Jump to content

Recommended Posts

New Rams Stadium costs tops $4 Billion

Of course, this was a calculated move, adding an amphitheater and a NFL Zone, but still, that is a jaw dropping price tag.

https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/05/16/rams-stadium-costs-top-4-billion.html 

Who is footing the bill?

  • $2.25 billion, Banks
  • $1.6 billion, Stan and Ann Kroenke
  • $400 million, NFL stadium financing

Total: $4.25 billion

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 574
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Banc of California Stadium is nearly finished.  Is it me, or did this go up really fast??    The Coliseum renovation is moving right along... All images by S

Nearly everyone in every Olympic city says "traffic will be terrible!" and then they're proven wrong.   Having lived through the Olympics in my backyard (Vancouver in 2010), those 2 weeks we

I'm just glad they haven't wasted this opportunity to award both cities. 

1 minute ago, JesseSaenz said:

New Rams Stadium costs tops $4 Billion

Of course, this was a calculated move, adding an amphitheater and a NFL Zone, but still, that is a jaw dropping price tag.

https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/05/16/rams-stadium-costs-top-4-billion.html 

Who is footing the bill?

  • $2.25 billion, Banks
  • $1.6 billion, Stan and Ann Kroenke
  • $400 million, NFL stadium financing

Total: $4.25 billion

For comparison the entire LA 2028 Budget is $5.3 Billion, about 80% of the entire budget.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

New Rams Stadium costs tops $4 Billion

Of course, this was a calculated move, adding an amphitheater and a NFL Zone, but still, that is a jaw dropping price tag.

https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/05/16/rams-stadium-costs-top-4-billion.html

Who is footing the bill?

  • $2.25 billion, Banks
  • $1.6 billion, Stan and Ann Kroenke
  • $400 million, NFL stadium financing

Total: $4.25 billion

There's one key number missing. $0, in the amount of taxpayer dollars funding this thing. Could this possibly be a model to get sports facilities built without the use of taxpaper funds? Too early to tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stryker said:

There's one key number missing. $0, in the amount of taxpayer dollars funding this thing. Could this possibly be a model to get sports facilities built without the use of taxpaper funds? Too early to tell.

It is very unlikely as this was one of the biggest selling points for the massive project. The move seems to be more due to additions to the already giant project, and less about cost overruns.

If the city is tapped to for help, city of LA would still be off the hook, and the City of Inglewood surely won't foot a whole lot since its a fraction the size of LA.

They will have to rely on all private entities to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stryker said:

There's one key number missing. $0, in the amount of taxpayer dollars funding this thing. Could this possibly be a model to get sports facilities built without the use of taxpaper funds? Too early to tell.

Don't count on it.  LA was without pro football for 2 decades because they couldn't find the right combination of ownership and a stadium plan to make it work.  Then Stan Kroenke - who already owned an NFL team - comes in with that plan and the money to make it happen.  We're not likely to see that happen elsewhere, let alone on the scale of an NFL stadium which these days, very conservatively, will cost over a billion dollars.  Sometimes it does work out that way, depending on the situation.  More often than not though, it's not the case.

Once again, the narrative here is very similar to the Olympics.  LA is uniquely positioned to do something like this without the benefit of taxpayer funding.  It is not something likely to serve as a model/template for other cities, particularly if we're talking about replacing a stadium that doesn't necessarily *need* to be replaced.  As opposed to LA where they wouldn't have pro football back (let alone 2 teams) without a commitment to an extravagant new stadium and an agreement from the city to sell the necessarily land.  Which in this case was an easy sell considering what Kroenke was offering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

New Rams Stadium costs tops $4 Billion

Of course, this was a calculated move, adding an amphitheater and a NFL Zone, but still, that is a jaw dropping price tag.

https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/05/16/rams-stadium-costs-top-4-billion.html

Who is footing the bill?

  • $2.25 billion, Banks
  • $1.6 billion, Stan and Ann Kroenke
  • $400 million, NFL stadium financing

Total: $4.25 billion

Can’t get passed the subscriber block on the article, but why would banks foot the bill?  They provide the loans but someone has to pay them back. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jtrevino said:

Can’t get passed the subscriber block on the article, but why would banks foot the bill?  They provide the loans but someone has to pay them back. 

The "Banks" category is referring to the loans that were taken out for the project.



