Tacoma to renovate Tacoma Dome for NHL and/or NBA team?
- Thread starter Melrose Munch
- Start date
Buck Aki Berg
Done with this place
Can you say that louder? I can't hear you all the way down here at the bottom of this slippery slope.
If the league finances a building for one team, 29 others get in line.
Habs05
Registered User
I agree, every teams would want their share including future sites. I don't think the BoG would approve giving money to "one potential new market". The league would look soo biased and that's the black eye they don't wanna get.
I wouldn't go so far as financing, but perhaps aiding to speed up the process, possibly as sort of a credit to be repayed. But then, the speed of the situation really depends on if the Coyotes can be kept in Phoenix or not, and on how soon a relocation option needs to be ready. Also there could be an issue, I suppose, of getting in before the NBA tries to get back in the Seattle area... Though ultimately a brand new arena will be built, eventually, to serve both major leagues.
Buck Aki Berg
Done with this place
This is actually a system I wouldn't mind the league implementing .. set aside a certain percentage of revenue that teams can draw upon for financing new stadiums (or just upgrading the current facility). It would help keep ownership out of taxpayers' pockets, and might even make taxpayers more willing to embrace such projects if they know that the league itself is investing in the venues they use.
Of course, there's probably seventeen variables that I haven't thought of that make this sort of arrangement impossible
This is actually a system I wouldn't mind the league implementing .. set aside a certain percentage of revenue that teams can draw upon for financing new stadiums (or just upgrading the current facility). It would help keep ownership out of taxpayers' pockets, and might even make taxpayers more willing to embrace such projects if they know that the league itself is investing in the venues they use.
Of course, there's probably seventeen variables that I haven't thought of that make this sort of arrangement impossible
exactly. if anything it could help owners get into taxpayer pockets - showing the league and team's committment to a market through their willingness and ability to access/leverage resources
Habs05
Registered User
NHL Giving a credit = ok when the building is done you'll get a franchise (if not why whould they give that credit
).However Gary Bettman said to Quebec months ago: 'Listen, obviously we couldn't consider ever coming back without a new building, but don't build a new building on our account where you think somehow you can expect on some certain time frame to have a franchise'
So he's saying the opposite to Qc.
And Bettman said many times that he's against relocation and they want to focus their efforts on existing teams only.
Money (or credit) should be award only as an emergency measure to current NHL teams (like Phoenix) and on short period.
bosshogg18
Registered User
But a lot of people in Tacoma still hate the Thunderbirds, including myself. Before the Rockets were ripped away to Kelowna, despite averaging over 4,000 fans/per game. More than most WHL teams. It was one of the best rivals in the WHL. I now live east of Portland, so I cheer for the Winterhawks.
Despite averaging pretty well, the Dome has terrible sightlines for hockey as it is currently. It is a weird size...too big for hockey and basketball, too small for baseball and football (although state championship is held here, holds about 12,000 for that. The part that upset me about Bruce Hamilton moving the Rockets was they didn't try to come up with any changed inside the dome. Instead of the rink being in the center of the Dome, it could have been set in the corner, using 3 sides of the existing arena and one side temporary, much in the same way the NCAA Final Four used to set up. This would have given the site a more intimate look and feel, but also leaving the Dome big and open for other bigger events, such as concerts, boat shows, monster trucks, etc.
The Washington (I'll include Portland in this) area is a great hockey area. I think they would support a team for sure.
