Time for a Cheney Stadium Facelift?
Are you ready for a brand new Cheney Stadium? The TNT is today reporting on the $30 million bond that will fund a renovated stadium for our triple-A Tacoma Rainiers.
Renovations are likely to include a new grandstand superstructure, roof and concourse, as well as new concession stands, seats, luxury suites and a restaurant to be open year-round, Combs said.
Locker rooms, dug-outs and press boxes also will be improved and expanded, he said, and current plans include adding a public meeting area and permanent space dedicated to housing the ballpark’s exclusive “Gold Club.”
The upgrades, in turn, will help keep the Triple-A Rainiers baseball club playing in Tacoma for most of the next three decades, city and team officials say.
The City of Tacoma would assume about 30% of the bond’s debt over its 25 year life. Private business and donors will cover the rest.
We do like our Tigers Rainiers. Interest rates are good. So … is now the time for a renovated Cheney Stadium?
Link to The News Tribune
Filed under: cheney-stadium
51 comments
C crenshaw sepulveda November 9, 2009
People don’t go to Cheney because it is a crappy stadium. People just don’t really like minor league baseball all that much. To gussy up the stadium will do nothing to get more people in the gate. If people want a fancy stadium they will go to Safeco. Put the money into some reasonably price housing downtown and we’ll see some bang for the buck. I like minor league baseball but part of the appeal is that it kind of sticks to its humble roots. A mini Safeco is not sticking to the humble roots.
S Squid November 9, 2009
We get $30 million in improvements for a $10 million public investment? And get a virtually new stadium plus a secure future for our AAA team? I’ll take that deal.
I especially like the fact that this isn’t the compromise fallback deal, that the ownership didn’t first threaten to leave if they didn’t get an $80M new stadium. They made a fair and well-conceived proposal from the start.
J jamie from thriceallamerican November 9, 2009
If there’s money and political will, we should be lobbying to move the stadium downtown. Better after-work crowds readily available, better transit service w/o transfers from around the region, better chance of killer water views, and better benefit to downtown business from pedestrian presence. I love the potential sites on the east side of the Foss Waterway (Valero tankfarm or Supervalu warehouse), but something in the Dome District or Brewery/UWT area would be ideal, too.
D Dash November 9, 2009
Go take a look at the Dell Diamond. It’s a wonderful family-oriented facility. The Round Rock Express has great attendance numbers. Granted, the weather in Austin Texas is alot drier and warmer….
If Cheyney has to stay where it currently sits, if it got a nice makeover, it wouldn’t be a bad thing.
S Squid November 9, 2009
I don’t think this will be anything resembling a mini-Big Insurance Company stadium. It’s a modest investment in keeping with a Triple A team. Relocating downtown? Of course, but that will cost $100 million, at least. On the east side of the Foss can you imagine the environmental impact/remediation cost of disturbing that soil? Brewery/UWT district is on a steep hill – the excavation necessary for a something the size of a ballpark would be unbelieveable.
Y You're Welcome November 9, 2009
Suh-weet!
T Tacoma1 November 9, 2009
In a perfect world, I’d like to see the Stadium moved to the Dome or Brewery District. Although that would be expensive, if we moved it to land the city already owns, and then sold the current site, the overall benefits could definitely be worth it.
That being said, I do like the look of the proposed upgrades. If the current owners have no interest in moving the stadium, or there is opposition within the existing fan base, we should move ahead with the upgrades.
N Nick November 9, 2009
Sure it would be more expensive, but what about the economic impact it would have? Surely that would yield in a few years more than the cost of building it.
A risk yes, but I’d bet the reward would be well worth it. Maybe this $30M will buy us some more time at the current location until a time when a downtown field/stadium might be possible.
N Nick November 9, 2009
… forgot to specify I was commenting on the idea of relocating to downtown.
J Jesse November 9, 2009
There are a number of alternative options that should be explored before the city helps renovate this stadium. There’s a huge opportunity here to make Cheney into something better than it is —- a catalist for restaraunts, shopping, etc around it’s exterior borders. Not just an afternoon at the ballpark, but a whole day in the sun instead. Basically, I’m saying it belongs downtown.
