How the Tacoma Dome could be the future home of the NHL in the Pacific Northwest
With a number of teams struggling financially, there have been various cities talked about for relocation. One of those places is Seattle. I'd hoped to get a more comprehensive write-up about the pros and cons of Seattle this offseason, as I grew up in that area, but that didn't happen and might be for another time. Which is too bad since one of our readers and friends of the site, MTBoltFan, has a really nice write up ready to be incorporated into such a thing. But I digress.
The problems with Seattle boils down into two things: ownership possibilities and an arena. The ownership situation is a bit murky, and I think we'll leave that for another day. There are potential owners, but nothing serious at this point.
As for the arena situation.... Seattle doesn't have a suitable arena, as the entire building called Key Arena is built around a basketball court, and Mercer Arena was demolished. There's been talk about building a facility in the suburb of Bellevue, but that's still being discussed. The two major junior team arenas seat 8513 (Everett Silvertips) and 6500 (Seattle Thunderbirds), respectively, which are far too small for an NHL-caliber team.
Simply put, there is no building available in Seattle, and almost no chance that Key Arena will be torn down and rebuilt - because it would have to be to work for hockey. It is physically impossible for Key Arena to be adapted for an NHL hockey rink. And due to many state construction projects in the Seattle area, there is no public money to build one, either.
And that leaves us with Tacoma, which is approximately 30 miles (50 km) south of Seattle.
A report surfaced yesterday in the Tacoma News Tribune that the Tacoma City Council is fielding the idea of a feasibility study to renovate the Tacoma Dome in order to lure in another NBA team and/or an NHL team. This is at the absolute beginning of the process. Approval for the feasibility study hasn't even been voted on by the council yet.
The Tacoma Dome, as it currently stands, is completely unsuitable to host a major league professional sport of any kind. While it is one of the largest free-standing wood-framed domes in the world, it is also nothing but an empty shell with removable seating. There are concessions, but they are very few. There is nothing resembling luxury suites - or suites at all, really. It's just one very big, empty room.
I watched my very first live hockey game in 1992 in the Tacoma Dome when the Tacoma Rockets (now the Kelowna Rockets) of the Western Hockey League (WHL) played there. The seating, which sounds like it hasn't been upgraded since then, has the sight lines for a football field. They play some of the state high school football playoffs there, and that's what the seating is obviously geared towards.
The poor sight lines are the real reason why major junior and minor league hockey failed in Tacoma. The seats are set too far from the rink, and they rise very shallowly. It's just not a good place to watch hockey, and never has been.
So in order to make the Tacoma Dome suitable for hockey, they're going to have to build up the interior to meet league specifications. I believe that the place seats around 18-20,000 for hockey, which are actually pretty good numbers for the NHL, but building a suitable interior will likely reduce that number.
And, yes, there is a hockey fan base in the Puget Sound region. Not only from the numerous military bases there, but also from the constant inflow of people moving into that area. The two major junior teams do very well for themselves as well; and the Seattle Thunderbirds / Breakers have been around since 1977. All this, despite the fact that the Vancouver Canucks try to do their very best to ignore that Washington State exists.
The location of the Tacoma Dome is very convenient to the freeways [MAP]. It's so convenient, in fact, that it's a notorious place for traffic congestion - even if there isn't an event going on there. And, yes, people would definitely drive down from Seattle to go watch games there. And they'd definitely drive up from Portland, too, which is two hours or so away. They'd also drive from Spokane as well, which is about a five-hour drive away.
(I've gone to Seattle Mariners games and have frequently run into people who had made the trip from Alaska and Montana just to come watch baseball - not as a vacation, and not to sight-see, but just to come watch baseball for the weekend.)
Then comes the cost of renovation. The city of Tacoma will have to foot the bill alone. They may be able to get Pierce County to go along, but they'll never get the state to. The state taxpayers are still paying for Safeco Field and CenturyLink (formerly Qwest) Field in Seattle - and will be paying for the Husky Stadium overhaul at the University of Washington. Not to mention some desperately needed transportation infrastructure upgrades in Seattle and around the state. State taxpayers are not going to agree to any measure to renovate the Tacoma Dome on top of all of that. Especially not with the economy the way it is right now.
So what the feasibility study, should one be done, will say is that a renovation needs to be done. It'll say that there is a fan base for both sports, and that it'll bring a lot of money into Tacoma and its surrounding communities. And it'll also say that it's going to cost a great deal of money and take a few years to do.
Potential owners will step up at that point and say that they'd be willing to buy a team and relocate it to the Seattle-Tacoma area - just as long as they won't have to pay for any of the renovation. People will scream and complain and protest about it, saying it shouldn't happen, for various reasons. And the people behind the potential arena in Bellevue will try to tell everyone that it'll never work in Tacoma. You know; the same old song and dance routine.
Then the city council will vote as to whether it should be done or not, or if they should put it up to a general vote among the city taxpayers.
And at that point, it'll be anybody's guess as to whether or not it'll go through. It probably will, since the Tacoma Dome is in need of major renovations, but the money available will dictate how extensive those renovations will be. It could all end up a watered-down version of the plans that would still leave the area without a facility to host an NHL team.
The NHL's been determined to put a hockey team in the Seattle area, and many are willing to help do that. But it all comes down to a building, as it has all along. Right now, Tacoma's thinking about fixing up what they have, but there's no guarantee that even if they do, it'll be suitable for the NHL or the NBA.
And that's assuming that the city of Bellevue doesn't beat them to it first.
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I never understood why there hasn't been NHL hockey in the Seattle.
What teams would be looking to move? I really hate relocation though, cause I would really hate to be that city that lost a team.
