In 2001, I was working as a consultant for a group of Florida landowners and investors who were negotiating with a major league baseball club over a new spring training facility. Anyone who has done this kind work before knows that there is a ton of literature and studies out there that show that arenas, stadiums and the like are dicey to make pay – even with a couple of professional teams playing and plenty of other of bookings.
My question is this – how does the new Tulsa arena keep from being an economic black hole with no professional teams and off the tourist beat? Frankly this is the first question that I would have asked before one dime was spent.
quote:
Originally posted by pundit
In 2001, I was working as a consultant for a group of Florida landowners and investors who were negotiating with a major league baseball club over a new spring training facility. Anyone who has done this kind work before knows that there is a ton of literature and studies out there that show that arenas, stadiums and the like are dicey to make pay – even with a couple of professional teams playing and plenty of other of bookings.
My question is this – how does the new Tulsa arena keep from being an economic black hole with no professional teams and off the tourist beat? Frankly this is the first question that I would have asked before one dime was spent.
Once again, you're about five years too late.
People, the arena is done, finished, completed. You should have been asking these questions in 2003. Isn't it amazing now that the focus is on the opening of the new arena, the naysayers get renewed life.
[:I]
We knew from the start it was a waste of money. At least us who voted no. Most arenas lose money, this will be no exception.
If it's so bad, move away and never go to any shows there.
Most the ticket money profits go to the artists, performers, promotion teams. Other than fixed overhead costs, not too much stays in Tulsa unless the act lives here.
One thing about the Chili Bowl Midget Nationals, over 95% of the tickets sold to that event go to folks living outside of Oklahoma, and several of the teams partcipating also live in Oklahoma and the Tulsa area.
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
If it's so bad, move away and never go to any shows there.
You must be a republican....love it or leave it?
Never is too harsh a word.
The devils advocating defeat of 2025 understood this would be a financial black hole. But heck, the supporters just wanted their city to be like every other city. And by Gawd it will be when it's in the dark.
I agree with Hoss, this is a moot point. Everyone, including all the naysayers, have to pay for the arena (ha ha, in my Nelson voice). Just be glad you even had the opportunity to vote on the Vision 2025 tax increase. Not all states are as "progressive" as ours in that regard.
Yes, the direct economic of such things lose money. The Tulsa Opera, the Symphony, and the PAC also lose money. The convention center loses money.
Economics is necessarily a consideration, but it is not THE consideration. Anyone who voted "yes" because they thought the city was going to get rich off of this is a fool. It is a community amenity. A subsidized luxury for those in the area to be sure. The zoo, the aquarium. But it also has positive impacts in many other ways. Standard of living and amenities are serious considerations for companies and professionals moving to town.
I've read the studies. The losses are no where near the doom and gloom opponents point to. Go forth and research similar arenas in similar sized towns. It's easy to do because they all have one by now (for better or worse).
And yes, many years too late on the argument. Turns out we should have given huge tax incentives to Intel and Microsoft in the late 1980's. But at this juncture that point is worthless.
Perhaps "how can we make this work best" would be a more worthwhile question.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Yes, the direct economic of such things lose money. The Tulsa Opera, the Symphony, and the PAC also lose money. The convention center loses money.
Economics is necessarily a consideration, but it is not THE consideration. Anyone who voted "yes" because they thought the city was going to get rich off of this is a fool. It is a community amenity. A subsidized luxury for those in the area to be sure. The zoo, the aquarium. But it also has positive impacts in many other ways. Standard of living and amenities are serious considerations for companies and professionals moving to town.
I've read the studies. The losses are no where near the doom and gloom opponents point to. Go forth and research similar arenas in similar sized towns. It's easy to do because they all have one by now (for better or worse).
And yes, many years too late on the argument. Turns out we should have given huge tax incentives to Intel and Microsoft in the late 1980's. But at this juncture that point is worthless.
Perhaps "how can we make this work best" would be a more worthwhile question.
Yep, even if I have to pay for it for the rest of my life... I want to have it. I am excited to have this new amenity. However, if you dont want to pay for it,,, might be wise to join with others and figure out creative ways to get the thing going. Just like D-Fest and Tulsa Tough are new events that started small, have grown and have become attractions all their own, this new arena can be seen as a basis for opportunity. Lets figure out a hundred ways to make it a great success for Tulsa. We are all together either going to pay for it or gain from it, might as well make it the latter. Our will and creativity will be the deciding factor. [:)]
I agree with most of the responses especially Artist's, but the question left hanging for years now is what will it cost to keep the arena open?
Given the budget concerns then and possibly in the future, it's a valid question and to properly plan, needs to be answered - directly and without potential offsets that may or may not occur.
