Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis (cancelled)

Historical Topics - Archives
Tyler
Foshay Tower
Posts: 977
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:10 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Tyler » April 15th, 2015, 10:08 pm

She's clearly not saying give The MLS franchise a construction capital subsidy, assume stadium ownership and foot facility operating deficits as we do with Target Center. A fair deal for the city is either private taxable ownership or public ownership with guarantees the city isn't on the hook for operating deficits. That's clearly the lead argument.
Except she actually wrote:
The argument that property taxes have been abated for other stadiums just like this one is a false one, because every other sports facility in the region has some component of public ownership. However, the ownership group said Tuesday that the soccer stadium would be privately owned and operated. This stadium is not like other stadiums: rather, this proposal is as if a private developer asked to pay no taxes — ever — on a $150-million mixed-use development in downtown Minneapolis.
You tell'em Betsy! No tax breaks for PRIVATE stadiums! Raarr!
Towns!

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3404
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Wedgeguy » April 15th, 2015, 10:10 pm

I dont buy the "We already have two soccer stadiums" argument. By that logic:

We shouldnt have built the Vikings Stadium because we already had TCF stadium for football
We shouldnt have built Xcel because we already had Target Center for Hockey
We shouldnt of built Target center because the Dome (or Williams Arena) for basketball.
We shouldnt have built the Guthrie because we already had the Orpheum for theater.

There are alot of arguments to make on if MN should have a soccer specific stadium at the Farmers Market site.
I'm sorry by I'm not buying your logic. The Multi-purpose stadium will be used for concerts, truck pulls, larger events and most of all it is enclosed where TCF has had none of those advantages.
As we learned with the Metrodome, two teams can not maximize their cash flow if they don't get all of the advertising revenue. This is why the owner of the Wild wanted to build the Xcel. It gave the city a state of the art stadium for hockey and at the same time they up graded there convention center which can also use the space in the Xcel for event area.
Let's get real, playing basketball in the Dome which would have lousy sight lines and you would be so far away from the game, why not just watch on TV. Williams arena is not a professional stadium venue. You were grasping for straws with that one.
With the Guthrie we got 3 theaters, with educational space and a maximum back stage area for building stages and prop which you could have no on Hennepin. Again scrapping the bottom of the bucket.

Like I say, I'm all for the stadium if it is paid for privately. I see no other uses where it does not overlap existing venues where we have tax dollars at stake.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 764
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby VAStationDude » April 15th, 2015, 10:25 pm

I agree the column could have done without the first sentence quoted. The rest of it correctly attacks the absurd notion this is a good deal for the city.

Minneboy
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 669
Joined: January 15th, 2013, 1:18 pm

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Minneboy » April 16th, 2015, 5:01 am

One would think any potential lost taxes would more than be made up in revenue from other sources, let alone the taxes that those revenues would generate.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2511
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Didier » April 16th, 2015, 6:21 am

AFAIK the Orpheum doesn't have a thrust stage. Moreover, the Orpheum is alreay booked by traveling acts. The Guthrie company needed its own venue/shops/studio/etc.
David, do you not see the irony in your logic?

Snelbian
Rice Park
Posts: 439
Joined: March 2nd, 2013, 9:03 pm
Location: Mac Grove

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Snelbian » April 16th, 2015, 6:55 am

One would think any potential lost taxes would more than be made up in revenue from other sources, let alone the taxes that those revenues would generate.
The "stadia are great for restaurants" argument?

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3404
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Wedgeguy » April 16th, 2015, 10:00 am

One would think any potential lost taxes would more than be made up in revenue from other sources, let alone the taxes that those revenues would generate.
That will work in some cases and not others.
When the Metrodome came in there was to be this transformation of the east side into an area of increase tax base. The only thing we go was Hubert's and some parking lot owner making a killing on tailgating which sure did not help the tax base.
Midway stadium would be another one where it did not increase the tax base or interest in restaurants. To my knowledge, only Gabe's on the park profited from the stadium game days. But they also had an expense with driving many of their customers to the games with shuttles. Midway did not increase property taxes or sales taxes from food and beverages.
The X in St. Paul became a boom to St. Paul for many reasons. The biggest reason was pent up demand for Hockey in the state of Minnesota. They were replacing an old out of date facility with a new state of the art stadium which gave fans that experience that they wanted when they came from Outstate or the west burbs. They had a market due to having the Northstars here for many years.. The X also already had a built in restaurant row and hotels that were remodeled and reinvested in. In the end, it was build it and fans came in large numbers spending money.
The Twins stadium was similar to the X in they had a market that was already established. The stadium was at the end of the LRT line and the restaurants of 1st Ave were already there with in walking distance, but just under utilized. Unlike the Metrodome where there was little interest in developing the land around it. The stadium was a catalyst that took what had been a slow growing interest in the NL and created great interest. There was already interest in the NL which helped bring more interest and gave developers confidence that their investments would not be in vain.

