Case Study Seattle Sonics Not Sodo Squeeze
December 2, 2012 Seattle Sonics, Not Sodo Squeeze Last June thousands of fans dug deep into their closet to find old Sonics jerseys, hats, sweatshirts and anything else that was green and gold. As they piled into Pioneer Square to hear Chris Hansen speak about his new arena proposal, each shared their personal memories of the Sonics with excitement and joy in their hearts as shown in Figure 1. Very few can admit that the Sonics coming back to Seattle is not good news. Chris Hansen’s proposal is unbeatable; he aims to build a new stadium with over half of the costs privately funded. There is one significant problem with this business venture
Figure 1: Sonic Fans Rejoice the Return of the Sonics
though. The proposed location sits on a small plot of land in the middle of Sodo’s Port of Seattle area. Sodo is the wrong location for this arena because of the devastating losses the Port of Seattle would suffer, the increase in traffic, and the inability to facilitate the movement of pedestrians.
On June 14, 2012, Sonic fans gathered in Pioneer Square to support the fight to bring the Sonics back to Seattle. (komonews.com, ‘Bring Back the Seattle Sonic’)
Chris Hansen bought this land back in 2007 without notifying anybody until 2012 what he intended to do with the land. (Dave Gering, MIC, Personal Interview) Since the beginning, Chris has presented this offer as an ultimatum. In other words “It has to be here or …show more content…
nowhere at all”. He did not factor in the affect this may have on the Port of Seattle’s business nor did he make a deeper analysis of the negative consequences. This private business endeavor has turned into an all or nothing mentality with little acknowledgement to its consequences. In fact, this proposal almost passed before the Seattle Council decided that they had little to no information on the negatives of this project. (seattle.gov, Arena Proposal) It was only then that the Port of Seattle, traffic, transportation, environment, and
economic impact research was considered. The Port of Seattle consists of 60 different businesses that would be directly affected by this arena. The arena suffers little to no restraints to business in this location but hinders over 60 businesses without any control of theirs. (Gering, Personal Interview) Should these pre-existing businesses have to take on the burden of a stadium because of Hansen’s refusal to look for other locations?
LACK OF TRANSIT:
The Seattle Arena report claims that there are 48 buses that pass through Sodo after ten p.m. That is around 3800 people that would not contribute to the traffic problem before and after games. However, this statement is false, according to Metro and Sound Transit there are only 34 buses in which seven do not make any stops in Sodo. Only twelve buses stop within half a mile of the stadium location. That is 673 seats at max. (Gering, Personal Interview) What about using the newly extended light rail? Well, the light rail is located over two-thirds of a mile away from the stadium. When considering the use of public transit, it is unacceptable to assume pedestrians should walk these distances after ten at night especially in the winter. Not only will people refuse to do so, but it could be extremely dangerous for both pedestrians and motorists. Sodo offers little accommodations for pedestrians with nearly no sidewalks, poor drainage, excessive mud puddles, truckers, infrequent bus service and inattentive motorists. (seattle.gov, Arena Proposal) The current environment in Sodo is a constant bustle with truckers trying to meet shipment deadlines and countless events already taking place at the other two stadiums. The inadequate bus service, the walking distance of the light rail, and overall dangers of the Sodo area are reason enough to reconsider the location.
INCREASED TRAFFIC:
The traffic in Sodo already causes truckers inconvenience when they have to plan around the events and account for traffic delays. With the addition of another stadium there would be an approximate 85% increase in weekday events. In conjunction with the pre existing stadiums’ events the number of weekday events in a year would be over 50%. (Gering, Personal Interview). Metro even cancelled bus service on 1st Avenue South (in stadium area) because of the congestion. 1st Avenue is one of the most valuable roads to the Port with up to 40% of cargo import and 50% of container export operations. (Gering, Letter to Mr. Burgess) This road separates the port from the stadiums and is the main access point of both! Metro can simply cease bus service if the roads are unmanageable; Truckers do not have this option. Chris Hansen has offered 40 million for road and traffic improvements in Sodo. While Chris is not responsible for fixing the underlying traffic problem in Sodo, this offer is insignificant. The only viable solution to help with the traffic would be the addition of a Lander Street overpass. This project is estimated to cost 200 million! (seattletimes.com, Rewind: Live Chat on Proposed Arena with Chris Hansen and Dave Gering) A road mitigation plan that existed for the previous two stadiums promised the addition of three major overpasses to enable port-bound trucks to travel between and around the stadiums. This mitigation was not fulfilled. Only one overpass was completed which now bears bottleneck traffic. The second overpass was reduced to a connector that is nicknamed the “pigtail” and does not allow trucks to legally use this going South-bound. (Gering, Letter to Mr. Burgess) The proper road improvements were not given to the port after the addition of the last two stadiums and even with those improvements Sodo was designed for two not three stadiums.
