12 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

This is an accurate take. I've lived in Cincinnati my entire life (sans a couple years elsewhere) and have watched exactly zero NBA games, ever. The last time I even watched a part of one, it was a Bulls game with Scottie Pippen and Jordan. I pretty routinely watch college basketball, and most every other professional sport.

back when I lived in Cleveland, the Cavs had very little support there too.  Of course they ran a pretty vanilla offense, had zero stars and ugly uniforms. They would make the playoffs only to be fodder for one of the top teams in the East. 

12 hours ago, KFM44107 said:

Or the IX center in Cleveland that has been revived, which is definitely a large convention space on top of our decent sized one downtown that is also expanding. 

So the thing about the IX center is that it is great for shows for the public such as car shows, etc. It does not work so well for big conventions because it does not offer the meeting halls and contiguous hotel space you would expect to see at more traditional type convention halls.  The floor show is nice, but then these big conventions also use a bunch of meeting rooms, etc, which the IX lacked from what I remembered. 

37 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So the thing about the IX center is that it is great for shows for the public such as car shows, etc. It does not work so well for big conventions because it does not offer the meeting halls and contiguous hotel space you would expect to see at more traditional type convention halls.  The floor show is nice, but then these big conventions also use a bunch of meeting rooms, etc, which the IX lacked from what I remembered. 

Yes this is very true. However I've heard the new ownership might be changing that. We will see. 

53 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So the thing about the IX center is that it is great for shows for the public such as car shows, etc. It does not work so well for big conventions because it does not offer the meeting halls and contiguous hotel space you would expect to see at more traditional type convention halls.  The floor show is nice, but then these big conventions also use a bunch of meeting rooms, etc, which the IX lacked from what I remembered. 

 

IX has 26 meeting rooms. They are in the basement, which most people have never seen.   It does lack some of the more modern amenities and as you mentioned, the attached hotels.  

32 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

IX has 26 meeting rooms. They are in the basement, which most people have never seen.   It does lack some of the more modern amenities and as you mentioned, the attached hotels.  

I think Cleveland did a very good job with their new convention center and really envisioned it to carve out that niche where they can excel better than its peer competitors. Columbus/Indy/Nashville want to be like Chicago/ New York, Vegas, etc. with their convention business. THey had a 30 year head start on Cleve and Cincy. Cleveland did a great job or recognizing this and designing around it. Cincy I dont think ever had a cohesive plan. 

 

IX is a great addition to Cleveland because it offers such a large enclosed space larger than most convention centers. They never seemed to fully develop that concept though it is always seemed a bit industrial vs convention like in my opinion.

 

Cincy with its arena needs and convention center needs could use this time to think outside the box and come up with something unique. Whether it is building an arena as part of a convention center expansion or adding space by putting a roof on Paul Brown, it could be an opportunity to create something unique. 

I am not a funding expert but you figure if you couple in renovations of Paul Brown with an overall convention center "expansion" or convention space expansion, you may be able to get some additional funding for the project by being able to tap into convention funds/hotel taxes/etc. because it will create more hotel nights for the city with more events at PBS. You could certainly get creative with such a development.

PBS - Home of 2030 Final Four, 2032 Super Bowl. Make it happen. ;)

 

23 minutes ago, Rabbit Hash said:

PBS - Home of 2030 Final Four, 2032 Super Bowl. Make it happen. ;)

 

You figure a major reno of PBS would be in the $500-$600 range (more than the cost to originally build it in 1997) but given costs to build something new of the same size and scope you are looking at 1.5 billion, so that is a good value IMO.  Roof $250million, enclosures $250 million, additional upgrades $100 million)). If combing it with a convention project allows you to tap into additional funding sources, the value of doing so is even better. 

 

Look at all the new stadiums opened in the last 10 years for the NFL. ( Vegas, SoFi, USbank, Atlanta, Met Life, Levi's, Jerryworld) all but Met Life and Levis are inside.