Having a stadium downtown would draw people there, it’d help businesses, and the return on investment would be worth the extra $30 million I’m sure. The influx of people at Cheney right now, during a game, is great but there’s no restaraunts, activities, shopping to do outside the gate right now. Cheney is isolated in suburbia. Drive there, drive back home. Missed sales, meals, and oh ya, tax revenue.
If this opportunity is missed, we won’t see a stadium downtown within our lifetimes I’m sure.
I’d love to see a stadium along streetcar with a Commencement Bay view and old school type vendors/activities. Even if it were moved to Stadium Bowl, the Brewery Blocks, or in a parking lot of the t-dome, those are all better places than where it sits now – isolated in suburbia.
Downtown type ammenities should be downtown. Unfortunately, it looks like council is taking the path of least resistance instead of doing what’s better for Tacoma.
J Jimbo November 9, 2009
Exactly how many breweries are there in the “Brewery District” these days? Moving the stadium down there would definitely be a huge improvement to downtown. Think of all the income it would bring not just from the stadium, but from the restaurants and business opportunities around it. The Hilltop/McCarver neighborhood is growing, expanding the light rail is in the works, and UWT is growing every semester. Arent they going to someday need athletic complexes? Maybe include them in on a deal to have a gym inside the stadium for joint student/faculty use? This could finally be a good start at tying downtown together. Look at many of the cities with minor league ballparks downtown: Oklahoma City, Little Rock, Montgomery, Memphis, etc…
J Jesse November 9, 2009
“UWT is growing every semester. Arent they going to someday need athletic complexes? Maybe include them in on a deal to have a gym inside the stadium for joint student/faculty use? This could finally be a good start at tying downtown together.”
Genius Jimbo. Any city council members taking note?
J Jake November 10, 2009
FYI:
Portland is looking to build a new stadium for their AAA team due to a MLS team going in at PGE Park. Price tag $60 million.
J Jesse November 10, 2009
Could a stadium be built on Tacoma Ave and 21st? Isn’t there 6 acres there that the city already owns?
One thing Tacoma1, if you did build downtown on said 6 acres (or wherever), you could backfill where Cheney is now with apartments thus building tax revenue there as well as near the ballpark in the form or commerce plus taxes.
Will the city do a feesability study on this to assess the economic impact of a stadium downtown versus existing? It sounds like that should be done.
C crenshaw sepulveda November 10, 2009
How will our teenagers learn how to drive if there isn’t a parking lot around Cheney Stadium?
Y You're Welcome November 10, 2009
Who wants to live in an apartment next to a busy highway? It makes more sense to build the apartments downtown where we actually need to increase the population. That would give all of those businesses a surge of people 12 months a year and give more business a reason to build.
D dolly varden November 10, 2009
I really like the idea of building a ballpark downtown.
I’d love to see it across the Foss by Urban Waters as David Boe suggested a while back. I also kind of like the idea of replacing the Tacoma Dome with a nice ballpark. No one really misses the Kingdome…
H Highwater November 10, 2009
@8 “In a perfect world, I’d like to see the Stadium moved to the Dome or Brewery District. Although that would be expensive, if we moved it to land the city already owns, and then sold the current site, the overall benefits could definitely be worth it.”
Are you insane? The Dome is an eyesore as it is, and the “Dome District” is essentially an empty wasteland except when an event it going on. Downtown is not the place to build a minor league stadium… it’s the place to re-use old buildings and build sensible higher density infill. A stadium is about a low density as you can get. The last thing we need downtown is another sporting events destination that will bring more traffic to what should be an urban and pedestrian friendly space. Stadiums do not bring jobs — at least not very many, and the ones they do bring are low paying. Why not invest the 30M in something sensible… like schools, the university, or an investment fund to convince medium size companies to move here. It’s remarkable to see folks who cry about the lack of jobs and density in Tacoma claiming that downtown or the superfund site … I mean port… is a good place for Cheney II.
