Target Center Renovation

[contrast]

10 years is still a little while away, however same location would be perfect since we invested all that transit info structures. Expand the footprint over 7th and 394 if necessary. Would mean better outside space combined with target field and easier connections to A ramp and maybe even B ramp.

Agree- turn the court 90 degrees and you gain plenty of expansion space to the northwest, increasing utilization on all four court sides. Getting rid of 2nd Street N is not a big loss to traffic flow as it is already underutilized. Giving up the 6th Street access from I-394 is more problematic (Assuming there shouldn't be traffic lanes open under an occupied arena, if the seating bowl has to stretch that far west). It then makes sense to finally finish the plaza to the Twins Stadium and actually have a decent events plaza supporting both the arena and the stadium over I-394. ...and you can finally have a nice urban front door and indoor lobby with restaurants the full length of 1st Ave N.

[Tiller]

Petition to build mega-herc somewhere in Rogers. Also in support of removing any and all viaducts.

Even better, put the MEGA-HERC in Lake Elmo so Wisconsin is downwind from it

[HKM]

10 years is still a little while away, however same location would be perfect since we invested all that transit info structures. Expand the footprint over 7th and 394 if necessary. Would mean better outside space combined with target field and easier connections to A ramp and maybe even B ramp.

Agree- turn the court 90 degrees and you gain plenty of expansion space to the northwest, increasing utilization on all four court sides. Getting rid of 2nd Street N is not a big loss to traffic flow as it is already underutilized. Giving up the 6th Street access from I-394 is more problematic (Assuming there shouldn't be traffic lanes open under an occupied arena, if the seating bowl has to stretch that far west). It then makes sense to finally finish the plaza to the Twins Stadium and actually have a decent events plaza supporting both the arena and the stadium over I-394. ...and you can finally have a nice urban front door and indoor lobby with restaurants the full length of 1st Ave N.

If we're going to have a new arena at this spot, I would love to see the current (corporate baseball stadium name) Plaza over 394 become more like the spaces you see in Toronto ("Jurassic Park") or Milwaukee ("Deer District"). I know the Twins want to say that's what the NW side of the stadium is but it just isn't.

[BoredAgain]

Gonna be hard to use the waste heat to heat Target Field then.

More importantly, my understanding is that there's been interest in expanding the district heating system to more of the North Loop, but the power purchase agreement with Xcel means that they don't have any leftover steam capacity to do so. When that ends in 2024, I'd like to see the district energy system expand, possibly to the new development we'll hopefully be seeing around Royalston Station. That would presumably allow the removal of the high voltage line running down the railroad corridor as well.

Small point:
The waste heat usage is great and should be expanded, but it is only needed for part of the year. During the rest of the year, when heat is not needed, the steam should still be used for electricity generation and the power lines will still be needed. Unless someone decides to put in a buried high-voltage line, but they are expensive and difficult to maintain.

Also, district heat is great and it is shame that we don't make better use of it in our country, but we are pathologically dedicated to "independence".

[BigIdeasGuy]

10 years is still a little while away, however same location would be perfect since we invested all that transit info structures. Expand the footprint over 7th and 394 if necessary. Would mean better outside space combined with target field and easier connections to A ramp and maybe even B ramp.

Agree- turn the court 90 degrees and you gain plenty of expansion space to the northwest, increasing utilization on all four court sides. Getting rid of 2nd Street N is not a big loss to traffic flow as it is already underutilized. Giving up the 6th Street access from I-394 is more problematic (Assuming there shouldn't be traffic lanes open under an occupied arena, if the seating bowl has to stretch that far west). It then makes sense to finally finish the plaza to the Twins Stadium and actually have a decent events plaza supporting both the arena and the stadium over I-394. ...and you can finally have a nice urban front door and indoor lobby with restaurants the full length of 1st Ave N.

If we're going to have a new arena at this spot, I would love to see the current (corporate baseball stadium name) Plaza over 394 become more like the spaces you see in Toronto ("Jurassic Park") or Milwaukee ("Deer District"). I know the Twins want to say that's what the NW side of the stadium is but it just isn't.

