Here we go again, designing a facility that is too extravagant for Sioux Falls, and not having a way to pay for it. I think Kate Parker’s unemotional Spock stare says it all;
School board members say they don’t need a new Howard Wood, but they’ll be happy to build it to make room for a new city events center – as long as someone else pays for the upgrade.
And who is gonna pay for it? Mickey F’ing Mouse? Get a clue.
I also found this letter to the editor informative. I think Joe sat on one of the original Event Center taskforces? I have met Joe on a couple of occasions, he is very bright and intuitive, and considering he an urban planner, he just might know what he is talking about;
The events center task force deserves praise for having dedicated countless hours to public meetings and fostering a transparent process. But its current proposal – a new facility to be located adjacent to the Sioux Falls Convention Center – falls short as an economically sustainable venture, as experts recently have illustrated. Thus, it is imperative for the task force to rethink its proposal.
The proposal does not maximize the potential for economic development, which is the most significant criterion. Furthermore, the task force has assumed the proposed location can leverage the current Sioux Falls Arena and the convention space. This assumption is over-emphasized and problematic because it disregards current trends in the convention center industry.
There is a glut of convention floor space across the nation, which makes for cutthroat competition among cities trying to attract conventions. “Cities can no longer just build convention center space and expect to get their fair share of demand,” according to Hans Detlefsen, an industry expert. “There is not enough business to go around.”
Joe, I suggest you will have more luck banging your head against the wall instead of trying to convince the task force otherwise. It is no secret that Terri Ellis Schmidt (Head of CVB) has them in a chokehold and she is running the show.
Some Other Problems With The Current Proposal Are:
• Using a new events center for conventions thwarts efforts to attract concerts, as Omaha experienced.
• It is unwise to have multiple facilities at one location because simultaneous events will proliferate traffic congestion.
•  The convention center site significantly diminishes opportunities for patrons to bike, walk or take public transit to events. Furthermore, traffic studies indicate downtown as a suitable site.
You only list THREE PROBLEMS!? I could fill a newspaper.
If the task force cannot take the long view on this issue, then it would be better not to build a new events center rather than make a 50-year mistake.
That’s gotta burn.
Daby looks like he really wants to tell them what he thinks, but doesn’t want to be the only one to speak up.
What I can’t figure out is how can Augie build a first-rate 6,000 seat stadium for $6 million, but when the city/school district want to build a stadium twice the size it costs 6 times more?! Lots of f’ing greased palms.
They need a donor. Preferrably one not named Denny Sanford.
You’re off base on your Koch Hazard bashings, L3wis. The Pavillion comparision isn’t valid because it’s an entirely different ballgame to convert nearly century old building into a new use. We have never done anything like that before, whereas we have built stadiums from the ground up.
Bachellor is dead on correct. His is the type of vision that needs to lead this process. And just like Omaha, we should fund that vision through B&B taxes, that again is another no-brainer that seems to be trapped in limbo within the confines of Task Force members’ hidden agendas.
And like I’ve said all along. Moving HWF will add what? $20-$30 million in unnecessary expense to the whole goddamn
deal. I’d invite you to take a spin by the proposed site. Can you piture anything at all going in around it? It’s too close to the airport for residential, it’s too tucked away for dining or retail. Even if they built this as proposed, they admit it will only be used sparingly, which means there won’t be enough traffic to build anything around it except a few dozen rows
of storage units.
TF no longer stands for Task Force, it now stands for Totally Fucked, ie in the head.
I hate to say it, Sy, but it is not like KH is a one man operation run by a guy in his basement with CADD software and a Dell laptop. They are nationally recognized architecture firm. When you are 100% off on your cost projections for a project, it should cause some concern. That, and they designed a balcony that was not made for ‘movement’. I guess they just expected patrons to float to their seats before and after performances. I still ask the question, how can a private institution build a first rate stadium, half the size for $6 mil but it will cost us $33 mil? Kinda like the YMCA building an indoor pool and fitness center for $10 mil, but the city building a recreational only indoor pool for $12 mil. Somebody is making out like a bandit on these city projects. You must also remember, Hazard is an investor with many of these development projects, he can make money on the front and on the back. I don’t trust him farther then I can stutter.
L3wis:
“That, and they designed a balcony that was not made for ‘movement’. ‘
No, they designed what they were told to, give as many people the best view as possible. That’s why they had the two skinny columns initally. Remember the place was something we hadn’t done before, and it was intended as a performance hall for the symphony, plays, recitals etc. No one had told them there might be a packed house up there rockin’ out form time to time.
L3wis,
“You must also remember, Hazard is an investor with many of these development projects, he can make money on the front and on the back. I don’t trust him farther then I can stutter.”
Who gives a shit? As an investor, that means he has an active intrest that the project doesn’t go over budget, because that means it’s he and his partners that have to cover it. It also means he’s actively involved after the doors open. He wants his designs to be seen, but they do no good if they are for a project that bombs. I’d bet in many cases his design fees are part of his initial investment as well, so that makes it a better contributiuon than from a guy who simply writes a check.
You really need to ditch this mindset that anyone who makes more money than you is naturally crooked.
“Remember the place was something we hadn’t done before”
So that is the taxpayers fault? We paid him for his professional services, if he couldn’t handle doing the job correctly, he should not have taken it. It would be like asking a plumber to fix my roof.
“As an investor, that means he has an active intrest that the project doesn’t go over budget, because that means it’s he and his partners that have to cover it.”
Wow. I feel like a complete jackass. I didn’t realize that Hazard and all the other contractors involved with the Pavilion’s construction reimbursed us for the $19 million over budget.