 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, stryker said:

There's one key number missing. $0, in the amount of taxpayer dollars funding this thing. Could this possibly be a model to get sports facilities built without the use of taxpaper funds? Too early to tell.

Of course it isn't. The new stadium will likely not host any Olympic sports competitions. This is being built for the NFL and concerts, not Olympic sports like whitewater kayaking or track cycling. Which is why it will be used as a concert venue in 2028 for the second Opening ceremonies. Also of note: Twickenham (82,000 seats), the Emirates stadium (60,000 seats), Stamford Bridge (42,000 seats) and White Hart Lane (36,000) were not used in London 2012.

The challenge facing Olympic host cities is in building specialist sporting venues that do not take in much revenue.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RuFF said:

LA was without a football team because it, like all other California Cities, rejected the idea of footing the bill. Studies suggested that bringing the NFL to LA was a shift in consumer spending over a growth in consumer spending. It was determined that Angelinos were going to spend their money anyway. The other factor was that the NFL could raise the profile of a city such as Jacksonville, or Buffalo. But Los Angeles already being a global powerhouse did not need the global recognition that having an NFL team brings, especially during the Super Bowl rotation. 

Hense, for the NFL the threat of moving to LA served a greater purpose than actually moving to LA and the NFL flipped nearly all its stadiums, except those in California, and those where Taxpayers didn’t pony up lost their teams. (San Diego, Oakland, St. Louis). However, there is the undeniable that in the US sport is part of the capitalist system and being in LA, after raping nearly every other cities taxpayer, proved too irresistible and potentially lucrative to deny the city a team any further. Hense why 5 billion bucks are being poured into LA. It really is a unique position LA is in, and clearly it proved just as lucrative as with the IOC. LA is going in a direction that a lot of people are going to want to ride the wave. 

Few things here.  LA lost pro football (not 1 but 2 teams) in 1994 because they were unhappy with their stadium situations, not to mention TV rules at the time which didn't help matters.  At that point, Buffalo and Jacksonville already had their teams, so it was never about propping up those cities where LA didn't need the recognition.  If you'll recall, LA was initially awarded an expansion franchise in 1999 (set to start for the 2002 season).  It was a done deal, except to find and ownership/stadium situation.  Of course, that never happened and then Houston swooped in and got the team instead.  Yes, that speaks to your first point about LA not paying to bring football back like other cities did.  And I agree there's a lot of truth to the idea that the NFL wanted to keep LA open for other teams/cities to use as leverage.

But.. it's a total pile of horseshit that the NFL was trying "to deny the city a team."  They would have put a team there years ago, but much like the expansion team for 2002, the right combination of an ownership group and a stadium deal never presented itself.  Dean Spanos thought he had it with the Chargers, but the NFL was holding out for something better because they knew it was right on the horizon.  If Kroenke had come along a decade earlier with the deal he put together, there would have been an NFL team in LA.  It was never a matter of the NFL or Los Angeles not being ready for it or any nonsense about consumer spending.

Again, you're absolutely right that LA is unique, but this is happening because Stan Kroenke is both an NFL owner and a real estate mogul and willing to put himself on the line to the tune of billions of dollars.  And for that, he gets to own and operate the entire thing.  Not like in Minneapolis where the stadium has always been owned/operated by the city.  Or in Atlanta where Arthur Blank is the operator, but the stadium is owned by the city.  Ditto in Dallas where Jerry Jones isn't exactly hurting for money, but the city of Arlington paid for most of the stadium.  LA was never going to work like that.  Someone needed to come in and do it on his own.  And it happened.  Not because the league or the city willed it into happening but because a businessman saw an opportunity and jumped on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RuFF said:

Previously discussed on this thread, “flying cars”. Uber is pressing ahead for a 2020 launch of flying taxi’s.

https://www.dezeen.com/2018/05/11/uber-air-elevate-skyports-flying-taxi-service/

As a side note: Los Angeles is home to more rooftop heliports than any other city on earth outside of Tokyo. Per fire safety-building code until very recently, all buildings over 75 feet in Los Angeles were required to have a helipad built on their rooftops, leading to Los Angeles’ flat skyline. A simple google earth or Apple maps will reveal just how many helipads are part of LA’s existing infrastructure. 

uber-skyports-news-technology-architectu

Seriously.. you actually think this is a thing that might happen in LA in as little as 2 years?  Or this?..

uber-skyports-news-technology-architectu

I'll believe it when I see it

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RuFF said:

Consider the history of aviation and transport in LA, along with the investment LA gets in terms of transportation and it’s not hard to believe. 

