RealGM

Cactus Jack wrote:

theagent wrote:It's not all that remarkable. it's also limiting the renovation possibilities that were possible with just building a brand new stadium. I know the city council did not want to abandon it and were desperate for someone to come in and revitalize it. but it shouldn't have been at the expense of just being nostalgic.

i feel kind bad for chris hansen this was a great model for a potential stadium

Watch on YouTube

The roof is considered a 'Historical Landmark" by designation ('62 World's Fair). As ridiculous as it might sound.

Most people prefer Hansen's arena proposal. Better location, traffic, parking, etc. But as usual, the city got what it wanted. By protecting it's own asset (Key Arena/Seattle Center).

Hansen was never going to get approval as long as finding a solution for Key Arena was still an option for the City.

good point but it comes at the expense of having an arena that Sterling will approve of. Seattle is top 20 when it comes to population and probably top 3 as far as cost of living, salaries and billionaires. a capacity of no less than 19k, luxury suites and amenities are what's need in sports entertainment today.

Seattle got 45 mil upfront but did the city ever get the additional 30mil if the city never got a franchise? I heard something about the state legislature had something to do with it

theagent wrote:Seattle got 45 mil upfront but did the city ever get the additional 30mil if the city never got a franchise? I heard something about the state legislature had something to do with it

Nope. The city basically got the $45 million upfront to pay off the lease. That's it.

Seattle led by the mayor royally f'd up with agreeing to the settlement. The city was never going to see that money.

theagent wrote:Seattle got 45 mil upfront but did the city ever get the additional 30mil if the city never got a franchise? I heard something about the state legislature had something to do with it

Those extra $30 mil required a fully funded arena plan signed by the city/state within a year or so after the team left.

That was never going to happen and just some "nice wording" to make the politicians look a little bit better.

if you go to the kraken site they have a virtual view of the seating bowl. so, apparently construction of the new arena was more difficult and costly than anticipated. why? the friggin roof that was a non-negotiable and the whole clean energy thing. original plans called for a media bridge that would be suspended over the east side of the arena and a twin spectator bridge over the west side of the arena. It would've been similar to the bridges that MSG added when they did their renovation. it provided a social entertainment experience that generated more revenue due to its exclusive atmosphere, food/beverage sales and not to mention was an engineering cheat code to sneak in more seating capacity. but guess what CPA did....they kept the media bridge(swapped it to the west side) and eliminated the spectator bridge.

both bridges would have added 320 seats to capacity. i was excited for the CPA original architecture plans but i see they're settling for bare minimum which is what Stern didn't like. go to https://www.nhl.com/kraken and take a look at the virtual seating tour. it still looks interesting but I just don't like big plans being curtailed because of irrelevant nostalgia. here are the original schematics which were far better plans. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/economicDevelopment/arena%20evaluation%20docs/OVG/OVG%20NASC%20Arena%20presentation%2042717.pdf

It's been 15 years since OKC stole Seattle's NBA team.. Can someone please remind me why did it happen? Was it smth along the lines of the mayor not agreeing to build a new arena?