I think this generally the correct way of thinking/planning to make a truly great arena state of the art, won't be outdated super quickly arena, which the Target Center never was. The TC, along the Bradley Center, were basically the last two of a generation of arena design that was out dated about 3 years later, plus it was built on the cheap and ugly.

Turning the court so that runs parallel with 6th is definitely the right call. It opens up the sidelines for the vast majority of seats, which are much more desirable than end line seating. Giving up 2nd Ave and incorporating the skyway some way is also the right call, that alone would open up a huge amount of buildable space. It's not unprecedented to have road running under a sporting facility, see the Johan Cruijff Arena in Amsterdam but I can't imagine building the actual arena over 394 is an idea that ARod/Lore would love, expanding the plaza sure. I also really like the idea of eliminating 7th between 1st Ave and 9th St although I'm not sure that doable solely because of transit reasons.

I also really like the Jurassic Park/Deer District idea as well but the existing infrastructure/surroundings make that really damn hard to do in natural manner that flows with the rest of the city. 1. It would be super separated from the rest of DT by arena it's self, addressable to some extent in arena design. 2. You're on top a freeway on an open plaza with no additional shops/dining/housing that are logical/easy/fun walk. 3. The elevation difference between street level 6th along Butler Square and ramp running up to Target Plaza. Plus that would involve turning 6th in pedestrian only, which would present it's own set of challenges. That's before you address the challenge of having a 20ft(?) vertical change where the Target Plaza meets 2nd. 4. What is going to take for the massive surface lot on 1st between 4th & 5th to be developed

I would also point out that while the city/state writing a check for a new arena is bad policy, that doesn't mean that there is no benefit to the public both tangible and intangible to having a NBA level arena in any major DT, which I think this debate often get boiled down to across the board. Concerts, traveling shows/events, family shows to point out a few of the more visible ones. Plus less tangible one like local pride, national TV exposure, branding, etc.

[Bob Stinson's Ghost]

BigIdeasGuy, I think you've correctly identified the problem here, which is that the fickle winds of professional sports shift quickly and decisively. So how do we hedge against the fairly likely possibility that a new fad will sweep the nation three years after the new arena is built, rendering it obsolete? And are the lifecycles of these capital and resource intensive pieces of public infrastructure growing inexorably shorter?

[Didier]

Of course no one can say for sure what will happen, but that's probably an overreaction. The Twins played in the Metrodome for 27 years (1982–2009), and just wrapped up their 12th season at Target Field. I don't think many reasonable people believe Target Field is already approaching the midway point of its shelf life. Xcel Energy Center opened 21 years ago and for all intents and purposes still feels very new.

The generation of stadiums phased out over the past couple decades were literally from a different era, for the most part. Very old stadiums tended to be bare bones and modest. A new generation of cookie-cutter, no-frills, multi-use stadiums followed. When revenues in pro sports exploded during the 1990s, the older venues started to be replaced by state-of-the-art stadiums that, for the most part, have held up well.

So the point BigIdeasGuy is making is that Target Center is really an aberration, one of the few stadiums still left from that previous era.

United Center in Chicago, meanwhile, opened three years after Target Center and is still going strong. So whenever Target Center is eventually replaced, I think there's a reasonable expectation that the new building will last a long time.

[thespeedmccool]

The generation of stadiums phased out over the past couple decades were literally from a different era, for the most part. Very old stadiums tended to be bare bones and modest. A new generation of cookie-cutter, no-frills, multi-use stadiums followed. When revenues in pro sports exploded during the 1990s, the older venues started to be replaced by state-of-the-art stadiums that, for the most part, have held up well.

Totally agree. The Metrodome was a dump ("but it was our dump!") and needed to be replaced. I really doubt, other than for structural reasons, either US Bank or Target Field will need major repairs any time soon.

We've also been making investments in those spaces that have been keeping them modern that weren't really possible in previous eras. Today's stadiums are designed with growth and placemaking in mind, and every offseason they get improvements that keep them state-of-the-art. Target Center, OTOH, is approaching the end of its useful life, recent upgrades or not. The NBA has grown exponentially since 2000, and the Target Center feels very much like an anachronism.