Of course, if you gloss over that history...

But for those in the know Boeing has its roots in Los Angeles along with McDonnell Douglas. Until recently nearly ever automobile manufacturers North American headquarters was located in greater Los Angeles. The Space Shuttles, SpaceX, Hyperloop, Uber. And if you haven’t noticed LA taxpayers are funding the largest public infrastructure projects in the nation. 

So yes, I honestly believe that we will begin to see these types of things in the near future and yes, LA is well suited to deliver, again. 

Uber's flying cars will never get off the ground - Curbed

UBER'S FLYING-CAR PLAN MEETS THE REGULATOR IT CAN'T IGNORE

You can tell me all you want about LA's glorious aviation history.  But there's not going to be a market for this that regular citizens can handle.  Are businesses going to subsidize the cost of this?  Uber is based on having anyone and everyone use their own cars.  Little different if the equipment is akin to helicopters and the people needed to fly them would need to use 1 of those behemoths to make it marketable.  We may see flying cars like those.  But a massive network of them to serve a city?  I wouldn't be on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I can’t claim to know the extent of Ubers ambitions but Elon Musk just sidestepped the California environmental process and built a tunnel. If you know anything about that you know how historic something like that is. And if you haven’t noticed a typical new Honda knows when a car is coming down it’s lane when backing out of a parking space. The technology is already here. It’s not about it being in the future. There is nothing novel about what Uber proposes to do. 

Elon Musk also thinks we're not too far off from colonizing Mars.  Sorry, but this whole thing is a little too George Jetson.  The technology is the least of what they're proposing here.  The business model would be the novelty because it's a lot different saying to a random guy "hey, you have a car.. want to drive for Uber?" and developing their own equipment to use.  That's completely different from what Uber is all about.

And FYI.. they already have a chopper service.  Can get between NYC and the Hamptons that way.  For the low low price of $3000

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

The first paragraph in Quakers second article. 

“THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is finally embracing drones. This week, the FAA endorsed 10 pilot projects that will see UAVs delivering medicine, inspecting infrastructure, monitoring the border, and more. “This tech is developing so rapidly that our country is reaching a tipping point,” said US secretary of transportation Elaine Chao when announcing the trials.”

lol. The fact that the FAA is actually there speaks for itself.

It is a world of difference, especially when it comes to regulations and the FAA when we're talking about transporting other human beings than simply have unmanned drones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I’m not sure how Quaker has a bad habit of twisting things and placing his own context into things but to be clear. 

LA (from LA’s perspective) didn’t need the NFL to raise its profile (not from the perspective of Jacksonville or Buffalo), therefore unlike like both of those cities it didn’t feel the pressure to use taxpayer funds to keep the NFL in LA in 1994, nor to bring them back in 2016. The city studied the prospect of the NFL returning to LA (before it came back and when AEG was proposing a downtown stadium) and found that consumer spending would not increase, but rather shift, further diminishing the city’s need to taxpayer fund or pursue the NFL. It was also the reason USC gained control of the Coliseum from the Coliseum Commission because it was determined that the Coliseum would not be suitable for the NFL taking it off the table as the preferred site for the City of LA. Point blank the city studied and gave up on the NFL. That doesn’t mean it didn’t remain open to the idea. It just mean that IF the NFL returned to LA it would do so on its own dime.

Nowhere did I say the NFL denied the city a team. But it would be naive to think that a move to LA wasn’t a threat used to gain sweeter taxpayer subsidies from other cities. It would also miss the fact that 3/4 of all NFL stadiums were replaced or received heavy investment between what the NFL left, and came back to Los Angeles. The saga is well documented and beat to death in LA over 20 years. Nice try trying to gloss it over with pseudo knowledge though. 