Code:
2010-11 WHL Attendance
(complete through games of Monday, January 3, 2011 - may contain later partial results)
Team Total Gm Avg PvsT Pvs Diff Pct
Calgary 181,788 22 8,263.1 172,978 7,862.6 +400.5 +5.09%
Vancouver 147,932 21 7,044.4 143,895 6,852.1 +192.2 +2.81%
Kelowna 115,483 19 6,078.1 116,560 6,134.7 -56.7 -0.92%
Spokane 104,364 18 5,798.0 105,987 5,888.2 -90.2 -1.53%
Everett 110,960 21 5,283.8 109,644 5,221.1 +62.7 +1.20%
Portland 106,002 21 5,047.7 86,734 4,130.2 +917.5 +22.22%
Tri-City 63,612 14 4,543.7 59,759 4,268.5 +275.2 +6.45%
Red Deer 85,503 19 4,500.2 84,348 4,439.4 +60.8 +1.37%
Saskatoon 78,857 18 4,380.9 76,953 4,275.2 +105.8 +2.47%
Brandon 72,829 17 4,284.1 79,498 4,676.4 -392.3 -8.39%
Edmonton 85,239 21 4,059.0 94,712 4,510.1 -451.1 -10.00%
Kamloops 81,053 20 4,052.7 86,704 4,335.2 -282.6 -6.52%
Medicine Hat 72,108 18 4,006.0 72,108 4,006.0 0 0
Seattle 62,705 16 3,919.1 55,060 3,441.3 +477.8 +13.88%
Regina 84,943 22 3,861.0 91,511 4,159.6 -298.5 -7.18%
Chilliwack 66,427 20 3,321.4 62,053 3,102.7 +218.7 +7.05%
Lethbridge 62,131 21 2,958.6 68,626 3,267.9 -309.3 -9.46%
Moose Jaw 54,836 21 2,611.2 46,535 2,216.0 +395.3 +17.84%
Kootenay 44,333 18 2,462.9 46,976 2,609.8 -146.8 -5.63%
Prince George 46,779 21 2,227.6 48,201 2,295.3 -67.7 -2.95%
Prince Albert 44,067 20 2,203.4 40,439 2,022.0 +181.4 +8.97%
Swift Current 39,937 19 2,101.9 40,484 2,130.7 -28.8 -1.35%
WHL League 1,811,888 427 4,243.3 1,790,595 4,193.4 +49.9 +1.19%NHL Giving a credit = ok when the building is done you'll get a franchise (if not why whould they give that credit
However Gary Bettman said to Quebec months ago: 'Listen, obviously we couldn't consider ever coming back without a new building, but don't build a new building on our account where you think somehow you can expect on some certain time frame to have a franchise'
So he's saying the opposite to Qc.
And Bettman said many times that he's against relocation and they want to focus their efforts on existing teams only.
Money (or credit) should be award only as an emergency measure to current NHL teams (like Phoenix) and on short period.
A "short period" was what I meant. And what's worse... dumping millions into a sinking/sunken ship, or a few million into helping a ship set sail?
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
I realize your more than likely not a structural engineer, however as a layman, how feasible would it be to gut-out much of the existing seating and re-configure it to provide the kinds of sightlines enjoyed everywhere else?. A friend of mine inherited a property with a 5000sqft Geodesic dome with a lot of concrete in the foundation & interior walls, many of which he jackhammered out; completely re-configured the interior with an additional interior floor level. Wasnt terribly difficult nor expensive. Guess we'll have to wait for the study to be completed, but Id bet its doable, likely extremely expensive but IMO well worth it. Thats an iconic stadium & building, a real ode' to mid-21st Century American creativity & innovation. Ranks right up there at the top of the heap. Gotta love Buckminster Fullers designs. Id love to see the NHL playing out of that building.
Last edited:
If anything, if the Tacoma Dome were somehow retrofitted into an NHL or NBA caliber arena, I'd suspect that any reconfiguration would be somewhat like the NFL's Chicago Bears refit of Soldier Field, where the facade remained but the playing surface and seating were completely ripped out and redone. The Tacoma Dome is cavernous enough to play a US-style football game, so it would basically be feasible to build an arena within the Dome.
On that note, one just needs to look at what Loblaws and Ryerson did to Maple Leaf Gardens.
This was about as complicated as a gut as you can get (the stands were literally holding up the outer walls) and it was done for something like $80 million.
Still, depending on the cost of building a new seating configuration indoors, it may not even be worth it for Tacoma. Might be better off to just build a new arena.