C crenshaw sepulveda November 10, 2009
Highwater, Cheney is fine just the way it is. This quest to keep up with Seattle is insane. Cheney is a fine little hometown ballpark. I seriously doubt that gussying up with 30 million bucks will make much difference in the attendance and if the ticket prices go up the attendance will probably fall.
The city needs to invest in modest cost housing in the downtown core. This is actually an investment because people actually pay rent and buy condos. This “investment” in Cheney stadium is basically a pig in a poke. I’m not quite sure what a poke is but you get my drift.
What we don’t need is more bread and circuses for Tacoma.
Y You're Welcome November 10, 2009
“In all, the city will pay about 30 percent of the debt service over the life of the 25-year general obligation bond issue, Biles said, while the Rainiers and other private investors will cover the remaining 70 percent.”
That’s a good investment.
J Jimbo November 10, 2009
People don’t want to live downtown because there is nothing to do downtown. Yes, i agree that more modest cost housing is important, but look at any major city. Why do people pay twice as much to live in a place twice as small? Because there are restaurants, shops, entertainment, and nightlife all around them. We are talking about DOWNTOWN here… There is a certain demographic of people who choose to live in an urban area like this, however, since there is nothing to do downtown (besides possibly go to work), there is no reason to live downtown.
What Tacoma needs is to define their downtown. Focus on one specific area and develop that as the focal point. For instance, i lived in Little Rock two different times in my life. Years ago, the downtown area was basically dead. But they have since focused money and effort into developing the “River Market” area. This has ended up becoming a very nice area. During the day there are shops and restaurants to check out, and at night there are nightclubs and bars that fill with people bringing money into the downtown area(and p.s. they also just built a brand new stadium downtown, tying it all together…what a novel idea). Tacoma needs something like this. There are great restaurants, but they are spread out over miles and miles. This leads to people just driving in, doing to dinner, and driving out. We need something that will make people stay. We need to turn the brewery district into something like Oklahoma City’s “Bricktown” or Little Rocks “River Market” or Wichita’s “Old Town”…get the point? The two places i’ve seen potential are down Pacific Ave by Matador and the soon to open Firwood, or down by Harmon where there is more space for growth and potential with UWT.
I feel like this is just me venting, but people on here are always complaining about how we need to improve downtown, but there’s never any focus on the big picture. Look what works in other smaller cities, cause Ive seen it work, and Tacoma is definitely doing a poor job. You’re so worried about protecting your history that you’re going to become history if you dont bring this city back to life. You can still keep history while building an attraction. Im not saying a stadium downtown is THE answer, but dont be so quick to reject the idea (especially when private compainies are footing a majority of the bill)…it obviously works for numerous other small cities.
-Ok i have a headache now… im goin to bed
D David Boe November 10, 2009
Jimbo@23 – Exactly. I prescribe you take two ‘imagine tacoma’s’ (Port DMZ and S. 19th and Tyler (2))and e-mail me in the morning.
T tacoma1 November 10, 2009
I’d really like to see the council investigate the possibility of moving Cheney Stadium downtown. There are plenty of reasons why it makes sense to move (and certainly there are reasons not to move too).
We should at least do the due diligence before we commit to renovating the old stadium. I would not be disheartened if the move turns out to be unfeasible, but I would be disheartened if our city officials didn’t investigate the possibilities.
S Squid November 10, 2009
I truly believe stadiums are best when located downtown. That said, I just can’t see where in downtown Tacoma you could put it without a Flintstone-esque excavation. A minor league stadium of 7500 seats requires 10-20 acres of flat land, unless you want outfielders running uphill to snare a drive in the gap.
Portland still can’t site it’s field – Beaverton has fallen through and they can’t find enough property adjacent to downtown. If they had a proposal to spend $30M on a facility renovation and only had to spend $10M in public funds, believe me they would take it. It’s nice dreaming about what could be, but the financial reality is that it’s not going to happen. We don’t have the money to right that wrong. We’ll be fortunate to gussy up an aging facility sufficiently that it allows us to keep our team.
This is a good deal folks. Take it.
