I’ve heard from a couple of different sources that an anti-events center group is in the works, which will bring an interesting twist to what is going on already. I have often said that if we voted on an EC tomorrow it wouldn’t pass. The only reason I support the DT group is because if voters do approve a EC, it should be built DT.
Besides, they picked your logo.
Should I send them an invoice? You would think they could spare a couple of hundred bucks considering they have $1-5 million pledged?
For sure.. don’t forget royalties once the DTEC opens and they only have DL and David to thank for it.
Why is downtown so good other than to benefit the businesses there? Access is bad, great expense to change roads etc and move railroad tracks, no room, etc. If it has to be built, I would favor by the Arena or at a junction of interstates on the periphery of SF. I would like to see what developers are in the pockets of those favoring the downtown location. Besides, apparently concert attendance is down now with the economy; is it the time to be building a center that will necessarily be subsidized by taxpayers?
Who is heading up the anti-events center group
To Proud Jack:
I think that your basic premise is wrong. Downtown does not have bad access – it is just as far from downtown to 229 as it is from the arena to 90. Plus, with downtown, there are several major roads out in each direction (10th/11th/12th, Cliff, Minnesota) and lots and lots of side roads to alleviate traffic. And I know you didn’t mention parking, but a city study from 2005 mentioned that there are about 4000 parking spots within a quarter mile of the arena, and 5000 within a quarter mile of a downtown site.
As far as favoring “downtown developers”… Downtown is the most densely built part of our city, and as such has the largest number of groups and people that would potentially benefit from the events center. One of the points of building an events center is to help the economy and local businesses, so putting it where they are seems to make sense. Also, building it right on an interstate will make it more convenient for some people, but less convenient for others. Build it at 90&29, and everybody in Lincoln County suffers. Build it at 29&229, and the north and east sides suffer. A central location makes the most sense.
I agree with you that $60 to $70M is too much to bond in this economy. As a general point, our governmental structure has become too reliant on bonding to fund everything. Maybe decide on a location first, get the plans, then start building in 5 years after we’ve saved up a bit of cash and gotten more private dollars invested? Unfortunately, patience is a tough sell politically.
Correction: should say “… from the arena to 29.”, not “to 90.”
…a city study from 2005 mentioned that there are about 4000 parking spots within a quarter mile of the arena, and 5000 within a quarter mile of a downtown site.
~Tom H
Another DT Kool-Aid drinker. I’ve read the study, both the Walker Study and the Task force study. Ain’t no way your numbers line up. Unless of course you are using a very flexible ruler. One example from MANY. The 1st Avenue 631 spot ramp. Your task force study says it is within 1300 feet of your proposed site. Not even by way the crow flies is that even remotely possible.
The study is here, in case anyone wants to read for themselves:
http://www.siouxfalls.org/PublicWorks/special_projects/reports/event_center_final_report
Poly43, you’re right: using sidewalks and bridges to walk from the 1st Ave ramp to Cherapa place is about 1800 feet, according to Google Maps. I mistakenly said a quarter-mile radius; the city report uses a 4-block radius (which is usually about a quarter-mile in Sioux Falls, but not always).
Tom:but a city study from 2005 mentioned that there are about 4000 parking spots within a quarter mile of the arena, and 5000 within a quarter mile of a downtown site.
As has been discussed numerous times in the past on this very website, that study was a sham. Yes there might be 5000 spots within 1/4 mile, but that includes every single parking space in every single ramp, parking lot, and street. It even included private lots and ramps in the calculation, and I’m pretty certain the businesses who own those lots and ramps aren’t going to let just anyone park there.
I’m also pretty sure people who live and/or work in the area aren’t going to find other areas to park… they will park on the street or in the ramps just as they always have.
A true study would give us an estimate of the number of public AVAILABLE parking spaces by taking surveys on several different days during several different times, but that number would be considerably lower than 5000.
Yet another example of flaws in the study? They didn’t account for the few hundred spots being lost when the River Ramp is torn down (and not rebuilt).
Oh yea… but my favorite part of all the downtown parking studies is the one that said people attending events at a downtown events center can be expected to walk 12 blocks for available parking. I can just imagine parking at the Cathedral and walking to the Events Center when it is a negative 22 windchill in January.
If people want it downtown (which I won’t disagree is a better option than the Arena site) they need to acknowledge that adding additional parking is going to be necessary and costly. Surface lots aren’t as easy due to it being a higher congestion area and less available land, so that means ramps… and as Poly can tell you (and cite hard figures for), ramps can cost up to $20,000 per space to construct. You start adding 500 or 1000 more spaces at $20k per space and suddenly you have a $10M to $20M additional cost that will NEVER see a return on the investment.
Pretty hard to break even on a ramp when the spaces are leased for $60 a month but the interest on the debt used to create that space is more than that. But hey – I guess we will have plenty of parking for the 4000 people who attend the Summit League games.
If people want it downtown (which I won’t disagree is a better option than the Arena site) they need to acknowledge that adding additional parking is going to be necessary and costly.
~Costner
Very well put costner. I’m not 100% against a DT site. IF we are voting one in, just be honest about parking and congestion and you’ll go a lot further. These numerous studies we have had are a good case in point. They all seem to think a Sioux Falls city block is 500 feet. Well, truth of the matter is a SF city block is 350 feet east to west and 400 feet north to south. Also, I have thourougly read the Walker Parking Study and the number of public stalls available according to the numerous task forces does not jive with the Walker Study. Since the Walker Study has no skin in the game, I’m siding with Walker numbers.
Poly43, you’re right: using sidewalks and bridges to walk from the 1st Ave ramp to Cherapa place is about 1800 feet, according to Google Maps.
~Tom H
Tom, thanks for agreeing, BUT, I did the same calculation and it comes out to more like 2200 to 2400 feet, IF you know your way around town.
`
Every presentation of an events center has been full of dishonesty, from the parking situation to the make believe predictions of what would suddenly fill 12,000 seats in a town that has always struggled to reach 5,000.
Pretty hard to break even on a ramp when the spaces are leased for $60 a month but the interest on the debt used to create that space is more than that.
That’s a mouthful. According to the Walker Parking Study the break even point for a $20,000 a spot ramp at 85% occupancy is $180 a month to lease. We’ll need more ramps for a DT Event Center and as it stands right now, the city is losing money on DT public parking because the occupancy rate is down . Yet, we somehow will need more to take care of an Event Center? Crazy.
Where are the hypocritical teabaggers?! If all politics is local . . . where are these hypocrits when it comes to stopping a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars?!