Read the entire article here on The Oregonian website

Stadium cost is a matter of quality

The projected $350 million is intended to create a Portland ballpark built for long-term success

Sunday, May 9, 2004

By John Hunt
The Oregonian

If the Oregon Stadium Campaign's stadium finance plan really is within 10 percent to 15 percent of its $350 million project goal, then why not just get the thing done for $300 million to $315 million?

"It's a good question, it's one that has been asked," said John Vosmek, the architect who came up with the original proposal for a major league stadium in Portland and who is a liaison between the campaign and the firm it contracted for stadium planning, HOK Sport.

The answer to the question could be coming soon. HOK Sport is working up new, site-specific numbers for Portland's bid, and if the Kansas City, Mo.-based firm discovers that a stadium could be done for less, Portland might be in decent shape for relocation.

Washington, D.C., officials presented Major League Baseball's relocation committee with four proposals Thursday, one of which put the price tag to put a stadium on what is now the parking lot of RFK Stadium at $278 million.

In Pittsburgh, the Pirates completed PNC Park in 2001 for $237 million, not counting $25 million for site acquisition.

And in Houston, where Major League Baseball will hold its revenue-infusing All-Star extravaganza in two months, HOK built Minute Maid Park in 2000 for $265 million -- complete with retractable roof.

Then there's Safeco Field in Seattle. With considerable cost overruns, the baseball temple to the north carried a final price tag of $517 million when it opened in 1999.

For closer comparison, the privately financed SBC Park in San Francisco was completed for $357 million in 2000.

So how did Portland arrive at $350 million, anyway?

"We based the cost on a composite of other stadiums and our best guess at the configurations that seemed to fit different sites," Vosmek said.

Some of Portland's seven sites would be cheaper than others, for a variety of factors, including site acquisition and urban renewal money. But cost and value are two different things.

"The potential longtime success of the team and the owner are affected by the site, and I feel it would be a real short-sighted decision to look at that solely in terms of initial cost," Vosmek said. "Obviously, we're going to do the best ballpark we can and do it in the most cost-effective way.

"I don't think it's what Portland needs right now to put a stadium there that's not top of the line. I don't mean gold-plating things, but having all the pieces and program elements that will make this a successful franchise if it happens here. There are a whole bunch of us who are involved because, yes, we like baseball, but we also feel like the city needs something very positive now."

David Kahn, leader of the campaign, agreed.

"It's a fair question to ask of the architects," he said. "But we don't want to compromise the integrity and the aesthetics of the stadium."

With the clock ticking on the Expos' relocation plan, it might seem Portland is in no position to compromise. With the situation shifting each week, the optimist in Portland would say that its fortunes are improving.

Last week during a visit to Oakland, Calif., where he was trying to find support for a new stadium, commissioner Bud Selig told reporters at McAfee Coliseum, "They can't stay here, so we're going to have to find an alternative."

A new group is trying to drum up support for a move by the Athletics to San Jose, Calif., but Selig appears unwilling to go back on an agreement with San Francisco Giants owner Peter Magowan that gave the Giants territorial rights to Santa Clara County.

Could baseball move the A's and the Expos simultaneously? A move by the Expos to Washington and by the A's to Portland would resolve stadium issues, give the Las Vegas market time to mature and save baseball from a drop in market leverage.

With no stadium finance plan complete, such talk is about as premature as Portland proponents deciding on the style of seat to put into their ballpark. But such discussions will be taking place in the coming weeks.

Perhaps Portland could use a two-deck design as Pittsburgh did. But in such a configuration, the decks are bigger and need more structural support, so the savings may be limited.

"When you've got the major structural components in place, and the appropriate roof and sight lines and everything, then what's left?" Vosmek said. "You've got different cost seats. Then you buy a seat that needs to be replaced in 10 years instead of 20 and shooting yourself in the foot."

Using less expensive materials and limiting amenities are ways to save on construction costs, but each cut carries a risk of reducing fan comfort and enjoyment.

"If you have a cheap scoreboard or if you don't have monitors in the concourse, then all of a sudden the reason that other parks are successful -- those start not being there," Vosmek said. "Then people don't have the same good feelings about the ballpark.

"I think it's quite possible you can build a ballpark within a fairly wide range. What you're looking at, though, is something Portland is going to live with for 40 or 50 years."

An HOK architect said last week that Portland sites still present as exciting an opportunity as any, including SBC Park in San Francisco. The intricate steelwork on Portland's bridges provides inspiration, he said.

But the two most important materials remain wood and graphite -- as in, would a stadium in Portland ever pencil out?

John Hunt: 503-294-7643; johnhunt@news.oregonian.com

Another great article from John Hunt. He does ask good solid questions about the financing. I agree that more is better (in terms of money). If the deal ends up costing less, then we look better than if it goes "Safeco. "

How did Safeco end up costing so much? Where did all that money go? I mean, it is a beautiful stadium, but it surprised me that it cost as much as it did..

Halo? you want to give the lowdown? You know this story as well as anyone.

quote:

---

With the situation shifting each week, the optimist in Portland would say that its fortunes are improving.

Last week during a visit to Oakland, Calif., where he was trying to find support for a new stadium, commissioner Bud Selig told reporters at McAfee Coliseum, "They can't stay here, so we're going to have to find an alternative."

A new group is trying to drum up support for a move by the Athletics to San Jose, Calif., but Selig appears unwilling to go back on an agreement with San Francisco Giants owner Peter Magowan that gave the Giants territorial rights to Santa Clara County.

Could baseball move the A's and the Expos simultaneously? A move by the Expos to Washington and by the A's to Portland would resolve stadium issues, give the Las Vegas market time to mature and save baseball from a drop in market leverage.

With no stadium finance plan complete, such talk is about as premature as Portland proponents deciding on the style of seat to put into their ballpark. But such discussions will be taking place in the coming weeks.

---

For those watching the proceedings, ask yourself, "Why would Portland be looking into things like what style of seat would be going into an MLB ballpark?", if Portland were not gearing up to complete a financing package.

Also, point your browser over to the article "Giants owner says he never would surrender South Bay".

The A's aren't moving into San Jose. That much seems certain.

The A's will have to build in Alameda or Contra Costa Counties, or... relocate, if a new stadium is that important to the organization.

I think it's a good thing the goal is to have the money and ask questions later, but the Yankees didn't start out with a bunch of plaqes for past athletes and a sign at entry ways to display their teams accomplishments and history.
They had to start somewhere too.
In other words, I'd rather a newstadium not have a giant expensive team emblem on the floor when i walk in, or a giant glove out front (safeco), we can make that later.

Just give us a team!!!

Look, the last thing we need is a junky stadium no one is happy with, prompting a prospective owner to demand costly upgrades or even a newer stadium. However, PNC park is often cited as a great example of what might be done in portland. I think most folks would agree that such a park would be completely suitable. It just so happens, it was a cheap park to construct. Even if the cost of construction is higher here, a similar type stadium could likely be built without $350 million. If we get to the point where we can't present a complete financing package because we are shooting for $350 million, we have shot ourselves in the foot. If we can present a package that proposes a PNC park type plan paid at 100%, I think we win this sweepstakes.

marc636, you asked me in another thread about the finance package and altering it to reach lower figures.

I would say that it is premature to go that route. As Vosmeck rightly points out, this stadium needs to last a good long while. It is also viewed as a possible signature piece for the city.

Can this be done "non-gold plated", I would say yes, but it is a matter of seeing how the report from HOK shows adjusted figures, etc.

This isn't a matter of trying to construct the Taj Mahal, but something both ascetically pleasing and functionally sound for the long haul.