensive and ambitious based on the renderings that have been released. His plan now includes the specific goal of having the NHL return by 2017. If he is saying he can have the Whalers back in 5 years he must be having some pretty good conversations with the NHL. UConn is on board with the renovation plan and Aetna is stepping up to the plate to provide some of the funding. All and all, this is looking kinda promising. Another interesting aspect is that Trumbull St. will be shut to traffic at least occasionally and redone in brick to match Pratt St., a nice touch if it happens. Larry G who owns Hartford 21 and controls the XL Center until 2013 doesn't seem to be on board but the XL Center reverts to city control in 2013 and the renovation would start once the city regains control and take a year to complete. If Malloy is supportive of this, it could end up being a pretty major thing.

[beerbeer]

The key to any arena is luxury boxes. Sell out the boxes to local corporations and the place is almost bulletproof. How boxes would be refit in the current XL center is a tough and expensive job. I would love to see a floor plan.

[Hartfordfan]

i don't really know how they will add more luxury boxes, if they do then they would have lower capacity.  capacity for hockey is only 15,000. any lower capacity then 16,000 the nhl is not going to put an nhl team in that arena. the drawings look cool but i still think a new arena is needed. the building is 40 years old and a renovation would be just a bandaid.

[beash19]

I can't wait to see some more details of the inside of the arena.  The only shot of the inside shows the upper boxes being extended around the ends of the arena, and some mid-level boxes being added at the center of the rink on both sides.  The large opening at ice level on the right hand side of the diagram makes me wonder.  Why get rid of those seats down there?  Maybe just for basketball with roll-in bleacher seats for hockey?  I'm excited for this news.  Hopefully it isnt all just smoke.

[drc72]

While a new arena would be nice, it's just not gonna happen right now in this economy. Although looking at these plans, i think Howard might have a winner here, and at a bargain to boot.

Edited by drc72, 25 November 2011 - 06:37 AM.

[The Voice of Reason]

I am so tired of the "in this economy"  not you using it DRC72, just the media and everywhere using it as an excuse.

there are housing developments being built right now in CT, nice fancy places, there is a trend of lowering unemployment, and there is improved consumer sentiment.   is a boom time? NO, its a slow turn around, and honestly the best time to be investing in the city.  I think everyone was spoilt by 10 years of unprecedented good times that they expect us to rubber band back to those same good times, and its just not gonna happen.  

I may be a rarity, but everyone.... everyone I know has a job now.  and yet most of us lost our jobs at one point in the last 3 years, but everyone is back to work and well some better off than before, most at the same level and a few are at a lower place.    this includes all my friends in construction!!!  my buddies that own construction companies are making enough that they are hiring again.  so, honestly, not good times, but not terrible either, and we need to collectively accept that the wheels are not gonna fall off, and we can finance a 105 million arena and just get back to it!

Hell we have 2 housing projects planned in hartford, there are new condo towers being proposed and actually being built in MIAMI.... things are getting better.  Millwaukee has a 30 story apartment/condo tower under construction.   Millwaukee is not a hotbed kind of town, so there is clearly some economic activity out there that is positive!  Minnesota has over 1000 units of new apartments and condos in the planning or accepted stage.  not a boom, but I am tire of the assumption that we will go back to 2005 instantly after a recession. a slow recovery holds well for a prolonged stable growth period.

but on subject... I think this is the most sane plan we have seen in a while, and it might actually get done when the public are in a position to stomach it.  totally agree!

[Bill Mocarsky]

I rather see a new arena built in a different location - possibly a couple of blocks to the north.

To me, an arena is like a bookend. The feel of the city is usually quite different on opposite sides. For example, downtown development might thrive more on one side while parking garages dominate the other side. The bigger the building, the bigger the effect. Perhaps a large unstoppable city would develop all around the building.

That is why I say move the bookend out a bit, extend Allyn Street to Trumbull, and start rethinking Church street by getting rid of that structure that spans the street.

If only there was available land.

[HartfordTycoon]

Bill Mocarsky, on 28 November 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:

I rather see a new arena built in a different location - possibly a couple of blocks to the north.

To me, an arena is like a bookend. The feel of the city is usually quite different on opposite sides. For example, downtown development might thrive more on one side while parking garages dominate the other side. The bigger the building, the bigger the effect. Perhaps a large unstoppable city would develop all around the building.

That is why I say move the bookend out a bit, extend Allyn Street to Trumbull, and start rethinking Church street by getting rid of that structure that spans the street.

If only there was available land.

I agree 100%. The new arena should be built north of I 84 on the barren wasteland of parking there. Most of the modern arenas do seem to have a front and back end and the feel is different on the back end. Your bookend analogy is perfect. It should basically serve as a transition point between downtown and the rest of the city. I do think that we should pursue the renovations that Baldwin has proposed at this current juncture though. The renovation plans may be the most we can even hope for at this point. If it's successful and does entice the NHL back then the chances of a new, pro-quality arena at some point down the line increases exponentially.

[MadVlad]

Hartfordfan, on 15 November 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

i don't really know how they will add more luxury boxes, if they do then they would have lower capacity.  capacity for hockey is only 15,000. any lower capacity then 16,000 the nhl is not going to put an nhl team in that arena. the drawings look cool but i still think a new arena is needed. the building is 40 years old and a renovation would be just a bandaid.

Untrue, the MTS Centre in Winnipeg holds 15,004 for hockey, and they just got a team...

[beerbeer]

The luxury boxes produce much more revenue than the regular seats.  So taking out seats for luxury boxes is a good financial trade. Although I like bigger arenas because they make you feel like you're at a big time event, revenue is the most important number, much more important that total seats.

[beerbeer]

Some perspective on the Hartford Civic Center.

The Hartford Civic Center was built in 1975 at a cost of 30 million dollars.

So it has been open for 37 years and is a good bet to reach 40.  In short, it cost about $750,000 a year to construct. Damn that's cheap.

For Larry Bird, Wayne Gretzky, Maya Moore, Kemba Walker, Lady Gaga, the Grateful Dead, Ricky Martin, Circuses and Obama the building has enriched the lives of everyone in the state and put Hartford on sports and entertainment pages all over the country.

To build a new arena, to do it right, will cost a $150 million  But say it lasts 40 years, that's less than $4 million a year.  Of course, in 40 years it will cost $4 million to ride the bus. Inflation don't you know. To the good, if the building is run efficiently, it produce a profit, thereby reducing the overall cost of the building. Not to mention the economic impact on bars, restaurants, and stores over 40 years.

The the most important reason to build a new arena is not economic. It is the enrichment in the quality of life of the citizenry. To bring the next generation of world class performers to the city. To make the city a better place to live. To keep Hartford relevant as a national city. To be a destination and not a drive-by or fly-over city.

Four million a year, it seems cheap to me.

[The Voice of Reason]

PREACH!

[HartfordTycoon]

I think it would be a home run if the state decided to allow a casino downtown and one of the specs that the state submitted to prospective developers called for a new 20,000 seat, state of the art Arena. 2 birds one stone. I think that Bridgeport and Hartford should both be allowed to have casinos downtown. I think Malloy would be much more likely to embrace this sort of idea than any of our other recent governors. I'm glad he is trying to allow for Sunday sales of liquor and also letting bars and restaurants stay open later during the week. You can't be a boring, uptight state and expect to be an entertainment destination.