T tacoma1 November 10, 2009
If we put the stadium down in the T-Dome area, there is already plenty of parking and transit. We wouldn’t need a 10 acre parking lot, so I guess we just need to look for 10 acres of flat land now. Seattle has plans to tear up alot of their parking by the Stadiums. With all the available transit to the area, they realized that empty blacktop isn’t an added value to the community.
All I’m saying is that it’s worth it to look at the feasibility here. The renovation deal is a good one, never said that I didn’t like it. I just think it’s worth exploring our options to see if there is a better deal available.
J jamie from thriceallamerican November 10, 2009
Downtown stadium proponents should be writing letters to the council members ASAP, chatting here only goes so far. Letters to the Editor oftentimes make it into the political consciousness, too. (Unfortunately, though I think many of our politicians are occasional blog visitors, they often read these things days later and probably don’t always take in the comments.)
J Jesse November 10, 2009
Jimbo is my blog-twin… except more eloquent… and he knows how to spell.
S siwel November 10, 2009
Crenshaw, sorry you are just wrong. Cheney Stadium needs the upgrade. The fan experience (seating, concessions, restrooms) might hold out for a few more years without attention. But it is the other stuff that is more important. Without significant upgrades of the dugouts and locker rooms, the stadium will not be able to retain Triple A ball. If we drop to Single A ball, the stadium will not generate the revenue because of the shorter season and lower price of tickets and will continue in a spiral of not generating enough funds to pay for mainteance at the same time its maintenance costs increase as it ages.
S Squid November 10, 2009
I’ll see siwel and raise him. The fan experience is only (and barely) acceptable because it’s good-quality outdoor baseball with a view of the mountain. The stadium itself, including fan areas is barely above the single A level. It defintely needs work.
If this wasn’t the Mariners contracted farm team we would have lost the Rainiers several years ago. The condition of the stadium is why Foster couldn’t sell the team.
Y You're Welcome November 10, 2009
A really, really successful triple A team can only expect to draw 1% of the cities population. The Rainiers have some of the worst ticket sales. It’s not worth our tax dollars to bring the stadium downtown. (I’m partial, because I love it’s current location).
If you really want to bring pro sports downtown, spend the money upgrading the t-dome for NBA and/or NHL. Now that could draw in the crowds you’ve dreaming about.
S Squid November 10, 2009
NHL in the T-Dome? Where do I get in line for tickets?
J Jimbo November 10, 2009
@30 Jamie
Thanks for the link! Email sent…hopefully they read it and consider an option that could help to truly bring some excitement to downtown. Everyone else should send an email also… it can be as simple as copying and pasting parts or all of your earlier posts. A simple way to let your opinion be heard, and make the council think about innovation rather than the easiest fix
H Highwater November 11, 2009
The comments on this thread have helped me to understand why downtown Tacoma has the problems it has and why it will most certainly continue to have those problems. I find it truly amazing that the idea of putting ANOTHER giant parking lot / impervious surface downtown that will stand empty most of time is actually appealing to people. No wonder this town has no (positive) identity of its own. I find it truly remarkable, in a place with so few amenities, that it is rational to consider devoting so much public money to this type of project. At least Seattle had the sense to vote against its stadium projects — even if the state voters ended up overriding them.
T Tacoma1 November 11, 2009
@Highwater
You must be reading a different thread. No one suggested that an additional parking lot would be built.
J Jimbo November 11, 2009
So this is the response i got from Bill Baarsma:
“All interesting ideas but they are far beyond the city’s resources and scope as to what is possible. You are suggesting a $60-80 million project at the very least. I believe that at some point in the future UW-T will consider athletic facilities but this is not on the radar screen for the next decade or so. My hunch is that it would be a gym of some sort—which would not be compatible with a Triple-A baseball stadium. I might note that the Lansing Lugnuts have a terrific Single A stadium right in downtown. The circumstances of a site and the cost for the stadium are very different from the challenges in T-Town, however.”
So obviously, he just assumes its not feasable, throws some numbers out there, and aviods any real look at the situation.
p.s. Since when are gyms not compatible with stadiums? Last i checked, hundreds of stadiums have gyms…and if its not “compatible,” make it compatible. Its called innovation. MIXED USE that everyone loves so much. Are you gonna tell me grocery stores go along with condo/ apartment buildings? uh ohhhhh
T Thorax O'Tool November 11, 2009
I’d like a stadium close to downtown too, but having the city build one isn’t feasible at this point. It’s a $60 to $100 million job when the city is $13 million in the hole.