Heck, Hazard wouldn’t even pony up the $35,000 to fix the balcony even though his insurance probably would have covered the tab.
Sy: As an investor, that means he has an active intrest that the project doesn’t go over budget, because that means it’s he and his partners that have to cover it.
That doesn’t really appear to be the case here in Sioux Falls. When city projects go over budget (and they do more times than not) the firm or contractor simply goes to the city and asks for more money.
In the case of a project that falls under the Munson administration, he just finds a way to give them what they ask for, thus there is very little risk to the original investor – and to some degree I think there have been cases where developers/investors/contractors have taken advantage of that fact.
Investors should be financially rewarded when they do a good job, but they should also be expected to accept the risk when things go wrong (assuming of course they are at fault or failed to bid or budget properly obviously). That is the whole risk/reward balance which seems to be so skewed in favor of reward when it comes to city projects.
But as to the Pavilion – a firm of that size should have been able to ballpark the cost estimates a tad closer. 20-30% off would be reasonable… but 100%? I could have slammed my face into a calculator and came up with a number that was closer than they did.
“I could have slammed my face into a calculator and came up with a number that was closer than they did.”
Costner, don’t let out their secret.
This is even more ridiculous than the event center plans. 12,000 seats with possible expansion to 20,000? The only high school game that comes close to that attendance is the Dakota Bowl…and still falls short. This idea that occasional SDSU and USD games will draw those kind of numbers is mindblowing.
As for the EC, why is nobody commenting on the fact that the concert biz is imploding – tours are shorter, fewer bands can play arenas in major cities, and this city is historically not supportive of live music. Who exactly is going to be booked for this building? Everybody has these fantasies that their favorite band is going to play a sellout show, but that’s pure fantasy. We’re still a C-level market that typically tops out a 5-6000 tickets, and putting these shows in a shiny new $100 million dollar building isn’t going to change that fact.
200% of the guestimate; not 100%. Gross incompetence – they should turn in their diplomas.
Yes the architects & engineers will and do gold-plate like crazy – afterall, they aren’t paying for it. They frequently design buildings about as inefficiently (for human factors or HVAC) and as un-user friendly as possible. The fool(s) who hired Koch Hazard (after they failed SF once with a $20 million overrun) – should be fired or recalled. But the bottom line is to hold the fools who APPROVE the white elephants – ACCOUNTABLE.
The Augie stadium is a great example of how to do a project.
Scott says:
October 8th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
As for the EC, why is nobody commenting on the fact that the concert biz is imploding – tours are shorter, fewer bands can play arenas in major cities, and this city is historically not supportive of live music. Who exactly is going to be booked for this building?
EXACTLY the point I have been trying to make. Sioux City has a McArena that in 2008 had the distinction of having its biggest entertainment draw be the likes of Carrie Underwood. Attendance in the 10,000 seat Tyson EC? A whopping 6516. A good portion of those in attendance prolly from Minnehaha and Lincoln County. Put two of these McArenas within 90 miles of each other, and what do you have? FAILURE….for BOTH EC’s.
“You must also remember, Hazard is an investor with many of these development projects, he can make money on the front and on the back. I don’t trust him farther then I can stutter.â€
~l3wis
Who gives a shit?
~Sy
Who gives a shit Sy? That is something you will once again learn the hard way when we vote for mayor next spring.
Warren – We don’t need 10,000 seats today. We’ve acknowledged this already. Our current arena was built in 1965. We didn’t need 6,000 seats then.
The new place is supposed to last as long as the old arena. Do you suppose we might grow and change as a city in the next 30-40 years?
All this arguing is already moot, though. I can’t bring myself to support any plan that involves building a big concrete box by the convention center. Terri Ellis Schmidt has the TF by the balls and is turning the whole thing into crap.
L3wis:
“Wow. I feel like a complete jackass. I didn’t realize that Hazard and all the other contractors involved with the Pavilion’s construction reimbursed us for the $19 million over budget.”
I never said he he was an investor in the Pavillion, now did I?
Scott:
“As for the EC, why is nobody commenting on the fact that the concert biz is imploding – tours are shorter, fewer bands can play arenas in major cities, and this city is historically not supportive of live music.”
Like Dude said, you need to look at the long term, as in 50 years or more down the road. The concert biz is down now, like any other industry that thrives on disposable income. (kinda like the art biz, right L3wis?) But, who’s to say it still will be in 2014 when the place would finally be open or beyond?
As our population grows, particularly the college aged to 30 somethings range, so will the demand for more live music in both small club formats as well as big concerts.
The CSL consultant said himself the most concerts we will be able to attract is 3-6 and they won’t be sellouts. That leaves us with the question; Who will be using the EC?
We could always use it as a homeless shelter for the 330 days a year it isn’t being used for events right?
I wonder how many cots you can fit inside of a 12,000 seat events center? As an added bonus, you don’t need to worry about parking issues since rusty bikes take up a lot less space than cars, and if they build it where they are proposing it is within walking distance of the bus station as well as a few ambulance chasing lawyers.
Thats what we call promoting synergy!
It’s unlikely that there will ever be a resurgence in arena acts. The biggest problem that the record, concert, and radio industry if facing these days is the ever-growing splintering of genres. Every year there’s fewer and fewer acts that have wide appeal. It’s all about finding your niche audience, which is how acts like Spoon and Wilco are now selling as many albums as the Mariah Careys of the world. The music industry is also failing at creating new “legacy” acts that will continue to sell for more than 2 or 3 albums. How many 90’s acts still sell tickets? I can count 5, and maybe one of them would sell out in this city. My hope is that the bozos that run the Pavillion begin to understand this trend, as smaller facilities really are the future of live music.