We're talking about 1994 here.  This was before the building boom of NFL stadiums had begun.  There were a grand total of 3 stadiums built in the NFL between the late 70s and the early 90s.  Don't view what happened then with the Rams and Raiders in the context of what we've seen in the past 20 years where nearly every team built a new stadium and/or renovated their current stadium.  Those 2 teams fled because attendance was among the lowest in the league and games were blacked out left and right because they played in stadiums and that either too bad and/or ill-suited for them.  The city didn't give up on the NFL.  The NFL gave up on the city.  Then the city of Los Angeles collectively said "whatever, who cares" until the league desperately wanted back in because of the size of the market.  But I said for years that would return football to LA was the right combination of an owner and his vision.  The league doesn't use LA so much as a bargaining chip as other cities did as a threat.  Funny how none of them actually wound up in LA until a guy who happens to be a real estate developer convinced the league he would do it on its own.  Because there was no way football was coming back to LA if it was an owner without a stadium plan, or a developer without a team.  Kroenke was what gave them both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Here Uber is teaming up with NASA in Dallas.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/05/11/nasa-and-uber-are-getting-serious-about-flying-cars.amp.html

The point isn’t how or how much. The point is that the technology is here, and it’s serious. So serious that the FAA and NASA are actively involved. I can’t predict the future or it’s execution, but I can say we already have the technology to do it.

The Mars analogy misses the mark considerably because obviously there are far greater issues with colonizing mars. Like breathing and food. But autonomous vehicles, they’re here now. Drones, here now. Flying the masses from one place to another, here over half a century. Again, I can’t speak of the business model, but by the same token neither can you as neither of us are likely able to see the future for something that’s not here. But NASA and the FAA are engaged, so someone, somewhere is planning it. 

That's great about technology.  Can that turn into a business model though?  That's kinda the point here.  If they can't make this cost effective, then this is never going to (pun intended) get off the ground as a mass consumer product.  It's not like helicopters haven't already existed for nearly as long as we've had airplanes.  When you're looking at commercial aviation though, look at the amount of infrastructure and equipment it takes to make that work in an affordable manner.  I don't doubt that we might see these types of flying cars hit the mainstream in the near future.  I do doubt that we'll see an entire network of them flying over major cities anytime soon to make it similar to what Uber offers.  Because for that to happen, a lot of what is mentioned in that article needs to occur first, including technology and systems and regulation that doesn't currently exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RuFF said:

One could say that. The story pretty much pans out to what I was pretty much saying from my first post. It’s true, LA wanted the NFL back until it recognized the benefit was inconsequential. So the NFL coming back was probably something the city always wanted, but it ceased to be a priority. But it’s important to acknowledge that unless it’s on the NFL’s own dime it’s dead on arrival when asking any California City for a taxpayer backed stadium. Hense why the Raiders are moving to taxpayer backed Las Vegas, a place the NFL swore up and down it would never be. 

The word I liked to use about LA's feelings towards the NFL was "ambivalent."  The city never wanted a team there so much as that the NFL wanted a team back there because it's such a large and lucrative market.  And again, I completely agree with what you've said that it was never destined to happen until someone came in with his own plan to get things done without needing the city to contribute.  After all, they already have the Coliseum, so what's the benefit to them to having another 80,000 seat stadium under their control.  Let Kroenke have this one if he's willing to pony up for it.

Although it should be noted about your "any California City" comment.. the 49ers spent years trying to replace Candlestick (I know baron is still miffed that situation scuppered Olympic bid plans there), but then Santa Clara did create a group to help finance the stadium.  Not directly tied to the city, but that stadium doesn't get built without their help and financial guarantees

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I can’t argue that either. Tesla is a great example that started with an exotic car to fund a luxury car and supporting infrastructure to funding a consumer car and supporting infrastructure. One could say the Jet Age started as a luxury item before becoming an item of the masses. Still, regardless of it few or many the precedent is existing. We both know this story, and we both can’t foresee the business model that still doesn’t exist, but inadvertently it kinda does exist. I just gave a few examples.

Anytime I see something that looks a little too futuristic, chances are that's going to be the case.  Like you, I don't pretend to know what things will look like a decade from now.  I just believe the timetable for this to happen and become a part of the mainstream in the next few years seems somewhat accelerated.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RuFF said:

A little more precedent. The Los Angeles Rams and the Los Angeles Chargers will, like the Los Angeles Ángels of Anaheim, not be playing in Los Angeles. As a matter of fact the Opening Ceremonies of the 2028 Summer Olympics will also not technically be in Los Angeles. 