Even many of the newer stadiums since 2007 are inside (Cardinals, Colts, Texans, Lions). I think the trend for many reasons is in that direction.

 

The cynic in me says that Mike Brown finally fired Marvin Lewis, invested in draft help/talent evaluators and invested in free agents the past couple years just because he knew that the PBS deal was due to be renewed soon and needed the team to be good enough for the county taxpayers to give a sh*t. I don't think anyone thought we would get this good this fast, but with the Bengals in the super bowl he could ask for a $500 million roof for PBS tomorrow and we'd probably vote yes...

2 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

The cynic in me says that Mike Brown finally fired Marvin Lewis, invested in draft help/talent evaluators and invested in free agents the past couple years just because he knew that the PBS deal was due to be renewed soon and needed the team to be good enough for the county taxpayers to give a sh*t. I don't think anyone thought we would get this good this fast, but with the Bengals in the super bowl he could ask for a $500 million roof for PBS tomorrow and we'd probably vote yes...

 

This whole "Super Bowl Watch Party" discussion sure could've been solved quickly with a decent arena to host it or a roof on PBS.

13 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

he could ask for a $500 million roof for PBS tomorrow and we'd probably vote yes...

If they put out a plan for where the renewal money is being spent, and it has actual benefits, then I would vote yes.  Adding a roof is cost-effective in comparison to a US Bank reno, or tearing down more of the West-End for a 1bn indoor stadium with no sports team residing there.  A roof on PBS gives us year-round options to bring in tax-paying tourists for things like a political convention, NCAA tourney, and mega-concerts. 

 

Giving them a slush fund because they're good again? No thanks. I will vote completely on how they sell this.

We don't even know if putting a roof on PBS is feasible. It really might not be possible. $500 million is not a number that has been proposed after any actual analysis.

 

Another issue, is that with an enclosed space we're going to have to pay a lot more in maintenance. I suspect the County would end up being the one on the hook for those costs. 

interesting thought: I wonder if we could share an NBA team with Louisville…

 

(I know the Packers used to split games between Green Bay and Milwaukee)

Yeah I made up a number, Hard Rock Stadium in Miami cost $500 million to add a roof, but it also is in Miami so it didn't enclose any of the walls or concourses so ours would cost more I'm sure. My point is just that based on current fan excitement; if Joe Burrow was on an ad wearing a gold chain smoking a cigar telling people to vote yes on Issue whatever, people would vote for it. 

Edited February 1, 20223 yr by ucgrady

29 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

We don't even know if putting a roof on PBS is feasible. It really might not be possible. $500 million is not a number that has been proposed after any actual analysis.

 

Another issue, is that with an enclosed space we're going to have to pay a lot more in maintenance. I suspect the County would end up being the one on the hook for those costs. 

 

The Haslams did have a study conducted on the Browns stadium and the ballpark figure was 200-250 million back in 2019 for a roof on First Energy Stadium. Its doable. 

Has anyone actually domed an original outdoor stadium to date?  I am racking my brain and I cannot think of one.  It doesn't have to be pro.

1 hour ago, ucgrady said:

The cynic in me says that Mike Brown finally fired Marvin Lewis, invested in draft help/talent evaluators and invested in free agents the past couple years just because he knew that the PBS deal was due to be renewed soon and needed the team to be good enough for the county taxpayers to give a sh*t. I don't think anyone thought we would get this good this fast, but with the Bengals in the super bowl he could ask for a $500 million roof for PBS tomorrow and we'd probably vote yes...

I share this suspicion

Just now, Htsguy said:

Has anyone actually domed an original outdoor stadium to date?  I am racking my brain and I cannot think of one.  It doesn't have to be pro.

Miami comes closest, and they didn't fully enclosed the Hard Rock. 

16 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

interesting thought: I wonder if we could share an NBA team with Louisville…

 

(I know the Packers used to split games between Green Bay and Milwaukee)

After the Royals left Cincinnati, they were the Omaha-Kansas City Kings for a bit...

