Target Center Renovation

[twincitizen]

If the goal is competitiveness, then I would hope that the ridiculous proposal for a joint stadium authority is dropped entirely. Otherwise it reeks to high heaven of collusion, which can only hurt the Xcel.

Why do you find the proposal for a joint stadium authority ridiculous? It sounded like a pretty good idea to me.

An every better idea (Chris Coleman's idea) was to just shut down the Target Center entirely and ship the NBA/WNBA to St. Paul. That's not the worst idea ever from a regional equity standpoint or from a Minneapolis taxpayer standpoint (assuming the state retired the City's debt on Target Center in that scenario). We do not need two competing arenas, fighting against eachother in the "race to the bottom" for event rates.

[nordeast homer]

Of course Chris Coleman is going to suggest that! We have two arenas because St. Paul decided that they needed to compete with Minneapolis for conventions and sports teams. If you think for a moment that either city would ever consider giving up their arenas I would like to have some of what you're smoking. Why do you think they wanted the Saints stadium downtown? St Paul sees what has happened with Target Field and the development that is going on around it and wants a piece of that for themselves. They could have easily rebuilt the Saints stadium at the current location for half the price, but they want to revitalize the inner city.
Target Center will not be shut down, nor should it!

[Minnekid]

As a timberwolves fan, the timberwolves should be nowhere else than minneapolis. That's where basketball came back to Minnesota and it should continue to stay there.
Besides that, minneapolis needs an arena, and it attracts events and people to Hennepin.

[mplsjaromir]

Of course Chris Coleman is going to suggest that! We have two arenas because St. Paul decided that they needed to compete with Minneapolis for conventions and sports teams. If you think for a moment that either city would ever consider giving up their arenas I would like to have some of what you're smoking. Why do you think they wanted the Saints stadium downtown? St Paul sees what has happened with Target Field and the development that is going on around it and wants a piece of that for themselves. They could have easily rebuilt the Saints stadium at the current location for half the price, but they want to revitalize the inner city.
Target Center will not be shut down, nor should it!

-1

[MNdible]

So what I'm understanding or trying to read between the lines is that the state set aside roughly $100 mill for this upgrade, the city found out the cost for the upgrades it originally wanted will be more than that so they want the team and AEG to pick up a larger chuck than they had originally agreed upon.

No, let's be clear here. The state has done nothing. They haven't ever helped pay a red cent for the Target Center -- this has all landed on the shoulders of Minneapolis. St. Paul has gotten all kinds of state support to pay down the Xcel -- Minneapolis was given the right to levy a high sales tax.

[BigIdeasGuy]

If the goal is competitiveness, then I would hope that the ridiculous proposal for a joint stadium authority is dropped entirely. Otherwise it reeks to high heaven of collusion, which can only hurt the Xcel.

Why do you find the proposal for a joint stadium authority ridiculous? It sounded like a pretty good idea to me.

An every better idea (Chris Coleman's idea) was to just shut down the Target Center entirely and ship the NBA/WNBA to St. Paul. That's not the worst idea ever from a regional equity standpoint or from a Minneapolis taxpayer standpoint (assuming the state retired the City's debt on Target Center in that scenario). We do not need two competing arenas, fighting against each other in the "race to the bottom" for event rates.

While I completely understand why many people think only have one NBA/NHL arena makes sense, especially for a public financing perspective, having two different arena's has many advantages.

The first being flexibility in scheduling and the amount of national events that come through the Twin Cities. Concerts, rodeos, state tournaments, etc all have more flexibility in scheduling and more time for both set up and tear down, I'm not saying it can't be done but it is much easier with two. Think about how unhappy the Wolves and the Wild would both be if they didn't have a weekend home game for 5 weeks while state tournaments are going on (both boys and girls hockey and basketball along with wrestling all either use the X or Target Center for 5 consecutive weekends).

The second being sight lines, while almost all new arena's are designed and capable to host both with okay sight lines they are different enough that you can only do both "good enough" compared to great. Think about the X the seating was clearly designed with hockey as the focus, Indianapolis did the same thing with Banker's Life Fieldhouse for basketball. Both can host the other sport but sight lines are no where near as good.

Three it brings energy and people to both of our great cities and it's more than just the Wolves and the Wild it's team like the Lynx and Swarm that don't bring 18,000 plus but they both bring a couple thousand that wouldn't be in downtown otherwise. Granted this is as much a political reason as anything else but everyone wins with having separate arenas.

But I completely agree that the race to the bottom between the to arena's needs to end. It is hurting both financially and sooner it ends the better. Even if the joint entity would just administer concerts and other events and not actually operate or own either arena it would solve so many problems. The fact that both arena's are bidding against is beyond idiotic.

[Tom H.]

Tear down both Xcel and Target Center and build a new stadium on the Green Line in Midway!

[/troll]

[Didier]

I think at40man is looking at the word "competitiveness" wrong. Target Center needs to be competitive to Xcel in terms of quality, not so it can actually compete against Xcel.

The two arenas are already directly competing for the same events, which has been widely reported as a race to the bottom as each arena tries to under-bid the other. A single governing body for both arenas would ensure that both get events while giving the arenas, not the promoters, leverage.