Really, there isn’t a good place in downtown proper to put it. We got hills and a lot of buildings that would have to be taken care of. Heck, look to the 206. Neither the Mariners or the Sadhawks have their stadium in downtown Seattle… they’re both just outside of it on land that at one time was an industrial part of their port.
So, in terms of technical feasibility, the stadium on the Foss would be a better choice than over on 25th & Fawcett.
Of course the problem with the Foss, besides the environmental nightmare, is the fact that the best location also happens to have a large tank farm. Ever been down there? They receive their fuels from a pipeline and load a LOT of trucks with gas, diesel and stove oil (kerosene).
That’s a pretty active business, employing many people. Given the DOE and EPA regulations, it’s so difficult as to being nearly impossible to build a new tank farm on that scale. Building there on the Foss just isn’t reasonable, and that company is staying put.
BUT BUT BUT, there is a very large tract of land owned by the Port of Tacoma that is located immediately south of the Murray Morgan (as in right next to it) that also happens to be sitting completely empty and undeveloped…
J Jesse November 12, 2009
You’d think Baarsma and crew would do a feasability study for downtown. Sure, a stadium DT would cost more than a remodel of Cheney, but are they leaving money on the table when you compare it to the positive economic impact it would bring? It actually could be cost effective to have it DT.
On another note, what about the attraction factor for new folks wanting to live DT? A stadium and games would bring in people who might want to live by it. Since shopping is out of the question until the average income is raised in DT, you have to have SOMETHING to help attract folks to WANT to live there. A stadium, the restaurants and action it brings, is great for that.
H Highwater November 12, 2009
@37 “@Highwater
You must be reading a different thread. No one suggested that an additional parking lot would be built.”
Like much of the discussion here, the concept of actually building a stadium in downtown has lost its foundation in reality. Large venues like the theoretical (and fantastical) one being proposed by some of the comments above do not get built without attendant and proximal parking. Both Safeco and Qwest fields have very large parking lots and garages next to them. Good Americans, most of them, are simply unwilling to walk any great or short distance for any purpose. It is for this reason that the Tacoma Dome, a venue that on most days is unused, has three very large parking lots. Most people in Pierce County drive to another county for work. Why do you think they will do anything different to recreate?
T Terrorist Bob November 12, 2009
#41 is right about the parking. Few are willing to park in downtown and have to walk across the Murray Morgan or anything like that. We’re a nation of lazy lardos, whether we like it or not.
If you want people, you gotta build parking lots/garages. Sad, but true.
T tacoma1 November 12, 2009
That settles it then. Our over-reliance upon the automobile hasn’t freed us, but enslaved us. It’s doubled the cost of our public buildings, and doomed us to be an unhealthy overweight society with shortened life spans. Ain’t cars great?
S subterranean November 12, 2009
Seriously, does everything have to be downtown? Wrigley Field is hugely popular, but I don’t know many people who actually want to live by it, and – it ain’t Downtown. And secondly, the studies I’ve seen on the economic impact of stadiums that were done by independent researchers without a financial stake in the stadium, have demonstrated a tenuous (at best) economic stimulous and return on the investment. And thirdly, it isn’t even that far to get to it. We aren’t talking the boonies here, Jesus de christo. Cheney stadium is a fixed asset, try to build around it where it is than isolate it on the Foss.
T tacoma1 November 12, 2009
Wrigley Field, never been, so I google mapped it. Guess what I didn’t see? Yes, that’s right. I didn’t see acres of space hogging empty blacktop, better known as parking lots.
What I did see is a subway line right next door. Hmmmmmmmmmm, I guess you don’t need a parking lot to fill a stadium in Chicago,just in Tacoma.