1 minute ago, savadams13 said:

 

The Haslams did have a study conducted on the Browns stadium and the ballpark figure was 200-250 million back in 2019 for a roof on First Energy Stadium. Its doable. 

Yeah I was just about to post a similar comment. The 500 million in Miami was for a full scale stadium renovation, not just for a roof. Also Miami really didnt install a roof, it’s more of a large canopy similar to soccer stadiums that covers every seat but not the field. I think they could maybe do non retractable roof on PBS in the 200-300 mil range. What make a roof interesting is PBS has a lot of “swooping” features architecturally and huge open ends so a enclosing design would be very interesting.

23 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

interesting thought: I wonder if we could share an NBA team with Louisville…

 

(I know the Packers used to split games between Green Bay and Milwaukee)

Just found that Tampa Bay Rays were looking in to playing home games in Montreal but the plan was rejected by MLB.
 

This would be a lot less crazy than that. About 90 miles between potential arena locations. About 20 NBA games on each location. Louisville gets a tenant for Yum arena. Cincinnati gets an excuse for a new arena to that can be used for other events etc. If you look at an NBA fandom map Cincinnati and Louisville are on the fringe of Cavaliers and Pacers territory respectively and not solidly in either one. A split team could claim the whole of Kentucky and southern Ohio up to Dayton.

Edited February 1, 20223 yr by thebillshark

1 minute ago, 646empire said:

Yeah I was just about to post a similar comment. The 500 million in Miami was for a full scale stadium renovation, not just for a roof. Also Miami really didnt install a roof, it’s more of a large canopy similar to soccer stadiums that covers every seat but not the field. I think they could maybe do non retractable roof on PBS in the 200-300 mil range. What make a roof interesting is PBS has a lot of “swooping” features architecturally and huge open ends so a enclosing design would be very interesting.

I wonder if they would complete the bowl if they put a roof on it. Those swoops and cuts only work because of their views out of the stadium, and preserving them would likely drive up cost.

9 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

Has anyone actually domed an original outdoor stadium to date?  I am racking my brain and I cannot think of one.  It doesn't have to be pro.

Different sport and smaller but London’s Wimbledon put a retractable roof on its center court 1

Edited February 1, 20223 yr by 646empire

With a roof it's no fun to take your shirt off during a blizzard

11 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

With a roof it's no fun to take your shirt off during a blizzard

Awe schucks not having to see hairy, saggy, middle aged man tits painted orange, i think i can live...

If it's $500 million to just add a cover over a stadium and renovate it without enclosing it and adding new mechanical equipment, it's going to be a LOT more to do all that. PBS is very spread out, and enclosing it is going to be expensive. We won't enclose the stadium without a full renovation of it at the same time. I don't see this being a fiscally responsible option. I understand the thought process behind it, but I think it's a lot more than what many here realize. 

If either a PBS roof or full US Bank reno are the focal point of the renewal, and it's about half the cost of a new WE stadium, I'm in.  If we're paying for an indoor practice facility and keeping a slush fund for the Bengals and Reds, they can go ask Butler/Warren county.

Another thought experiment:

 

What if a deal is struck and the Columbus Blue Jackets are renamed Ohio Blue Jackets and they play half of their home games in Columbus and half of their home games in a new arena in Cincinnati.  Does this work out for the team? Does average attendance (now about 15k+ In Columbus) go up? (Cyclones average attendance is about 5k) Do tv revenues, advertising and merchandise sales go up? It’s certainly not the way pro sports work now but but could we see it someday for small to mid size markets?

18 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

Another thought experiment:

 

What if a deal is struck and the Columbus Blue Jackets are renamed Ohio Blue Jackets and they play half of their home games in Columbus and half of their home games in a new arena in Cincinnati.  Does this work out for the team? Does average attendance (now about 15k+ In Columbus) go up? (Cyclones average attendance is about 5k) Do tv revenues, advertising and merchandise sales go up? It’s certainly not the way pro sports work now but but could we see it someday for small to mid size markets?