[mullen]

the legislature this year passed some sort of joint governing law for both arenas. i can't remember the specifics. basically the arenas will work together to better schedule events.

and we're a large enough metro to have two arenas. it is what it is. i don't begrude st paul for wanting to better it's downtown just as i don't mpls.

remmber before xcel dt st paul was pretty much a dead zone after 5 pm. mpls has larger and wider taxing authority, the pool is much bigger. the state has passed laws allowing mpls to expand use of the tax to renovate target center. st paul doesn't have the economy of scale and size to generate the taxes at the rate mpls can. it simply needs more state help.

two strong downtowns are better than one, imo. of what benefit is it to have a depressed city next to a vibrant one?

[Tom H.]

I don't necessarily buy the argument that we're a large enough metro for two major arenas. After all, Staples Center in LA houses 2 NBA teams + 1 NHL team with roughly the same capcities as what our two arenas manage for those sports.

[Didier]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we need two separate arenas. More than a few cities have both NBA and NHL in the same arena. It more comes down to mulad's point though. We live in a unique metro, and both of our cities clearly see a benefit in having one of these arenas.

[mullen]

it is what it is. just appreciate the metro for what it's unique character. we've always had this back and forth, quasi competitive nature.

i'm fairly certain had the winnipeg jets moved to target center in the early 90's the twins would be playing in dt st paul now. a balance of scale and amenities had to achieved at some point in time. st paul "needed" something.

[BigIdeasGuy]

I don't necessarily buy the argument that we're a large enough metro for two major arenas. After all, Staples Center in LA houses 2 NBA teams + 1 NHL team with roughly the same capcities as what our two arenas manage for those sports.

I agree that we could get by with only one arena but we currently have two arenas and tearing one down just because we could get away with only having one arena wouldn't be a good decision.

It would be like getting rid of either the State or the Orpheum simply because we only really need one of them.

[Wedgeguy]

We seem to forget there are different events going on , on the same day at the arenas. Basketball and Hockey can get both be played in town during the same weekend. Two different concerts can be put on during the same weekend also. I can remember times when you did not want to go to downtown MPLS as it was a gridlock nightmare due to Target Center and the Twins having events on the same night. We are lucky to have this opportunity to be able to book all these events and to spread the wealth around the metro area.

[Tom H.]

Well, it's not like it's impossible to squeeze multiple events into the arena over a few days:

http://bigstory.ap.org/content/staples- ... mes-4-days

I'm not saying we should consolidate the two arenas into one; just that the two-arena setup is a result of the unique regional equity requirements of our region, not from the real 'need' for two arenas.

[at40man]

I think at40man is looking at the word "competitiveness" wrong. Target Center needs to be competitive to Xcel in terms of quality, not so it can actually compete against Xcel.

The two arenas are already directly competing for the same events, which has been widely reported as a race to the bottom as each arena tries to under-bid the other. A single governing body for both arenas would ensure that both get events while giving the arenas, not the promoters, leverage.

Under the current system either Xcel wins the bid, or Target Center wins the bid. If a joint stadium authority is put in to place, what would St. Paul gain?

Do we truly need yet another layer of unelected bureaucrats to come up with solutions in search of problems like this one? I can't think of one reason why people who live in St Paul shouldn't be able to take care of their own stadium in ways that benefits their city, and people in Minneapolis do the same. That's the only way to ensure everyone profits.

"Joint governance" might have good intentions, but the endgame will hurt St Paul. The history of this region is proof enough.

[Didier]

Maybe you view the situation differently, but I view our current setup as a losing formula for both cities.

1. Xcel Energy Center is a better arena in 2013, but it is losing out on potential income by underbidding for concerts in order to beat out the Target Center. That's not a good return on the public investment.

2. In the long term, as long as Minneapolis keeps upgrading the Target Center, Saint Paul is going to have to step up and keep upgrading Xcel. I would rather see a balanced approach to inevitable renovations for both arenas rather than an arm's race between cities.

[at40man]

I think that you have good intentions, but the reality is that politicians play politics. Appointing unelected bureaucrats puts the public in a losing situation. And unelected officials especially have broad reigns to exercise influence and play favorites. I'd rather keep that out of the stadiums.

It seems as though many renovations and refurbishments have occurred at Target Center in the past 10 years - new seats, resdesigned court entrances, green roof, new state-of-the-art sound system and new scoreboard. As a structure, it is sound.

I'm not in disagreement that it could use other improvements, though. The thing is, the inherent design of Target Center will never be able to match the quality of Xcel's design. And therein lies the rub.

Perhaps Minneapolis should form their task force to shore up its own stadiums, and let Saint Paul have its own task force to manage Xcel and the new Saints ballpark.

[Didier]

You keep ignoring the main reason why joint management is being discussed: the arenas are undercutting each other to get bookings and are both making less money than they could.

[Wedgeguy]

Both opinions hold water. I agree with both. The only way the join will work is if there is a mandatory equations of equals. Either in the number of events or of dollars of income so that there is not a lopsided skew of one getting more events or revenue than the other. Other wise it will not work and you have a new can of worms that you will be battling.