HOF
Posted 18 March 2015 - 11:54 PM
As March Madness is now upon us, I can only (yet again) wonder what could be for Baltimore if they'd finally figure out a way to build an actual arena. They're hosting games here in Portland on Thursday/Saturday, and an article in today's local paper said all of the downtown hotels are sold out for the next several days. That sure would suck, wouldn't it, Baltimore?
Then the Hilton might actually make a little money for once! 
CFB Analyst
Posted 18 March 2015 - 11:55 PM
Then the Hilton might actually make a little money for once!
Hopefully enough to purchase the dynamite to blow it to smithereens.
Posted 26 March 2015 - 05:56 PM
I think they'll knock down the Pier 5 Hotel and use both that and the lot for the arena. Pier Six may be converted into an amphitheater (I'm hearing 8,000 seats).
HOF
Moderator
Posted 17 July 2015 - 07:14 AM
HOF
Posted 17 July 2015 - 07:37 AM
http://www.bizjourna...e-arena-in.html
GBC officials said last year that Hackerman was willing to provide as much as $200 million in funding for the hotel on his own, according to the GBC. The GBC estimated the arena could generate between $40 and $70 million in contractual rights, but that meant the arena project would still fall $250 million short.
HOF
Posted 17 July 2015 - 08:16 AM
What was the Whiting Turner guy (name escapes me at the moment) going to contribute in his plan vs what the city would have to pay?
Hackerman?
He was going to put up a large portion of the money needed to build the arena, convention center and a new Sheraton Hotel (he was the owner I think). It was a pretty good deal for the city and it's a shame they didn't jump on it.
I saw that John Oliver segment -- I knew that most of it happened but seeing it spelled out like that is a slap in the face. I do believe there is a benefit to having arenas, I do believe it helps create jobs and if someone says that businesses located close to stadiums don't profit from it, they obviously haven't been to Baltimore or DC before. That's why I think location of stadiums is important. You can't put one in the middle of nowhere and wonder why it doesn't help out the surrounding area.
The owner of my company owns Graffiato (located across from Verizon Center) and when the NHL was on strike they got killed.
Oliver used Miami and the Marlins stadium as an example, which is a very poor example. It's not located in a downtown location where there is a lot of bars or restaurants close by to visit before/after the game.
HOF
Posted 17 July 2015 - 08:46 AM
Hackerman?
He was going to put up a large portion of the money needed to build the arena, convention center and a new Sheraton Hotel (he was the owner I think). It was a pretty good deal for the city and it's a shame they didn't jump on it.
I saw that John Oliver segment -- I knew that most of it happened but seeing it spelled out like that is a slap in the face. I do believe there is a benefit to having arenas, I do believe it helps create jobs and if someone says that businesses located close to stadiums don't profit from it, they obviously haven't been to Baltimore or DC before. That's why I think location of stadiums is important. You can't put one in the middle of nowhere and wonder why it doesn't help out the surrounding area.
The owner of my company owns Graffiato (located across from Verizon Center) and when the NHL was on strike they got killed.
Oliver used Miami and the Marlins stadium as an example, which is a very poor example. It's not located in a downtown location where there is a lot of bars or restaurants close by to visit before/after the game.
Studies have been done using all the parks.
But sure, some parks do help more than others. However, that still doesn't mean a city with a lot of pressing issues should spend hundreds of millions on one rather than it being privately funded or just not happening.
Also, an arena without an NBA or NHL team isn't nearly as likely to help the surrounding neighborhood out. I don't see why a new arena would help that much more than the current one does.
Owner
Posted 17 July 2015 - 08:58 AM
Studies have been done using all the parks.
But sure, some parks do help more than others. However, that still doesn't mean a city with a lot of pressing issues should spend hundreds of millions on one rather than it being privately funded or just not happening.
Also, an arena without an NBA or NHL team isn't nearly as likely to help the surrounding neighborhood out. I don't see why a new arena would help that much more than the current one does.