The final thing I'll say is that stadiums are good public investments, regardless of whether you can prove it on paper. In terms of things we can quantify, like nearby developments and restaurant revenues, stadiums will not live up to expectations. We know that.

However, stadiums come with a lot of things very hard to quantify. There are people who will not move to cities without pro basketball teams; I know a few myself. Minnesota doesn't cross most people's minds unless their team is playing ours, so there is value in having "MIN" on national TV every night for most of the year. And, there really is value insofar as having a team to cheer for brings happiness to those who watch (if you want to get really cynical about it, it's the circenses in panem et circenses.)

I really think letting the Wolves leave is a non-starter. Maybe we're willing to call their bluff (the NBA doesn't seem to want teams moving right now) but I don't think it's worth it. Let's just help finance an urban stadium as part of a nice new neighborhood, keep our five-sport city status, and grumble about how much it cost after it's done.

[BigIdeasGuy]

You are absolutely right Bob, although I would argue challenge not problem would be the more accurate word to use. I'm not going to pretend that I have a crystal ball and can predict exactly what's going to happen with venues going forward but as someone who is fascinated by the space I can offer a few predictions/observations that might help prevent TC2.0 from being obsolete a few years after it's built. I would also point out the that TC suffered from bad luck and timing just like literally every other aspect of the Wolves franchise.

Going backward the two biggest strikes against the TC as it was originally built are the lack of premium spaces and the seating bowl is upside down. Didier touched on this but soon after the TC opened there was an explosion in premium seating options, in particular suites and clubs. Those two options drive a HUGE amount of revenue for clubs and when you have to retrofit those spaces in it can work but never completely works. Using Staples Center for example has 172 suites over 3 levels TC has 68 total. Same thing for club spaces both raised and court side the Chase Center has 5, TC maybe had 1 when originally built.

The other big thing that makes the TC dated is bowl is upside down, meaning there are more seats in the upper bowl vs the lower bowl, it's not hard to see how that wouldn't be ideal for generating revenue and fans having a great experience.

Didier is also dead on about the age of venues, in the past 30 years was more or less the reasonable expectation of how long stadiums/venues would last with few exceptions. Now I think that number will great increase as generation of arena post TC quickly pass that age. 16 current NBA arenas were opened in the 90's, I think there are only 2 other that might get replaced, Utah and New Orleans. Other than the rest are much more likely to getting a big makeover/renovation vs a new arena. The difference in cost between those two is massive.

Looking at what it will take to prevent TC2.0 from aging out quickly, at least in my opinion:
First spend the money to build it right the first time, that doesn't mean having to go to a 1.4 billion like the Chase Center but that does mean Fiserv Forum $500 million is probably the baseline.
Second invest in updating and improving it every year. Keep things fresh, add new spaces where possible, etc. Target Field & the Twins have done a phenomenal job with this.
Third build smaller, the days of 19-20 thousand seat arenas are over especially in a comparatively smaller market, 17-18 thousand is going to be much better call in the long run.
Fourth, make it the best basketball arena it can that is also a great place for concerts. It happens to also host hockey on occasion as well. Trying to be all things to all people isn't going to work long term, Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indy did a phenomenal job with this. Plus we already have an amazing hockey arena across the river.
Fifth be innovative & creative on design. This was both the Dome's and TC biggest problem, old style design built at the end of its run vs innovation and creativity. Camden Yard re-thought what a baseball field could be and there are a bunch of still great 90's NBA arenas. Don't just copy Chase or Fiserv innovate on it.
Sixth, be on the cutting edge of tech but don't lock yourself into anything Lore has talked some about out virtual & augmented reality, that sounds great, there are some really cool thing happening with projection right now, not sure how it's going to work or look like long term. Just don't lock the arena into something that can't grow/evolve/change over time.

All that is a long way of saying if built right the first time there is no reason to believe a TC2.0 couldn't last for a very long time and we won't be back in the position for a while. Does that guarantee anything, absolutely not but it give you best chance unlike TC1.0.