PORT:
The proposal of the new arena could potentially bring millions of dollars in revenue to the Sodo district as well as to the state and government.
It would likely bring with it new jobs and of course happy fans. The location in Sodo on the other hand could also be detrimental to a 3 billion dollar business. The Port of Seattle has annual revenues of 3 billion dollars. Within the last 10 years the Port has grown by 40% offering 30% more jobs while the suffering economy left Seattle with 44,000 less jobs than in 2000.
Figure 2: The Port of
Seattle
The Port brings around 254 million to the state and city government as well. (Gering, Letter to Mr. Burgess) While the stadium is a perfect opportunity to bring our Sonics home it cannot be at the expense of such a large and significant economic driver such as the Port. As seen in Figure 2, Terminal 46 alone illustrates the magnitude of
This is the Port of Seattle’s Terminal 46, separated by one street from the proposed stadium location. Image: www.portstrategy.com
the Port’s business. One street (1st Avenue)separates the Port from the stadiums and is the main access point for both.
While many maintain that the Port would not be drastically affected by the addition of the arena; they are unfortunately mislead. Lack of understanding and knowledge of port and cargo operations is a key deterrent for this political debate. The Port’s success depends on access and speed with which trucks move the cargo from ships to nearby rail yards and freeways. (seattletimes.com, New Sports-Arena Plan Called Threat To $3 Billion Business) The cargo business is extremely competitive with every factor playing into shipping companies decisions. The Port of Tacoma recently took 20% of business from the Port of Seattle. What will happen when extra risk, traffic, and time constraint is added to the Port of Seattle? Hanjin is one of the largest shipping companies in the world and is up for a contract renewal this year. (nosonicsarena.com)The loss of this contract would be perhaps an
unrecoverable setback for the Port. With viable options such as the Port of Tacoma or the Port of Vancouver, the loss of this contract isn’t a long shot. For comparison, 70% of the Port’s business is discretionary. (Gering, Letter to Mr. Burgess) The Port is a giant business in Seattle that offers jobs, is a necessary part of running our economy, and contributes vitally to Seattle’s well being and funding. Even a loss of 20% of business would be a 600 million dollar loss. (Gering, Personal Interview) That is a good case scenario. If we lost business from Hanjin the effects on Seattle as a whole would be disastrous. In any case, is it acceptable to value entertainment over thousands of people’s jobs and lifestyles?
SOLUTION:
From the outset there has been the mentality that it has to be now and at that location or it is not going to happen. This is simply wrong! Chris Hansen bought this land years before notifying anybody what his plans for it were. There are plenty of other locations that would be equally as good for the stadium without affecting port operations. However, we are allowing one man’s private investment drive the entire campaign. One possible location that could easily facilitate such a stadium would be Seattle Center. The placing of this new arena in Sodo would actually cause Key arena to become obsolete. Therefore, the city would lose a significant amount of money due to this structure becoming wasted space. (seattle.gov, Arena Proposal) One proposal could be an agreement between Hansen and the city to demolish key arena and build the new arena there. Many of the necessities for events, transportation, parking and capacity are already there, leftover from the key arena. (http://www.keyarena.com/arenainformation/other-seattle-center-facilities)While further expansions would have to be made, the
infrastructure would be able to support this. Refer to Figure 3 below to get an idea of this easy alternative to the Sodo location.
Figure 3: Key Arena Offers Perfect Accommodation
Some concern arises to where events and Storm games could be held during the construction period. Our own Husky stadium at Hec Ed could be used with more than enough capacity. With the proper scheduling the Storm could easily
Seattle Center has the light rail in pink and bus routes running all day as well as a near obsolete Key arena that would offer ample room for a stadium. Additionally, many businesses including Seattle Center would benefit. Keyarena.com
continue their regular season and perhaps gain new faces in the crowd.
Other alternatives include the construction of the Lander Street overpass. While this does not by any means fix the burden on the Port it is a step in the right direction. Ideally, the fulfillment of previous mitigations to build all three overpasses was meant to sustain business for only two stadiums. When it comes down to a solution there isn’t one obvious choice for the location of the arena. There are countless places including Seattle Center that could easily accommodate the arena without much change. The mindset has to change from thinking this location is the only possibility, it was chosen through the personal decision of one man. There are bound to be certain problems that arise in each location. However, placing the arena in Sodo is unacceptable because of the negative effects it will have on the Port of Seattle as well the underlying issues of traffic, lack of public transportation and unsafe pedestrian conditions. Let’s do this right, bring the Sonics back to Seattle while supporting the Port.