From the couple pics I've seen it looks totally possible to basically build what would amount to an outdoor hockey arena inside the dome, you could probably even sink the playing surface below the current floor level by say 1 floor (20' +/-) and utilize the current floor level outside this for your main concourse servicing the lower bowl. Then build an upper concourse for an upper bowl with boxes between the two levels (like seems to be the current rage in arena design).
This would reuse an awesome structure, make it more usable as a dedicated building (those multi-purpose buildings from this era really were deadful for any sport) and probably save pretty signifigant dollars as a large portion of the load carrier by the structure is already accounted for.
Those BuckyDomes are very cool engineering wise for how efficiently they can span large areas, they also look very cool architecturally, but they are a pain to make practical spaces in...
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Thats a good example, so ya, Id be inclined to believe its more than feasible but at what cost?. Soldier Field cost close to $600M (?) to renovate & retrofit, however, as an Historically Designated building that went up in something like 1919, completely gutted, the field lowered etc, hardly surprising. Like Soldiers, I think the historical significance of the Tacoma Dome merits the expenditure, no question in my mind they can support an NHL franchise, but until the engineer's reports come in who knows what your looking at?.
Balsillies reno plans for Copps in Hamilton called for app. $200M+, and that buildings actually pretty close to being good to go as is (the AHL's been playing out of it for ages, Junior, Canada Cups etc) however, it requires major additions & retro-fitting from suites to media & communications facilities, structural reinforcements, concourse improvements and concession upgrades, plumbing, wiring, the whole shabang. Im just guessing, but Id bet were looking at somewhere around $250-$300M in Tacoma, minimum.
Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,495
- 26,834
How many people from Seattle/Everett are going to regularly attend games in Tacoma?
Particularly around the time that people would be driving to evening games, traffic in Seattle/Tacoma is abysmal.
Particularly around the time that people would be driving to evening games, traffic in Seattle/Tacoma is abysmal.
so my question to the seattle natives is what was the deal with the key arena? was it that the team was demanding that the arena be renovated with taxpayer money? was it that the team threatened to leave if a new arena was not built with taxpayer money? im just asking because it seems that if the region was not willing to put money into a facility to keep a team that the public really wanted to keep around why would they put up money for an arena for an NHL franchise? I think we all agree that the tacoma dome would be a temporary solution at best so a new building would have to be built no?
Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,495
- 26,834
They would easily sell out 6 games a year.
Traffic's bad enough that you Vancouver folks might come to Tacoma for a game and never be able to leave - then we'd sell out a lot more than six games.
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
- Jun 1, 2008
- 570
- 2
There is still 1,650,000 people between Southcenter and Olympia. The bigger problem IMO is the lack of a major corporate base in Tacoma. They just lost their largest to Seattle. Bellevue or Renton are the better locations. I hope Tacoma can light a fire under one of them.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Thanks htpwn, thanks a lot. Seeing MLG gutted like that just makes me weep.
Ya, that'd be a good idea, drop the playing surface by about 20' and build up & out from there. The square cornering in terms of the existing seating configuration shouldnt be that problemtatical once youve done that, as you could simply bring it all forward.... The center-ice jumbo-tron & lighting systems would all have to be canter-levered I'd suspect as you wouldnt want to be placing undue stress on the vertical & horizontal struts... Man, Im gettin carried away here.
Your from the area, just north of it actually, do you seriously believe the NHL wont thrive up & down the Puget Sound regardless of an albeit less than ideal location with the Tacoma Dome in attracting people from Bellingham to Portland?. I sure dont. In fact, your very likely to see a pretty healthy contingent of Canadians driving down for weekend games as well.
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
- Jun 1, 2008
- 570
- 2
The Sonics were moving to OKC no matter what. They said they would stay if the taxpayers built the world's nicest arena in Renton, but those lying weasels had zero intention of keeping the team here. They bought the team to move it and make their small little city seem more significant than it really is.
Key Arena is too small, that's its flaw. A remodel wouldn't be enough. I expect an arena to be built eventually in Bellevue, most likely the old Safeway distributing site east of 405 and south of 520. It just happens to be along the future lightrail line from Downtown Seattle to Redmond.