J jamie from thriceallamerican November 12, 2009
Also, for reference, the North Parking Lot by Qwest Field is actually going away and a set of mixed-use buildings will be developed there. Meaning that the only significant parking facilities nearby are the Qwest Events Center garage, the Safeco Garage, and Union Station garage. This is for 2 giant stadiums with a combined capacity of well over 100k.
We have LOADS of parking downtown right now if you’re willing to pay, I think we can handle 10k people without having to build a new parking lot.
AND, somewhat awesomely, a baseball field is a GIANT PERVIOUS SURFACE!!!
C captiveyak November 12, 2009
A downtown stadium for a minor league team would be an expensive and ineffective approach to development. Everyone knows it wouldn’t generate significant commerce. Downtown stadiums are built by corporations FOR corporate professional teams. If Tacoma ever warrants an MLB team (possible! it could happen), a small stadium would be Tacoma’s appendix.
Before we give up on the Cheney site, it makes sound economic sense to milk more money out of it. In its current incarnation, the stadium is predominately utilititarian in design and purpose. Use and space leases, upgrades, improvements — all of these things increase the value and the potential value to the city. Until we know the potential of Cheney stadium, it makes no sense to replace it or relocate it.
Besides, Dodger stadium is on the top of a hill well outside LA. The Staples Center is nearly as far along the 110 from downtown LA as Fircrest is from Pacific Grill. The average metro-minded individual will not find that distance to be quite as significant as a local.
It may be unfair of me to say these things — I don’t give a rat’s ass about sports. So, I lack the emotional resonance with the concept, and see it with a colder eye.
Y You're Welcome November 12, 2009
98402 has less then 5,000 people living in it. Any large spaces should be dedicated to urban density.
C crenshaw sepulveda November 12, 2009
I’ve said it before, for downtown to be viable it needs about 12,000 people living in the core. A ratio of 50 percent students, 50 percent people that work in the neighborhood would be just about right.
Strickland is very much looking to promoting the higher education base we have in Tacoma. I think it is about time. I’d like to see Tacoma with a strong education reputation. We have a baseball stadium, no need to move it, hardly any need to dump too much money into it.
J jamie from thriceallamerican November 13, 2009
Per Jake Fey:
T tacoma1 November 13, 2009
C’est la vie. Jake’s a good egg, I’m sure he’s right. And I can certainly live with the upgrades to Cheney Stadium. They are much needed, and seems like a good deal.
T Tacoma Taxpayer November 13, 2009
While I find the idea of renovating Cheney better than building an entire new stadium, I wonder:
1. We the taxpayers are not going to get to vote on this “bond issue”? WHY?
2. Didn’t we vote NO on this once before?
3. Funny, the City Council can issue bonds for $28 million, yet they wanted us to vote a few years back to extend the property tax on our homes to renovate the TDome. We voted NO. Why are we not being allowed to vote on this?
I’m a sports fan and haven’t attended a game at Cheney in over 10 years. I remember the place looked run down then.
If I hear how many jobs this going to create during the construction, I’m gonna throw up.
We have serious problems with streets and infrastructure for pipes etc and we should be focusing on that FIRST!
As Sharon McGavick (Former Council Member) said: “We need more projects like the Convention Center, they provide more BANG than infrastructure repairs like streets”
Guess this project qualifies. Anyone want to bet this project does not come in on budget and there will be cost overruns?
N notme November 13, 2009
Allow me Mr Taxpayer:
1. You don’t get to vote because you only vote when bond issues are paid back from an increase in your property tax. This bond issue will be paid back by the lease payments and, in small part, by city revenues. No property tax increase, no vote.
2. No you didn’t vote on this before.
3. The difference is obvious. Cheney Stadium has a team that has signed a long term lease that provides most of the money to pay back the debt. The Tacoma Dome has no fixed tenant and so improvements needed to be paid from bonds paid from a property tax increase. Actually 59.9 percent of Tacomans voting voted yes, but under our goofy laws, that isn’t enough.
J Jesse November 13, 2009
Well, if agreements are already in place for a Cheney redo instead of a new stadium downtown… they have to honor that.
I wonder if there was an economic impact study done. It seems like an opportunity lost if there wasn’t one… and Tacoma has a history of too many lost opportunities IMO.