The Soccer stadium is in an area removed from the warehouse district by a nice long walk. Other than the farmer's Market there is no other restaurants or businesses that will support a group of restaurants when there is not a game day. Unless McGuire can get us some United Health jobs set up next to the stadium, highly unlikely with them just completing a new campus in the burbs, there is little of any lunch crowd. It would take a ridicules number of apartment units to justify a few restaurants for setting up shop. All I have to do is use Hubert's on Chicago as a litmus as to what you need to exceed with a profitable business. If it were not for HCMC I think that Hubert's would have gone under a long time ago.

Again the build it and it will be fantastic rarely happens. One can fantasize that a perfect world will happen. But how many for sure project got started or opened just as a recession came along and bankrupt the developer because there was not enough momentum or synergy around the project. In 30+ years I've seen that happen much more than the rare blip that we have now where we can do no wrong. Where we are on a roll. As they say what goes up must come down. What gets too hot will burst and the bubble will take years to fix once it has burst.
Last edited by Wedgeguy on April 16th, 2015, 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

go4guy
Foshay Tower
Posts: 921
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 8:54 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby go4guy » April 16th, 2015, 10:04 am

Im not a fan of Betsy's argument. The reason I see this as a win for the city is because in most cases, they dont receive property tax, AND have to foot a large chunk of the building cost, and are on the hook for improvements in the future like the $100M renovation of Target Center. Now, they just dont get to receive property tax. No other upfront building cost, and not responsible for costly upkeep and future renovations for the city to have to worry about. How is this NOT a good deal for the city? Looking at the Propery Information Map on the Hennepin website, the 3 parcels needed to build the stadium bring in $342,000 each year. Anyone know what percentage of that actually goes to the city? Either way, that isn't very much, especially considering the city owns two large parcels next to the stadium that they can now sell AND collect new property taxes on. Not to mention the added tax revenue from games. Even if nothing else develops in that area, the city won't be loosing much. But I highly doubt this ownership group will let that happen.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4241
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby FISHMANPET » April 16th, 2015, 10:15 am

Why are we treating a privately built stadium as a special case? You could make these same spill over arguments about any large development in the city, why is this one special and worthy of no property tax?

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby David Greene » April 16th, 2015, 10:21 am

AFAIK the Orpheum doesn't have a thrust stage. Moreover, the Orpheum is alreay booked by traveling acts. The Guthrie company needed its own venue/shops/studio/etc.
David, do you not see the irony in your logic?
No...

Please enlighten.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby David Greene » April 16th, 2015, 10:27 am

Now, they just dont get to receive property tax. No other upfront building cost, and not responsible for costly upkeep and future renovations for the city to have to worry about. How is this NOT a good deal for the city?
Because the city loses money?
Looking at the Propery Information Map on the Hennepin website, the 3 parcels needed to build the stadium bring in $342,000 each year. Anyone know what percentage of that actually goes to the city? Either way, that isn't very much
It's at least $342,000 each year FOREVER. Or at least for the foreseeable future. That's not chump change.
especially considering the city owns two large parcels next to the stadium that they can now sell AND collect new property taxes on.
The city would need to move those elsewhere, so there's a tradeoff. It's not at all clear that development on those two parcels would offset the loss of property tax from another area of the city.
Not to mention the added tax revenue from games.
The city doesn't get any of that. At least not to the general fund.

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1384
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby xandrex » April 16th, 2015, 10:30 am

I'll say it for the millionth time - the thirst of soccer lovers for a stadium deal is strong. And potentially ironic, depending on how they felt about the Vikings stadium deal.