Figure 1: Sonic Fans Rejoice the Return of the Sonics
though. The proposed location sits on a small plot of land in the middle of Sodo’s Port of Seattle area. Sodo is the wrong location for this arena because of the devastating losses the Port of Seattle would suffer, the increase in traffic, and the inability to facilitate the movement of pedestrians.
On June 14, 2012, Sonic fans gathered in Pioneer Square to support the fight to bring the Sonics back to Seattle. (komonews.com, ‘Bring Back the Seattle Sonic’)
Chris Hansen bought this land back in 2007 without notifying anybody until 2012 what he intended to do with the land. (Dave Gering, MIC, Personal Interview) Since the beginning, Chris has presented this offer as an ultimatum. In other words “It has to be here or …show more content…
nowhere at all”. He did not factor in the affect this may have on the Port of Seattle’s business nor did he make a deeper analysis of the negative consequences. This private business endeavor has turned into an all or nothing mentality with little acknowledgement to its consequences. In fact, this proposal almost passed before the Seattle Council decided that they had little to no information on the negatives of this project. (seattle.gov, Arena Proposal) It was only then that the Port of Seattle, traffic, transportation, environment, and
economic impact research was considered. The Port of Seattle consists of 60 different businesses that would be directly affected by this arena. The arena suffers little to no restraints to business in this location but hinders over 60 businesses without any control of theirs. (Gering, Personal Interview) Should these pre-existing businesses have to take on the burden of a stadium because of Hansen’s refusal to look for other locations?
LACK OF TRANSIT:
The Seattle Arena report claims that there are 48 buses that pass through Sodo after ten p.m. That is around 3800 people that would not contribute to the traffic problem before and after games. However, this statement is false, according to Metro and Sound Transit there are only 34 buses in which seven do not make any stops in Sodo. Only twelve buses stop within half a mile of the stadium location. That is 673 seats at max. (Gering, Personal Interview) What about using the newly extended light rail? Well, the light rail is located over two-thirds of a mile away from the stadium. When considering the use of public transit, it is unacceptable to assume pedestrians should walk these distances after ten at night especially in the winter. Not only will people refuse to do so, but it could be extremely dangerous for both pedestrians and motorists. Sodo offers little accommodations for pedestrians with nearly no sidewalks, poor drainage, excessive mud puddles, truckers, infrequent bus service and inattentive motorists. (seattle.gov, Arena Proposal) The current environment in Sodo is a constant bustle with truckers trying to meet shipment deadlines and countless events already taking place at the other two stadiums. The inadequate bus service, the walking distance of the light rail, and overall dangers of the Sodo area are reason enough to reconsider the location.
INCREASED TRAFFIC:
The traffic in Sodo already causes truckers inconvenience when they have to plan around the events and account for traffic delays. With the addition of another stadium there would be an approximate 85% increase in weekday events. In conjunction with the pre existing stadiums’ events the number of weekday events in a year would be over 50%. (Gering, Personal Interview). Metro even cancelled bus service on 1st Avenue South (in stadium area) because of the congestion. 1st Avenue is one of the most valuable roads to the Port with up to 40% of cargo import and 50% of container export operations. (Gering, Letter to Mr. Burgess) This road separates the port from the stadiums and is the main access point of both! Metro can simply cease bus service if the roads are unmanageable; Truckers do not have this option. Chris Hansen has offered 40 million for road and traffic improvements in Sodo. While Chris is not responsible for fixing the underlying traffic problem in Sodo, this offer is insignificant. The only viable solution to help with the traffic would be the addition of a Lander Street overpass. This project is estimated to cost 200 million! (seattletimes.com, Rewind: Live Chat on Proposed Arena with Chris Hansen and Dave Gering) A road mitigation plan that existed for the previous two stadiums promised the addition of three major overpasses to enable port-bound trucks to travel between and around the stadiums. This mitigation was not fulfilled. Only one overpass was completed which now bears bottleneck traffic. The second overpass was reduced to a connector that is nicknamed the “pigtail” and does not allow trucks to legally use this going South-bound. (Gering, Letter to Mr. Burgess) The proper road improvements were not given to the port after the addition of the last two stadiums and even with those improvements Sodo was designed for two not three stadiums.