Because the existing one (in-conjunction with the size of the convention center) can't attract larger conventions which are extremely profitable for cities.
If OPACY had been built in Lansdowne as was the other option at the time, you'll never convince me that the redevelopment of Canton, Federal Hill take place... that Harbor East (and eventually Harbor Point) happen.
I don't know how those are accounted for. I agree there lots of studies out there pointing to what you mention. Our own Patrick Dougherty wrote about OPACY and Stadiums here:
http://baltimorespor...dium-economics/
Patrick certainly knows more about economics than I do or ever will... but I don't think I'll ever be able to accept those conclusions.
If that makes me an ostrich, so be it.
I'm going to break my own rule on discussion of social issues here, because I see now way around it.. and I do think this is a topic that makes sense here.
As I'm breaking the rule, you guys can do the same for this topic.
To me, one of the major issues Baltimore continually faces as a city is a limited tax base due to not be incorporated into the surrounding county. That has the City in a chicken / egg scenario where tax rates are higher in some instances because they aren't pulling from as many people as they should.
(One might argue that if rates were lower... at county levels, the might have more people moving into the city, thus increasing the base.. but that is debatable.)
So, the City has to continually find ways to attract people to come into the City. A new Arena, which attracts larger conventions and holds the other multitude of events we've talked about (see page 1) would help. More people staying / visiting the city. Better for hotels, better for restaurants, etc.
Increased revenue city wide, thus creating more funds to be reinvested into the City.
Seems like a win/win.
If after you've increased the funds coming into the City, they are not allocated back correctly towards the existing social ills... well that becomes a different discussion.
Also if you think that instead of a stadium / arena expenditure, that funds could be better allocated directly.... perhaps there is truth there.
HOF
Posted 17 July 2015 - 09:07 AM
Owner
Posted 17 July 2015 - 09:13 AM
Other cities have seen similar development without building stadiums. Canton and Fells aren't even that close to OPACY. Much of the area west of the stadiums hasn't seen much development and where I live seems to owe it's development to the hospital/university more than it does the stadiums.
Yes, there are more pressing issues than an arena imo, especially without a major sports team to play in it.
Re: Canton... the proximity to OPACY doesn't matter imo. It was the fact that OPACY attracted people to come back into the City at all. Those positive experiences helping make city living as a whole attractive. That if the OPACY are could be redeveloped, that other areas could as well.
But yes, the hospital developments of UMD and Hopkins are huge.. it's biotech, and edtech which are currently spurring a lot of the current city development. You still have to find ways to keep people in the city. You still have to find ways to attract others.
Baltimore's arena / convention space is very low, and that is a significant issue.
HOF
Posted 17 July 2015 - 09:20 AM
Owner
Posted 17 July 2015 - 09:48 AM
Well I'm not going to buy what you're saying about Canton.
Regardless, a beautiful baseball park that hosts 81 games a year does more for development than a football stadium or an upgraded arena that likely won't host a major sports team.
Than a football stadium? Sure. Vs. an arena and enlarged convention center? Not sure about that.
(Also to the point of a football stadium... you don't get Modell to move here with out the plans for M&T. Now you can argue the absolute value generated by the Ravens, but I think some of the perceived intrinsic value has real world worth... but okay.)
I agree with the pov of that there are only so many dollars to go around, and you have to figure out to get the most out of what you have.
Both saying the same thing overall imo. You want to find ways to improve the city, making it better for the people that live there, for the people that come there, to make it more attractive to people to move there, etc etc.
So it comes down to figuring how that is best accomplished. I'm of the opinion that the more reasons you give the populations of the surrounding affluent suburbs to visit (and out of towners to come as well), the better off you will be.
OTOH, I'm not going to say that direct allocation of those limited dollars elsewhere isn't a more prudent choice.
Ultimately I dislike that it becomes an either / or discussion.
HOF
Posted 17 July 2015 - 09:54 AM
HOF
Posted 17 July 2015 - 10:03 AM
An arena and enlarged convention center are not one in the same even if their was an option to do both. Leaving the enlarged convention center out of it, what specifically does a new arena do to justify it's immense cost?