Honestly, I'm happy we're playing hard to get. I love having access to all the stadiums downtown, but we're paying a downtown sales tax for the Vikings/Target Center/Convention Center and a county tax for the Twins. We already know that MLS: 1) Wants to have a team in Minnesota, and 2) wants that team in an urban area. That doesn't exactly give them too many options. The worst they could do is pack up and trying to get St. Paul to let them build. More likely is we finally have some politicians not going out of their way to accommodate subsidies for the first time ever and we'll get some sort of compromise that's much better for the average Minneapolitan than any deal that emerged for the Twins, Vikings, Timberwolves, or any other subsidized project in recent memory.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3404
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Wedgeguy » April 16th, 2015, 10:42 am

AFAIK the Orpheum doesn't have a thrust stage. Moreover, the Orpheum is alreay booked by traveling acts. The Guthrie company needed its own venue/shops/studio/etc.
David, do you not see the irony in your logic?
No...

Please enlighten.
Have to agree with David. Please enlighten.

But I'll enlighten you with the fact that the Orpheum and State are constantly booked with traveling show. So where does that leave the Guthrie for their productions. At present there can be as many as 3 production going on during the same week and even same day. Can't do that at the Orpheum. The Guthrie is probably doing well with their cash flow with all of the shows that they produce and the extra money that can collect for other events that can be held there also.

Please let me know what I got wrong with these observations.
Last edited by Wedgeguy on April 16th, 2015, 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4241
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby FISHMANPET » April 16th, 2015, 10:42 am

These blanket Twin Cities should have two of everything/Twin Cities should only have one of everything statements are really stupid.

We should have enough facilities to meet the needs of our region. Orpheum vs Guthrie is a stupid argument, because if they're fully booked who cares? And they're not publicly financed, so double who cares?

Having both a Vikings and Gophers stadium is silly, because the primary users of each almost never overlap.

Xcel and Target Center is silly because there's cleary not enough demand to fill both venues. Maybe there's more demand than can be met by a single building? Who knows.

As for Target Center vs other venues, man I don't know. Williams isn't big enough with a capacity of only about 14k. Arguing for fan experience is a slipperly slope.

But should we have 1 of everything or two of everything? Should we have only one gas station in the Twin Cities? Do we need two Ikeas, one for each core?

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2511
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Didier » April 16th, 2015, 11:01 am

Please enlighten.


Guthrie
AFAIK the Orpheum doesn't have a thrust stage. Moreover, the Orpheum is already booked by traveling acts. The Guthrie company needed its own venue/shops/studio/etc.
Minnesota United
AFAIK the Vikings stadium is indoors, has an artificial turf field, is designed for football and has 40,000 extra seats. Moreover, the Vikings stadium is already booked by the Vikings and other traveling acts. Minnesota United needed its own venue/shops/offices/etc.
Vikings
AFAIK TCF Bank Stadium has only 40,000 of the needed 65,000 seats, lacks NFL amenities and is hard to access on campus. Moreover, the stadium is already booked by Gophers games and practices, marching band practices and other events. The Vikings needed their own venue/shops/offices/etc.
Gophers
AFAIK the Vikings stadium has an extra 25,000 seats, is indoors and is off campus, factors that resulted in a failed experience at the Metrodome. Moreover, the Vikings stadium is already booked by the Vikings and other events. The Gophers needed their own venue/shops/locker rooms/event space/etc.
In other words, it's all the same argument. The only difference is that you value each facility differently.

(And it's a bad argument. In a city of our size we are allowed to have more than one theater, more than one museum and, yes, more than one stadium.)

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby David Greene » April 16th, 2015, 11:23 am

Please enlighten.
Guthrie
AFAIK the Orpheum doesn't have a thrust stage. Moreover, the Orpheum is already booked by traveling acts. The Guthrie company needed its own venue/shops/studio/etc.
Minnesota United
AFAIK the Vikings stadium is indoors, has an artificial turf field, is designed for football and has 40,000 extra seats. Moreover, the Vikings stadium is already booked by the Vikings and other traveling acts. Minnesota United needed its own venue/shops/offices/etc.
Vikings
AFAIK TCF Bank Stadium has only 40,000 of the needed 65,000 seats, lacks NFL amenities and is hard to access on campus. Moreover, the stadium is already booked by Gophers games and practices, marching band practices and other events. The Vikings needed their own venue/shops/offices/etc.
Gophers
AFAIK the Vikings stadium has an extra 25,000 seats, is indoors and is off campus, factors that resulted in a failed experience at the Metrodome. Moreover, the Vikings stadium is already booked by the Vikings and other events. The Gophers needed their own venue/shops/locker rooms/event space/etc.
In other words, it's all the same argument. The only difference is that you value each facility differently.
Those hypothetically arguments do not hold the same level of validity. The Vikings/TCF argument above is completely bogus while at least the Guthrie argument has some merit.