PORT:
The proposal of the new arena could potentially bring millions of dollars in revenue to the Sodo district as well as to the state and government.
It would likely bring with it new jobs and of course happy fans. The location in Sodo on the other hand could also be detrimental to a 3 billion dollar business. The Port of Seattle has annual revenues of 3 billion dollars. Within the last 10 years the Port has grown by 40% offering 30% more jobs while the suffering economy left Seattle with 44,000 less jobs than in 2000.
Figure 2: The Port of
Seattle
The Port brings around 254 million to the state and city government as well. (Gering, Letter to Mr. Burgess) While the stadium is a perfect opportunity to bring our Sonics home it cannot be at the expense of such a large and significant economic driver such as the Port. As seen in Figure 2, Terminal 46 alone illustrates the magnitude of
This is the Port of Seattle’s Terminal 46, separated by one street from the proposed stadium location. Image: www.portstrategy.com
the Port’s business. One street (1st Avenue)separates the Port from the stadiums and is the main access point for both.
While many maintain that the Port would not be drastically affected by the addition of the arena; they are unfortunately mislead. Lack of understanding and knowledge of port and cargo operations is a key deterrent for this political debate. The Port’s success depends on access and speed with which trucks move the cargo from ships to nearby rail yards and freeways. (seattletimes.com, New Sports-Arena Plan Called Threat To $3 Billion Business) The cargo business is extremely competitive with every factor playing into shipping companies decisions. The Port of Tacoma recently took 20% of business from the Port of Seattle. What will happen when extra risk, traffic, and time constraint is added to the Port of Seattle? Hanjin is one of the largest shipping companies in the world and is up for a contract renewal this year. (nosonicsarena.com)The loss of this contract would be perhaps an
unrecoverable setback for the Port. With viable options such as the Port of Tacoma or the Port of Vancouver, the loss of this contract isn’t a long shot. For comparison, 70% of the Port’s business is discretionary. (Gering, Letter to Mr. Burgess) The Port is a giant business in Seattle that offers jobs, is a necessary part of running our economy, and contributes vitally to Seattle’s well being and funding. Even a loss of 20% of business would be a 600 million dollar loss. (Gering, Personal Interview) That is a good case scenario. If we lost business from Hanjin the effects on Seattle as a whole would be disastrous. In any case, is it acceptable to value entertainment over thousands of people’s jobs and lifestyles?
SOLUTION:
From the outset there has been the mentality that it has to be now and at that location or it is not going to happen. This is simply wrong! Chris Hansen bought this land years before notifying anybody what his plans for it were. There are plenty of other locations that would be equally as good for the stadium without affecting port operations. However, we are allowing one man’s private investment drive the entire campaign. One possible location that could easily facilitate such a stadium would be Seattle Center. The placing of this new arena in Sodo would actually cause Key arena to become obsolete. Therefore, the city would lose a significant amount of money due to this structure becoming wasted space. (seattle.gov, Arena Proposal) One proposal could be an agreement between Hansen and the city to demolish key arena and build the new arena there. Many of the necessities for events, transportation, parking and capacity are already there, leftover from the key arena. (http://www.keyarena.com/arenainformation/other-seattle-center-facilities)While further expansions would have to be made, the
infrastructure would be able to support this. Refer to Figure 3 below to get an idea of this easy alternative to the Sodo location.
Figure 3: Key Arena Offers Perfect Accommodation
Some concern arises to where events and Storm games could be held during the construction period. Our own Husky stadium at Hec Ed could be used with more than enough capacity. With the proper scheduling the Storm could easily
Seattle Center has the light rail in pink and bus routes running all day as well as a near obsolete Key arena that would offer ample room for a stadium. Additionally, many businesses including Seattle Center would benefit. Keyarena.com
continue their regular season and perhaps gain new faces in the crowd.
Other alternatives include the construction of the Lander Street overpass. While this does not by any means fix the burden on the Port it is a step in the right direction. Ideally, the fulfillment of previous mitigations to build all three overpasses was meant to sustain business for only two stadiums. When it comes down to a solution there isn’t one obvious choice for the location of the arena. There are countless places including Seattle Center that could easily accommodate the arena without much change. The mindset has to change from thinking this location is the only possibility, it was chosen through the personal decision of one man. There are bound to be certain problems that arise in each location. However, placing the arena in Sodo is unacceptable because of the negative effects it will have on the Port of Seattle as well the underlying issues of traffic, lack of public transportation and unsafe pedestrian conditions. Let’s do this right, bring the Sonics back to Seattle while supporting the Port.