 

This thought died off in 2007:  https://forum.urbanohio.com/topic/5094-ohio-bluejackets-ohio-crew

 

There have been a few soccer stadiums in Europe that have added roofs to old stadiums, especially in Germany. 

As mentioned before, Cleveland looked at adding a roof to the Browns' stadium so it's doable. 

37 minutes ago, Columbo said:

 

This thought died off in 2007:  https://forum.urbanohio.com/topic/5094-ohio-bluejackets-ohio-crew

 

This happened in the NBA in the 70s with the Kings splitting time between Omaha and Kansas City. It was a disaster and one of the reasons why the Kings are in Sacramento now.

 

I think the Expos may have tried this 15 years ago in baseball as a last ditch effort to save the team in Montreal. 

 

The Rays have floated this idea too. 

 

It seems like this idea is just a last ditch effort to save a franchise, not a way to create market stability. 

1 hour ago, thebillshark said:

Another thought experiment:

 

What if a deal is struck and the Columbus Blue Jackets are renamed Ohio Blue Jackets and they play half of their home games in Columbus and half of their home games in a new arena in Cincinnati.  Does this work out for the team? Does average attendance (now about 15k+ In Columbus) go up? (Cyclones average attendance is about 5k) Do tv revenues, advertising and merchandise sales go up? It’s certainly not the way pro sports work now but but could we see it someday for small to mid size markets?

Splitting teams between cities sounds like a hot mess to me, from marketing to logistics. Also what pro players would want to play for a franchise that’s spitting games in arenas 2 hours apart? Sounds horrible to me. To top it all off no offense to the team but I and I’m sure many others from Cincy have never really heard of the blue jackets, I doubt the Cincy public would want to spend hundreds of millions on a new arena to get half of the blue jacket games lol.

1 hour ago, thebillshark said:

Another thought experiment:

 

What if a deal is struck and the Columbus Blue Jackets are renamed Ohio Blue Jackets and they play half of their home games in Columbus and half of their home games in a new arena in Cincinnati.  Does this work out for the team? Does average attendance (now about 15k+ In Columbus) go up? (Cyclones average attendance is about 5k) Do tv revenues, advertising and merchandise sales go up? It’s certainly not the way pro sports work now but but could we see it someday for small to mid size markets?

 

No, this would be a horrible plan for both cities. By splitting time between two cities, you are cutting the number of events in the arena in half. This hurts the owner of the arena and the businesses surrounding the arena. You also end up losing a ton of fans that you would otherwise have by being "fully committed" to one city. Only playing half of your home games in a city delegitimizes you in the eyes of many potential fans.  Instead of averaging 15-17k in one city, you'll end up averaging 12k split between two cities. 

 

Aside from that, splitting time between two cities poses a huge issue for coaches and players. Hockey players already have to play 41 road games during the year. By splitting time between two cities, you end up playing 75% of your games away from the city you live in. This would be a huge deterrence for potential players and coaches. The team would end up being one of the worst teams in the league each season, which would further hurt attendance.

 

You also have to consider the fact that this would double the work the front office would have to do when it comes to things like ticket sales. Very few people will by full season tickets across two different cities, so you'll have to essentially sell twice as many tickets every year. You'll also have to double up on marketing and other things like gameday staff. 

 

Not to mention the incredibly difficult issue of sponsorships in the arenas. You would either have to sell two separate sponsorship packages, or have two arenas with identical sponsorships. If Coke is being served at the arena in Cincinnati, but Pepsi is served in the NHL, do you have to supply both products in Cincinnati, and switch out the lines every time the NHL team comes to town?

2 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Not to mention the incredibly difficult issue of sponsorships in the arenas. You would either have to sell two separate sponsorship packages, or have two arenas with identical sponsorships. If Coke is being served at the arena in Cincinnati, but Pepsi is served in the NHL, do you have to supply both products in Cincinnati, and switch out the lines every time the NHL team comes to town?