Much like the 2014 Olympics weren't technically in Sochi.  They were actually in Adler.  Thus somewhat throwing out the window the theory that the Olympic ceremonies can only be hosted in the city whose name is on the bid.  Minor technicality.  After all, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the Forum at times been referred as the LA Forum even though it too is in Inglewood?  Not like we're talking about Pasadena or Anaheim here

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nacre said:

Of course it isn't. The new stadium will likely not host any Olympic sports competitions. This is being built for the NFL and concerts, not Olympic sports like whitewater kayaking or track cycling. Which is why it will be used as a concert venue in 2028 for the second Opening ceremonies. Also of note: Twickenham (82,000 seats), the Emirates stadium (60,000 seats), Stamford Bridge (42,000 seats) and White Hart Lane (36,000) were not used in London 2012.

The challenge facing Olympic host cities is in building specialist sporting venues that do not take in much revenue.

All the talk on this thread about LA being a model for future Olympics has thrown you I think because I'm pretty sure stryker's question had a more narrow scope than that. I think what he was asking was, is Inglewood's financing a model for future US stadiums. And my answer to that is, as long as there is a culture of moving teams around and cities are willing to pay for construction of stadiums, then I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rob. said:

All the talk on this thread about LA being a model for future Olympics has thrown you I think because I'm pretty sure stryker's question had a more narrow scope than that. I think what he was asking was, is Inglewood's financing a model for future US stadiums. And my answer to that is, as long as there is a culture of moving teams around and cities are willing to pay for construction of stadiums, then I doubt it.

As much as this is an Olympics site, very little about this stadium can or should be viewed through the lens of the Olympics.  This stadium is being built for an NFL team, plus all the other events (college football national championship, possibly the Final Four, etc).  The Olympics coming to LA had zero effect on anything to do with this stadium.  From the standpoint of LA 2028, it's merely a bonus they neither asked for nor needed.

The most important thing to remember about the stadium.. being built for and by Stan Kroenke.  Will be owned by Stan Kroenke.  This whole complex is his brainchild.  The financing is his.  Only he can dictate what happens with it.  As opposed to the Coliseum which is owned and operated by the city of Los Angeles, state of California, and University of Southern California.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob. said:

All the talk on this thread about LA being a model for future Olympics has thrown you I think because I'm pretty sure stryker's question had a more narrow scope than that. I think what he was asking was, is Inglewood's financing a model for future US stadiums. And my answer to that is, as long as there is a culture of moving teams around and cities are willing to pay for construction of stadiums, then I doubt it.

There have been several US stadiums and arenas built with only private money. MetLife Stadium in New York is an example for the NFL. In fact I believe all of New York's sports venues are fully privately funded.

It is not healthy for LA boosters to delude themselves into thinking that LA can host the Olympics efficiently because it is somehow smarter or less corrupt than the rest of the world. LA's exceptionalism in hosting the Olympics is due to the city building an athletics stadium in the 1930's before the heavy commercialization of sport and because it has two massive universities in the PAC-12 athletic conference.New York has the same model of private funding for its stadiums and arenas. What it doesn't have is two universities to supply them with two Olympic villages and Olympic Parks for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

uber-skyports-news-technology-architectu

Seriously.. you actually think this is a thing that might happen in LA in as little as 2 years?  Or this?..

uber-skyports-news-technology-architectu

I'll believe it when I see it

Flying Ubers, while not impossible, are definitely more on the "Futuristic" end of the spectrum. Two years is awfully optimistic, but then you consider the minimal infrastructure needed for a since LA has the most helipads in the United States, and 2nd only to Tokyo in the world, and I can see why they would think that.

I would also argue that LA's red tape is notorious for slowing things down.

Then you get headlines like this.

Elon Musk’s Boring Company Is Partnering With the L.A. Metro

 

The idea of public/private partnerships have worked out well for LA and I think this is only the beginning for them.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

And for the record I don’t think anybody has made the argument that corruption can’t come to LA or blah bitty blah blah blah. The only arguments made have been the existing faucilities and growing investment in public infrastructure. The whole second part of your post has overwhelmingly dominated and been disputed to death this entire thread long.

What helps LA is that the kind of corruption that often plagues other host cities revolves around the construction of the stadia and villages.

With LA lacking the need for both of those, the chance of corruption becomes drastically lower. Who's going to make a killing by over inflating costs, the LAPD? Metro? LAX?


It will be harder to pull off any kind of corrupt deals for this Olympic city. That's not to say impossible, definitely much harder.


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...