M
Well, I think the whole idea behind buiding the arena was to bring in more people to the city. Be they tourists or new residents. With more people comes more money for the coffers. While, the arena will never be self sustainable, it adds to the cultural milieu of the city, thus making Tulsa that much more of a draw.
It also draws folks downtown. You know, the part of town we're trying to revitalize. The impact of the arena doesn't start and stop at its doors.
I am concerned about the group that's managing it though. From what I've heard, some of the local SMG folk are less than user-friendly. Will they be just another private entity that fails to deliver?
quote:
Originally posted by chlfan
It also draws folks downtown. You know, the part of town we're trying to revitalize. The impact of the arena doesn't start and stop at its doors.
I am concerned about the group that's managing it though. From what I've heard, some of the local SMG folk are less than user-friendly. Will they be just another private entity that fails to deliver?
Can't be any worse than the group that ran it before them at the Maxwell.
quote:
Perhaps "how can we make this work best" would be a more worthwhile question.
The cost of maintaining these monuments over the years far exceeds their little economic impact.
It's there alright. Draining from our community resources and subtracting from higher priorities. But it's there.
The way the economy may be headed, it may become an extension of the jail or of the shelter for the homeless. And another ice storm crisis will make it a good emergency facility. And if the air gets so bad, perhaps it could be utilized to help house citizens with resperatory problems.....
There's that huge potential of tent meetings!
Fire and brimstone. This devil could only hope!
And what about merchandise shows? Fabrication on display! What kind of conventions can we attract? Certainly not any Hispanic gatherings. Move Dfest inside! Save us from the oppressively hot cement or change the name to Heatfest.
I'm really trying to come up with ideas to make this work best.
Demolition Derby's?????
^ So, I take it you have never been to the zoo, the PAC, the Aquarium, any city/county park, any city/county library, or the Gilcrease? Because all of those things put a drain on the city and take away from other priorities. I personally wouldn't want to live without them. Now a jail, that is a big waste of money in my opinion.
Whoa whoa folks -
This discussion is based on the shaky premise that the BOk Center will lose money.
Our arena is going to be run by SMG, a national event center management company. They generally don't lose money on the venues they manage:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=SMG+arena+budgets
It is simply not a truism that municipal arenas run on a deficit.
A more sophisticated argument might be that the added economic impact of the arena to the area will not equal the cost of building it. In other words, this won't be a revenue-generating infrastructure improvement (like, theoretically, a toll road that recoups the cost of its construction).
But that argument doesn't say the arena won't support its own overhead. In fact, I can't find any new arenas (particuarly run by SMG) that are running on a yearly deficit.
Can someone prove me wrong?
Looks like I was wrong in at least one case: Corpus Christi operates their arena on a deficit. http://www.courierpress.com/news/2008/jul/21/defining-success/
But here you can see that the new arena in Des Moines is profitable and in fact subsidizes the other event centers in that city:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080711/NEWS05/807110382
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Yes, the direct economic of such things lose money. The Tulsa Opera, the Symphony, and the PAC also lose money. The convention center loses money.
Economics is necessarily a consideration, but it is not THE consideration. Anyone who voted "yes" because they thought the city was going to get rich off of this is a fool. It is a community amenity. A subsidized luxury for those in the area to be sure. The zoo, the aquarium. But it also has positive impacts in many other ways. Standard of living and amenities are serious considerations for companies and professionals moving to town.
I've read the studies. The losses are no where near the doom and gloom opponents point to. Go forth and research similar arenas in similar sized towns. It's easy to do because they all have one by now (for better or worse).
And yes, many years too late on the argument. Turns out we should have given huge tax incentives to Intel and Microsoft in the late 1980's. But at this juncture that point is worthless.
Perhaps "how can we make this work best" would be a more worthwhile question.
This is about as dead-on of a post as I've seen in a long time. Good job, c_f.
The arena is a double edge sword. A "damned if you do, damned if you don't type scenario". You have the people who *****ed and *****ed and *****ed because they had to drive to Dallas, OKC, or KC to see a decent concert complaining "why do I have to drive that far" to see a good concert, etc etc.
And on the other hand you have people *****ing because it's a waste of money, you can't make any money, its an economic disaster. You can't please everyone, so they brought it to a vote and it passed. That's how it works in this country. The people that voted against it, if you dont like it, move to another country. I don't think cities build arena's and stadiums to make them profitable. For example, when do you think Jerry Jones is going to see his return on the 1 BILLION DOLLAR stadium they are building for the cowboys? Probably not in his lifetime. Will it be a good for the local economy when all those cowboy fans drive from OK and all across Texas, stay a night or two at a hotel, eat out, and go shopping? you bet it wlil be.
These types of venues are built for people's entertainment and for people to enjoy, not to make money on.