If this were even going to be an option, why would you do it with Columbus and Cincinnati. It would make much more sense to try it with Columbus and Cleveland. 1) Cleveland already has the arena in place so logistically it would be easier (I assume it could easily work around the Cavs schedule given it is only 1/2 a season) 2) Cleveland is a bit bigger hockey market than Cincinnati and also likely Columbus I would imagine. 

3 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

If this were even going to be an option, why would you do it with Columbus and Cincinnati. It would make much more sense to try it with Columbus and Cleveland. 1) Cleveland already has the arena in place so logistically it would be easier (I assume it could easily work around the Cavs schedule given it is only 1/2 a season) 2) Cleveland is a bit bigger hockey market than Cincinnati and also likely Columbus I would imagine. 

Agree. I don’t see any synergies between Cincy and Columbus on something like this. Cleveland would make more sense. Also like written about before Cincy is kinda of an island in Ohio. Oddly enough I actually think Louisville/KY would work better for Cincy in such a bid. But in the end close to zero that this would ever be a thing period.

40 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Cleveland is a bit bigger hockey market than Cincinnati and also likely Columbus I would imagine. 

 

I highly doubt Cleveland is a bigger hockey market than Columbus. Columbus has had an NHL team for two decades and, even with how atrocious the team has been for their entire existence, was still averaging about 17k/game the last season before Covid. Additionally, Columbus has a huge number of transplants from Detroit, Chicago, and Pittsburgh in a way that Cleveland does not. Go to any CBJ game when they play a team from one of those cities, and the crowd will be about 50/50 or 60/40 split depending on how the season is going. The non-CBJ fans are not from those cities either, they live in Columbus. They've just never changed their allegiance because the CBJ have always been so bad. 

 

An interesting idea would be for Columbus and Cleveland to share the CBJ and the Cavs. It still wouldn't work because of the many of the issues I listed above, but it would be kinda cool for two cities the size of Columbus and Cleveland to enjoy professional hockey and basketball at the same time.

27 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I highly doubt Cleveland is a bigger hockey market than Columbus. Columbus has had an NHL team for two decades and, even with how atrocious the team has been for their entire existence, was still averaging about 17k/game the last season before Covid. Additionally, Columbus has a huge number of transplants from Detroit, Chicago, and Pittsburgh in a way that Cleveland does not. Go to any CBJ game when they play a team from one of those cities, and the crowd will be about 50/50 or 60/40 split depending on how the season is going. The non-CBJ fans are not from those cities either, they live in Columbus. They've just never changed their allegiance because the CBJ have always been so bad. 

 

An interesting idea would be for Columbus and Cleveland to share the CBJ and the Cavs. It still wouldn't work because of the many of the issues I listed above, but it would be kinda cool for two cities the size of Columbus and Cleveland to enjoy professional hockey and basketball at the same time.

It has been a while but I used to go to Jacket games whenever Detroit came to town because I was a Red Wing fan. It did have a good 50/50 mix or more for the visitor, mostly because of the history of those teams. 

 

From the hockey market perspective. Columbus certain has had 20 years with a team and certainly that has led to a stable following, plus Cleveland has the Cavs, but just a pure winter sports perspective, there are a lot more ice skating and hockey rinks in the Cleveland area then in Columbus. This does not really relate much to the NHL but speaks to Cleveland more as a winter sports town. Now there are a lot of Penguin fans in NE ohio, and I was surprised at the number of Sabres fans around there too when I was up there. So Cleve could be a bit more competitive of a hockey market based on that. 

 

From a logistics point, it certainly made the most sense to place a team in Columbus 

 

However, I think we are veering a bit off topic since it is the Cincinnati Arena thread. 