The argument against the Guthrie is that we already had a Guthrie theater. I wasn't around when that discussion happened so I don't know what the arguments were at the time for a new facility. I vaguely recall the Walker wanting to take over the space but obviously that hasn't happened yet.
And it's a bad argument. In a city of our size we are allowed to have more than one theater, more than one museum and, yes, more than one stadium.
Yes but it doesn't follow that we need multiple facilities for EVERYTHING. Part of the point of my post was that you were originally equating all of the arguments for the various facilities and I was trying to point out that the situations aren't similar in any way. Each facility has its own merits or lack of such.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4241
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby FISHMANPET » April 16th, 2015, 11:25 am

But should we have 1 of everything or two of everything? Should we have only one gas station in the Twin Cities? Do we need two Ikeas, one for each core?
You're making a strawman argument. Nobody is demanding that each city duplicate facilities. And the only two facilities that truly are duplicated are Target Center and Xcel Energy Center.
I don't know, someone made it. I'm not saying everybody is making those arguments, but using the existence or lack thereof of a duplicate facility as justification for or argument against a duplicate facility is silly.

If only one person is making that argument, then good.

And I think you can make a good argument that the Vikings Stadium and TCF Stadium are duplicating each other. There are strong arguments to be made how the facilities as currently built don't well serve both teams, but there's no reason we couldn't have stopped to think for 10 minutes about how to make a single stadium serve these two needs equally well. But I've made those arguments already, in this very thread as it so happens, so I'm not going to bore everyone with it.
I dont buy the "We already have two soccer stadiums" argument. By that logic:

We shouldnt have built the Vikings Stadium because we already had TCF stadium for football
We shouldnt have built Xcel because we already had Target Center for Hockey
We shouldnt of built Target center because the Dome (or Williams Arena) for basketball.
We shouldnt have built the Guthrie because we already had the Orpheum for theater.

There are alot of arguments to make on if MN should have a soccer specific stadium at the Farmers Market site.

go4guy
Foshay Tower
Posts: 921
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 8:54 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby go4guy » April 16th, 2015, 11:27 am

David, this is a stadium, correct? The other stadiums in the city pay little to no taxes. Same with all of the theaters, they pay taxes, but it is significantly reduced. So why would this stadium be any different? The only difference I see is that they aren't making the public chip in to pay for construction. And the stadium would benefit the city more than a few old wharehouse buildings. And yes, the city would gain tax revenue from the events at the stadium. Just because they dont go into the general fund, doesnt mean the city does not collect taxes.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2511
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Didier » April 16th, 2015, 11:42 am

It's bogus because you don't understand, David.

Just because you believe the Vikings stadium duplicates TCF Bank Stadium doesn't make it so.

The Gophers football team is the single most visible entity from the University of Minnesota, and the Gophers' football team provides the revenue that allows the athletic department to exist. To create revenue, the football teams needs to sell tickets and create interest. It was shown over more than two decades that playing in the Metrodome was a subpar experience that contributed to lower fan interest and less interest from recruits, which in turn made it harder for the Gophers to be competitive thus create revenue.

Categorically, the Gophers didn't need their own stadium. But it's no different than having the Guthrie and the Ordway, or two orchestras. Each is different and has different needs in order to function at peak ability.

It's fine if your opinion is that we spend too much on sports facilities, or that the Gophers should have continued playing in the pro stadium despite its setbacks. You're hardly alone.

What's not factual, however, is that the new Vikings stadium provides the equal benefits and revenue to the Gophers as TCF Bank Stadium. You and FISHMANPET keep repeating this as if it's fact, but it's not.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby David Greene » April 16th, 2015, 11:47 am

What's not factual, however, is that the new Vikings stadium provides the equal benefits and revenue to the Gophers as TCF Bank Stadium. You and FISHMANPET keep repeating this as if it's fact, but it's not.
No, we're arguing the other way around. The Vikings should be playing at TCF.

I agree the Gophers needed a better facility and I supported TCF stadium. Once that was built, the Vikings didn't need a new facility. They could have moved to TCF or remained in the Metrodome. FISHMANPET is right that we could have designed TCF to fulfill the needs of both programs. The fact that the Vikings are playing there for two years bears this out.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests