urbanMSP

A new arena would be cool, as long as no public money is involved. The renovation was lipstick on a pig and just another Glen Taylor failure.

I actually like the renovation. lol I thought it made it look a lot nicer, at least externally and in the lobby and skyway sections. I will admit I haven't been in the area bowl yet.

When thinking of putting in a tower, I think of like City Center or IDS with their large bases. The base would be the arena and then the tower would be above and perhaps even a separate building engineering wise. Then you could modify or even tear down the arena and still have the tower. I really want to see a cap over 394 here, it would expand the footprint nicely.

I have gone to a few games and its a pretty nice stadium now. I dont think we will get a new one anytime soon. That being said I dont see why we cant expand the plaza in front of target field and remove the 3 way skyway between target center and the A and B ramp. That will help make the area feel like a true stadium district.

Even something as “small” as a basketball arena has some pretty significant clear span requirements for the playing surface and unobstructed sight lines. I can’t imagine how engineering a tower to literally sit on top would work. Next to or attached to, sure, but not actually on top.

Even something as “small” as a basketball arena has some pretty significant clear span requirements for the playing surface and unobstructed sight lines. I can’t imagine how engineering a tower to literally sit on top would work. Next to or attached to, sure, but not actually on top.

I was thinking the arena bowl would be mostly underground and the tower would be tapered like a witches hat or the Eiffel Tower. The load would be carried by the outside corners and create an interesting looking tower.

This is a fun discussion, and yes, it's probably technically possible to make this work. But it would add massive costs to the tower, to the point that no developer would ever want to undertake it.

How do they construct the arenas is Casinos? I’m thinking of the Mohegan Sun Casino in CT that hosts the WNBA’s Connecticut Sun.

Well, if you added target field, the A B & C ramps, Block E, and the Butler Building you might get close to the land area that is the Mohegan Sun Complex.

How do they construct the arenas is Casinos? I’m thinking of the Mohegan Sun Casino in CT that hosts the WNBA’s Connecticut Sun.

Those are typically attached to the casino/hotel complex and aren't within the towers themselves (which are usually just the hotel portion). As was mentioned above, the big casino resorts are pretty sprawling.

This is a fun discussion, and yes, it's probably technically possible to make this work. But it would add massive costs to the tower, to the point that no developer would ever want to undertake it.

Getting a headache just thinking about the fire protection/egress implications for this.

We're stuck with it for years. Yes, the improvements were nice. Did very little for attending an actual game/event there. Total waste of money but we own it and RT probably got some side gigs from it.

Damn this thread took a turn

While I wasn't in favor of spending more public $ on sports facilities at the time, I think the way the renovation deal was structured actually costs Minneapolis less in the long run. Even though we spent an additional $100M+ it also included refinancing debt at historic low rates. Plus it pushes out Minneapolis's obligation to start paying Viking stadium debt for several more years. The state has been covering Minneapolis payments - not sure but don't think we have to make up the difference. Since the state has enough money via e-pulltabs to cover everything, I hold out hope that we can change the law in 2025 to get Minneapolis off the hook for its obligation for the boondoggle.

At the time I thought it was a half baked idea but the pull tab revenue has far exceeded what was expected. I hope this allows us to pay off the stadium debts sooner and use that money plus the interest saving for other social investments.

Definitely agree that would be ideal if the state e-pulltab money was enough to release Minneapolis from its obligations towards the Vikings stadium. But the 0.5% city sales tax remains in place regardless, no? Where do proceeds from that half-cent sales tax go if not towards debt service and ongoing improvements for the convention center, Target Center or US Bank Stadium? Sure would be nice to be able to use a portion of it on economic development projects, as St. Paul does with theirs (IIRC, St. Paul's half-cent sales tax is split between Rivercentre debt/operations and something called "STAR" for neighborhood economic development initiatives)

I agree, assuming with the E-tab revenue the city is able to get out from under its stadium debt I would either like to see the .5% tax removed or have it be specified for what it can be spent on. Maybe have it be used to fund development/ improvements around the complexes? Build out better transit connections for fans? There are alot of good options. I just don't want to see it tossed into the general fund. I think St pauls STAR is a decent model for this.

It will almost certainly require a DFL trifecta to change the permissible uses for the city sales tax, since that's all embedded in state law. With the GOP now a rural party mainly driven by a "own the libs / screw Minneapolis" mentality, there's no way a GOP-controlled state house or senate would agree to anything other than ending the sales tax entirely or putting it in the state's general fund (or something insane like dedicating it to MPD's budget). Before the question of what to do with that 0.5% sales tax comes up, we'll probably get a preview of the politics on this issue when the Target Field sales tax (0.15% in Hennepin County) nears expiration. While it was promised to go away when the ballpark is paid off, I think County commissioners are extremely likely to ask the state to let them retain the tax in perpetuity so the county can use it to fund libraries and ending homelessness (bookmark this post...I have a good feeling about this prediction)

Can everyone agree to retire the word boondoggle?

It's use and meaning has been contorted and has ended being used negatively about any large scale project that the government pays for that an any individually doesn't see I don't see any value in. Literally anyone could argue that almost project is a boondoggle, US Bank Stadium? yup. SWLRT? see the the whole tunnel controversy to start with. MoA? the city of Bloomington gave them how many tax breaks. the Guthrie? how much did it cost again. The UofM, read the Strib for this week installment in their never ending series of how the U is messed up?

Point being just because you don't see any value in something something doesn't mean there isn't any. Because I can promise any project you support someone else can make a strong case it's a boondoggle.

It would be better to sunset all the special taxes and taxing districts - food, liquor, lodging, entertainment, tickets, etc. It's quite the list. Maybe it could be an easier sell for Greater Minnesota(tm) legislators because it could be said those extra taxes target outsiders.

I will happily argue that there is no legitimate public value in a billion dollar publicly subsidized pro sports stadium at the intersection of our $5 billion+ rail system, but that's not why I called it that. Even though taxpayers aren't paying for this part, the fact that it's had to be re-skinned three times in less than a decade is as close to a literal example of a boondoggle as one can get.