Cleveland actually was a good hockey market at one time with the Barons of the AHL playing to standing-room-only crowds.  In 1942, the NHL offered membership to the Barons, but owner Al Sutphin declined.  In the early 50s, under new ownership, the Barons sought to join the NHL, but financing issues caused the NHL to reject the bid.  Cleveland finally got into the NHL in the summer of 1976 when the California Golden Seals relocated.  But with little time or money for promotion and fans were still buzzing about the Cavaliers "Miracle at Richfield", the reception was lukewarm.  Two seasons later, the NHL Barons were merged with the Minnesota North Stars.

 

So getting back on topic...

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

This happened in the NBA in the 70s with the Kings splitting time between Omaha and Kansas City. It was a disaster and one of the reasons why the Kings are in Sacramento now.

 

I think the Expos may have tried this 15 years ago in baseball as a last ditch effort to save the team in Montreal. 

 

The Rays have floated this idea too. 

 

It seems like this idea is just a last ditch effort to save a franchise, not a way to create market stability. 

MLB just rejected the Rays plan to split between Tampa and Montreal about a week ago. And yes, the Expos tried splitting between Montreal and San Juan before that was rejected and the team moved to D.C.

 

Splitting a team is absolutely a last-ditch effort, or done out of necessity ... IE, the New Orleans Hornets/Pelicans playing/splitting in OKC in the aftermath of Katrina (which also opened the door for Clay Bennett to move the Supersonics from Seattle to his hometown of OKC once there was evidence OKC could support an NBA franchise).

 

I just don't see any avenue available for Cincinnati to land a major winter sports franchise. The NBA is doing fine in Cleveland (haven't been lower than 15th in attendance in 20 years and usually have been top 10 even in the two post LeBron stints; and the Cavs have been top 3 for local TV ratings every years in that same timeframe). Plus, for NBA purposes, Columbus is for all intents and purposes considered a "local" market for the Cavs.

 

The NHL is better off suited in Columbus than Cincinnati because it is closer to northern Ohio, which does have more support for hockey in general than southern Ohio). And I'm sure at least Cleveland is considered "local" for NHL purposes. Toledo, which also is a pretty big hockey area, probably leans more toward the Detroit Red Wings, though.

 

So, going back to my post a couple of days ago, I think a retrofitted PBS with a dome is how Cincinnati can separate itself from at least its instate peers for these huge events and really the only nearby competition is Indy, Detroit and St. Louis for those. 

 

As for cost, PBS is going to have to undergo significant renovations anyway (the NFL will force that hand). So, that is already going to have to happen whether or not a new arena is built. If a new arena is built, you are looking at at least $500 million on the low end (the RMFH renovations were about $250 million and that was mainly aesthics). So, Cincinnati is looking at probably close to $1 billion regardless. Might as well put that all into PBS. Automatically missing out on would I would guess is 10 percent of arena events (which still wouldn't be a 100 percent shot to land anyway given even with a new arena every nearby metro already has one that can hold those), would easily be offset by landing some of these major indoor stadium events, that not a lot of places have the capacity to host. ... And Cincinnati is the only one in Ohio at this point where it could even be discussed.

 

Cleveland has three major arenas/stadiums that all have received significant upgrades; no way Cleveland can build a domed stadium (at least in the next couple decades) unless it's privately financed, which won't happen.

 

Columbus can't build a big domed stadium and Ohio State is never going to dome Ohio Stadium.

 

That leaves Cincinnati, which still would have three decent sized arenas within 5 or so miles of downtown anyway, even if they aren't up to the level of handling major arena events, between them, are capable of handling the other 90 percent of bookings.

41 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It has been a while but I used to go to Jacket games whenever Detroit came to town because I was a Red Wing fan. It did have a good 50/50 mix or more for the visitor, mostly because of the history of those teams. 

 

From the hockey market perspective. Columbus certain has had 20 years with a team and certainly that has led to a stable following, plus Cleveland has the Cavs, but just a pure winter sports perspective, there are a lot more ice skating and hockey rinks in the Cleveland area then in Columbus. This does not really relate much to the NHL but speaks to Cleveland more as a winter sports town. Now there are a lot of Penguin fans in NE ohio, and I was surprised at the number of Sabres fans around there too when I was up there. So Cleve could be a bit more competitive of a hockey market based on that. 

 

From a logistics point, it certainly made the most sense to place a team in Columbus 

 

However, I think we are veering a bit off topic since it is the Cincinnati Arena thread. 

Cleveland also has the Monsters, which is minor league, which is still arguably the No. 2 hockey league in the world (though from my more limited knowledge on hockey, it seems like some of the European leagues are catching up to the AHL). The Monsters have drawn between 9,000-10,000 per game in recent years, so Cleveland is just fine as an AHL market, just like Columbus, which draws well with minor league baseball, is fine as a AAA baseball market.

 

Plus, it's not even really whether or not Cincinnati could support an NBA or NHL franchise, it's just not going to happen. I doubt either league has any interest in adding a second Ohio franchise (realistic best case Cincinnati is in the 5-10 range for expansion/relocation). And neither the Cavs nor Blue Jackets are in a position where they are on the verge of being forced to move to remain solvent. 

 

To me, it doesn't make sense to pump money into an arena that won't have a marquee tenant, when you could put the resources into an existing 60,000 seat stadium and turn it into a venue that very few markets have in order to be a player for the mega events.

Leeper was on the radio the other day talking about incorporating a new arena with the convention center upgrade and hotel complex and he pretty much threw cold water on that idea. Ultimately, he said there really is not the footprint to build a modern arena in that area by the convention center at this time. Which means, to get a new arena, you put it at the Casino and let them pay for it, or you renovate USBank which would not be feasible without a major tenant. 

 

That gets back to the roof on Paul Brown. You have a major tenant, you can then get additional convention space and finance it partly with convention bonds and hotel taxes which are not currently there to pay for stadium renovations and upkeep. It now becomes part of the convention space and can host larger trade shows and meetings when not being used for Bengals events.

4 minutes ago, Rando Sinclair said:

Plus, it's not even really whether or not Cincinnati could support an NBA or NHL franchise, it's just not going to happen. I doubt either league has any interest in adding a second Ohio franchise (realistic best case Cincinnati is in the 5-10 range for expansion/relocation). And neither the Cavs nor Blue Jackets are in a position where they are on the verge of being forced to move to remain solvent. 

Neither the NBA or NHL would invest an an expansion team 90 minutes away from another competitor. The only way for Cincy to get a team is through a relocation which is highly unlikely too. 

 

THe NFL would have never put a team in Indy if the Baltimore owner had not forced his way there. NBA and NHL have the same mindset. 

I agree hockey is not very popular in Cincinnati and even concede that it may make more sense have the Blue Jackets spilt between Columbus and Cleveland of they were to do something like that.  This thread is about a new arena in Cincinnati which needs tenants and events to justify its construction though. Does monster truck rally+ concerts + convention event get there or would having some number of NBA basketball and/or NHL hockey games put it over the hump? What if it were 8 games a year (20% of the home schedule) instead of 50%? Would that expand the market for the sports team and encourage tourism in between nearby cities? It’s an interesting cost/benefits debate

Edited February 2, 20223 yr by thebillshark

Cincinnati is not getting any NHL or NBA teams for a new arena. We aren't getting partial seasons played here. It will not happen. Let's stop arguing about something that will not happen.

2 hours ago, Rando Sinclair said:

So, Cincinnati is looking at probably close to $1 billion regardless.

This isn’t true. Paul Brown Stadium does not need and will not be getting a Billion Dollar renovation. I’ve been all thru the stadium and such an investment is not needed. If I had to guess it will be in the 300-500 mil range. In regards to an arena I don’t think it’s in the cards. The only plausible scenario over the next 15 years would be for the riverfront arena renovation plans to be revived.

There are very few cities in this country that can afford the "build it and they will come" approach with stadiums/arenas and almost all have failed at attracting the said "field of dreams" team. It's is not the route Cincinnati should or I think ever would go down. 

 

I would say the most logical approach if the city wanted a new arena is an 10,000-ish seater like Toledo's Huntington Center. It's a good size to pull conventions/concerts/minor league but not be a drain on resources like a Nationwide or Quicken would be without a Pro team filling the schedule... but 5/3 exists already to fill that void. 

Edited February 3, 20223 yr by DevolsDance

How much is the land under Heritage Bank Arena worth? If a new arena were to be built in a different location, it would be a great location for some massive apartment / condo / hotel towers. I dream of a tower with Wrigleyville-esque outdoor seating in the left field gap.

13 hours ago, 646empire said:

This isn’t true. Paul Brown Stadium does not need and will not be getting a Billion Dollar renovation. I’ve been all thru the stadium and such an investment is not needed. If I had to guess it will be in the 300-500 mil range. In regards to an arena I don’t think it’s in the cards. The only plausible scenario over the next 15 years would be for the riverfront arena renovation plans to be revived.

You missed what I was saying. I meant between the inevitable PBS renovations, plus the cost of a new arena would be a $1 billion investment (300-500 million for PBS and 500 million for an arena that can compete with its regional peers). It's why I think Cincinnati would be better off putting all that toward doming/renovating PBS into a major event stadium.

 

I know you can look to Kansas City as a city that built an NBA/NHL type arena on speculation (though as crazy as it sounds, I'm assuming it being now close to 15 years old would probably already need some sort of upgrades if the city were to land an NBA team ... plus, realistically the NBA is the only feasible of the two leagues as the state of Missouri already has the NHL in St. Louis, but no NBA team. Even then, I would put KC behind at least Seattle and Las Vegas as the top two expansion/relocation choices for the NBA.

 

Plus, I think KC vs. Cincinnati is apples to oranges when it comes to the viability of building that type of arena without a marquee tenant. Kansas City is geographically isolated. The nearest cities with arenas capable of hosting the events needed to justify an 18,000-20,000 venue are St. Louis (250 miles) and Oklahoma City (300 miles). After that, you're looking at about 500 miles plus. So, KC is essentially the capital of the eastern Great Plains, so it can land enough events, based on that, to make it worthwhile. 

 

Look at the competition Cincinnati has with a comparable arena: Coumbus (110 miles), Indianapolis (110 miles), Louisville (100 miles), Cleveland (250 miles), Detroit (260 miles), Pittsburgh (290 miles). That is six metros that are as close or closer to Cincinnati than Kansas City has to its nearest competitors (St. Louis/Oklahoma City). I didn't include Chicago, which is 290 miles, because Chicago is going to be a stop on virtually any arena type tour.

49 minutes ago, Rando Sinclair said:

Plus, I think KC vs. Cincinnati is apples to oranges when it comes to the viability of building that type of arena without a marquee tenant. Kansas City is geographically isolated. The nearest cities with arenas capable of hosting the events needed to justify an 18,000-20,000 venue are St. Louis (250 miles) and Oklahoma City (300 miles). After that, you're looking at about 500 miles plus. So, KC is essentially the capital of the eastern Great Plains, so it can land enough events, based on that, to make it worthwhile.

One other major factor in the KC arena that should be noted. The KC baseball and football stadiums were built in the 70s and besides a number of renovations have not had any issues with their tenants (re moving or a demand for new stadiums). It is a lot easier to invest in a major arena project when you do not have to worry about the Royals or Chiefs demanding new venues. I did read that the Royals want a new downtown stadium but those discussions are pretty preliminary at this point. 

 

In Cincinnati, you still are finishing paying the debt service on the close to billion dollars in stadiums built 20 years ago. To add an arena to the budget is a lot to ask the taxpayer. 

the Royals and Chiefs stadiums are quite nice. That sea of parking around them is awful, though. Makes sense with the shift toward urbanity that either of them might get antsy about leaving at this time.