With an enlarged convention center, what extra conventions is Baltimore competing for?
The thing is, Hackerman was willing to cover half of that -- I, specifically, am referring to that. You don't normally see private money building these things.
http://www.bizjourna...e-arena-in.html
GBC officials said last year that Hackerman was willing to provide as much as $200 million in funding for the hotel on his own, according to the GBC. The GBC estimated the arena could generate between $40 and $70 million in contractual rights, but that meant the arena project would still fall $250 million short.
HOF
Posted 17 July 2015 - 10:05 AM
HOF
Posted 17 July 2015 - 10:13 AM
At some point you have to ask the question -- will Baltimore take a step forward and become something more than it currently is? Or will it stay the same? An arena is part of that question. Along with mass transit, tall buildings, taxes, drugs, crime, education, etc...
As I see it this city can't get out of its own way on a lot of issues. It's pretty much culminating in the shit storm that is taking place now. Throwing the money that would have been spent on an arena at these issues isn't going to fix them.
Money doesn't fix anything in that regard but that is another discussion for another day.
Owner
Posted 17 July 2015 - 10:17 AM
An arena and enlarged convention center are not one in the same even if their was an option to do both. Leaving the enlarged convention center out of it, what specifically does a new arena do to justify it's immense cost?
With an enlarged convention center, what extra conventions is Baltimore competing for?
Well, as of 2013... Baltimore had fallen from around 35th to 75th nationally in convention space... with expectation of falling into the 100s within 5 years...
As far as what convention events... Baltimore is now missing out on numerous conventions, with similar sized markets taking more of their share... and without the ability to compete for the larger events.
And yes, Arena space is directly correlated as well.. so there is no way to leave that out of it realistically... but to play along...
1) Conference tourneys: Big Ten, ACC, A10, CAA, MEAC...
(Currently has hosted CAA, so agree not fair to list... but using myself as an example... I will never go to the existing Arena... I would consider something like the CAA tourney at a new Arena.)
2) NCAA Regional... hasn't happened since Big Country Reeves / OKST...
3) NBA / NHL exhibitions... both happen now, but might have slightly more regularity. Also might get handful of regular season games as once existed with the Bullets.
4) Something similar to the BB&T Classic... venue for Towson, UMBC, Loyola, Coppin, Morgan to bring in larger OOC opponents.
5) Obviously all current events... with a higher level of better concerts... admittedly, the existing Arena has upped their game in recent years and brought in a better caliber of acts.
6) Arena Football, WNBA, etc
None of that more important vs. the help it would give to conventions.
You would want a space that had the requisite amount of skyboxes, and total seats that it could 'play up' in time if there was eventually enough corporate dollars to go around to support a 3rd Major League team in the city... vs building something from the beginning which would never be capable.
HOF
Posted 17 July 2015 - 10:23 AM
An arena and enlarged convention center are not one in the same even if their was an option to do both. Leaving the enlarged convention center out of it, what specifically does a new arena do to justify it's immense cost?
With an enlarged convention center, what extra conventions is Baltimore competing for?
There's Otakon, I guess, who's leaving Baltimore because the convention center is too small.
Kansas City built a new arena fairly recently, without having an NBA or NHL team. I guess they have concerts and stuff there, and it's a fairly frequent NCAA basketball tournament site. On the other hand, the KC arena doesn't have to compete with the Verizon Center 40 miles away, and for all I know it's a big money loser anyway.
I'm going to the Baltimore Arena on Monday to see the Eagles (I'm old) so I'll report back on its condition.
Owner
Posted 17 July 2015 - 10:27 AM
Half is obviously much better than nothing, but still leaves a big bill for a city that just had its education budget slashed and has lots of other issues.
It's a very fair point. Which to me gets back to the larger point vs. making it a discussion on education vs. stadium spending... it is how can the city increase revenue?
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
