red devil
Registered User
- Oct 14, 2004
- 12,002
- 19,938
As an outsider, I find it really fishy that SEG was talking about an all-new NHL arena while maintaining the NBA arena downtown, then as soon as they get the emergency relocation of the Coyotes Smith pivots to just renovating the existing building. Feels like a bait and switch to me.
$900 mill seems like the price of a new arena doesn't it? Seattle, while keeping that roof plus adding another structure came in over $1 billion from their original $675 mill, then got bumped to $800 mill.I think, in fairness, it was the SLC politicians talking about a new hockey arena and the taxes they had raised for it. But it seems coincidental that the cost of the new hockey arena and the cost of SEG's entertainment district and Delta Center renovations are almost identical...
In this specific case, they should tear it down and build new with the entertainment district, and play at Maverick center for 3 years. That rink is far better than playing at Mullet was. Hell, isn’t it only 3,000 seats shy of what MTS center was when Winnipeg first got the Thrashers?I think it’s way better to use the existing building and revitalize the downtown area. That’s always a better option than some far flung suburb.
I suspect engineers must approve the plans. So it’ll be okay I guess.In this specific case, they should tear it down and build new with the entertainment district, and play at Maverick center for 3 years. That rink is far better than playing at Mullet was. Hell, isn’t it only 3,000 seats shy of what MTS center was when Winnipeg first got the Thrashers?
I just don’t see how they can properly renovate the building to accommodate an ice rink without massive structural adjustments. This “new technology” Smith keeps talking about sounds like fantasy world.
If you e ever been to downtown SLC, it’s a pretty nasty place, as are most city downtowns. A suburb close by would be more ideal in this case.I think it’s way better to use the existing building and revitalize the downtown area. That’s always a better option than some far flung suburb.
Yeah, that’s kinda what I’m saying. If they can manage to positively impact some civic pride downtown that would be excellent.If you e ever been to downtown SLC, it’s a pretty nasty place, as are most city downtowns. A suburb close by would be more ideal in this case.
Yeah, that’s kinda what I’m saying. If they can manage to positively impact some civic pride downtown that would be excellent.
What’s the cost to taxpayers?
LotsWhat’s the cost to taxpayers?
Yikes.. quite a project. Gotta wonder if AZ may have a new arena under construction by then
What’s the cost to taxpayers?
IIRC.....Lots
Not likely. The land auction maybe would be finished by then.Yikes.. quite a project. Gotta wonder if AZ may have a new arena under construction by then
Not a chance. I’d be surprised if they have one under construction by 2035.Yikes.. quite a project. Gotta wonder if AZ may have a new arena under construction by then
The fact that they’re going to do some major demo and rebuilding entire sections from scratch has me a lot more comfortable than I currently am. The way the Delta is currently set up is more of an embarrassment than playing at Mullett ever was. I didn’t realize they had the folded up bleachers along the sides of the rink by the benches and penalty boxes until the rookie scrimmage. That place is a nightmare to watch a game.
Disagree on Delta center being more of an embarrassment than Mullett. It doesn't matter how goofy the arena layout is, 16k total seats for hockey and 10k unobstructed is way better optically than 3,800 TOTAL seats. That's what an NHL team's practice facility should be sized.The fact that they’re going to do some major demo and rebuilding entire sections from scratch has me a lot more comfortable than I currently am. The way the Delta is currently set up is more of an embarrassment than playing at Mullett ever was. I didn’t realize they had the folded up bleachers along the sides of the rink by the benches and penalty boxes until the rookie scrimmage. That place is a nightmare to watch a game.
Well, for one, you’re undershooting that 3800 TOTAL by 1000 seats. And I agree, that’s obviously not NHL standard. Never disputed that. The difference here is, one is a temporary facility. One is the permanent facility.Disagree on Delta center being more of an embarrassment than Mullett. It doesn't matter how goofy the arena layout is, 16k total seats for hockey and 10k unobstructed is way better optically than 3,800 TOTAL seats. That's what an NHL team's practice facility should be sized.
Sounds like this deal is going to be a renovation like Key Arena in Seattle was a renovation. Essentially tearing the whole thing down in stages and rebuilding it on the fly. Fine by me.
$3 billion from SEC? Does that include buying the team?IIRC.....
~$900 million from the city (primarily for the arena) via sales tax increase.
$3 billion from SEC.
There was a timeline for a new arena in Arizona at one point as well. Until there wasn’t. I get why they pulled the plug on Mullett. And I agree with it. It was a temp arena that was becoming more than temporary. My problem is Delta Center. Until they show that they can demo and construct the seating to better suit a hockey rink, I will always have my doubts. We’ve had renderings of an arena in Phoenix as well. Doesn’t mean they will come to fruition.Mullett was a temp facility for as long as it took Meruelo to build a new facility. In all likelihood, it would've taken even longer to get that done than this timeline given his total inability to get anything done, if even ever.
Delta from the get-go has more better seats than Mullett and an actual timetable for completion. In both avenues, that gives Delta a leg up on Mullett. Giving Delta major props will have to wait until we at least see some renderings of the designed final product.
I'm sure Mullett is a perfectly fine college arena, but once the small gimmick wore off it was an embarrassing NHL arena.