Buc Nation: Where when you post your opinion, it will be deleted.
The Phoenix Coyotes, the Columbus Blue Jackets, the New Jersey Devils, and the Florida Panthers are some of the teams that aren’t currently in a very good financial situation. The New York Islanders are in need of a new arena themselves, and that might cause them to move. There’s a lot of instability in the NHL right now due to the economy, unfortunately. NHL teams make most of their money by selling tickets, and those teams aren’t selling seats right now – and haven’t for a while.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Sep 14, 2011 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Ahem
Unlike Atlanta, Phoenix, and other teams, the Florida Panthers are part of a much bigger organization called Sunrise Sports & Entertainment (SSE). The arena, the Bank Atlantic Center (BAC) is also under the SSE umbrella.
The building itself is beautiful, and one of the most successful in the world in tickets sales. It ranks in the top-5 annually in the U.S. and is top-20 worldwide. All sales from all events within the BAC work towards the profitability of the SSE.
by Alexander Calloway on Sep 14, 2011 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions
LOL! I looked for Nashville in the list, myself.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Part Predator, part Lightning.
I’ve heard that Nashville’s doing pretty well in terms of attendance, so of course I wouldn’t list them. ;o)
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Sep 14, 2011 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions
If I may brag for just a moment...
Not only did we go from 4 sellouts to 22 last year, when single game tickets went on sale this year, opening weekend sales went from 1500 in 2010 to 7500 this year. Whee! (Of course everyone expects the Titans to stink this season, so that may have something to do with it.)
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Part Predator, part Lightning.
Hey, be nice to Jake Locker. He’s just a rookie.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Sep 14, 2011 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I was referring to the financial problems of not getting enough rears in the seats, thank you. No one’s looking to relocate at the moment. Not even Phoenix. :oP
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Sep 14, 2011 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions
To be fair...
…we don’t really know which teams are looking to relocate. We didn’t know about Atlanta (as in, that they were looking to immediately relocate) until just before that all went down.
And given that the season is about to start, and all teams (including those that are in markets that do not appear to be supporting the NHL) are reluctant, during the season, to speculate even in the most theoretical way about relocation because it would do immediate damage to their fanbases.
So if any of those teams are considering moving (and I grant you that it’s an “if”) it’s a safe bet we won’t hear about it until at least February or March or so.
A lot of things have to line up for a team to let it slip to the public that relocation is something they’re looking at. So really, none of us can say “no one’s looking to relocate at the moment” because we’re just not inside the owners’ heads.
Using a hockeybuzz.com link as a retort…that’s funny right there.
"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
The non-Eklund portion of the site (the individual team bloggers) aren’t bad, though, as long as they stay away from the rumors. some of them are downright reputable.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Part Predator, part Lightning.
I don't see the Devils moving
Also, I think it’s a long shot for the Seattle area to get a team, KC has a sweet deal to the Coyotes, and Quebec is seriously in the hunt for a team, where we know support won’t be an issue.
I think the worst and scariest part about every team mentioned, all of them except NYI have a brand new arena. If the NYI could get a new arena, they won’t move.
Buc Nation: Where when you post your opinion, it will be deleted.
The NHL has wanted to put a team in Seattle for at least 20 years now. If they get a suitable builing then it’ll happen at some point, whether thru expansion or relocation. The only thing that’s stopped them is potential ownership and a building.
The other thing to consider is that the Seattle media market is much more extensive than either Kansas City or Quebec, and is therefore much more desirable. If/when Quebec (715,000 people) re-enters the NHL, their market share will be the smallest of all the NHL teams – they’re smaller than even Winnipeg (730,000 people) is. Kansas City is ranked 31st in the US with 2.1 million people while Seattle-Tacoma is ranked 14th with 4.1 million people. Toronto’s #1 in Canada but still only 13th in North America (5.1 million people), and Montreal is #2 in Canada but #16 in North America (3.6 million people), if that puts any of that into perspective.
- Houston (6 million), #10 Atlanta (5.6 million), #14 Seattle (4.1 million), #18 San Diego (3.1 million), and #20 Cleveland (2.8 million) are the cities in the top 20 cities in North America that do not have NHL teams.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Sep 15, 2011 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Houston’s #9, by the way. Hate that autoformatting stuff. Oh well.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Sep 15, 2011 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Atlanta didn't work out, twice.
I’m not against Seattle getting a team, like I said before, it’s hard to believe they’ve never had one. But what I’m saying is the teams will go where the deal is sweeter.
"I'd run over my mother to win the Super Bowl." - Russ Grimm
The only the reason the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg is because the Atlanta ownership cornered the NHL into it – and Bettman was not at all happy that they did that. And it didn’t help that they’d made playoffs only once in their entire existence there. I can’t speak for the previous team there, but this fiasco was all on the owners.
I’m agreeing with you that teams will go where there’s a sweet deal. I’m not sure that Kansas City can make a better deal than Seattle, if they had a building. Quebec City will get another team for the same reasons Winnipeg did – because it’s Canada, and the nostalgia is just too much for people to ignore.
But remember, the NHL also didn’t work once in Kansas City, Winnipeg, and Quebec city, either. So there’s no guarantee that it’ll work again.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Sep 15, 2011 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
KC just built a brand new arena, and they're trying hard to get Phoenix.
Atlanta had/has no fan support, they’re notorious for not supporting their teams, on top of an ownership that has no clue how to run a hockey team. I’m pretty sure Winnipeg will work out, and if other cities like Quebec City and Hartford get another chance, they will too. Lessons learned from losing their NHL teams.
Like I said, I’m not against Seattle (area) getting a team, I know the people up there are passionate about their teams, they’re just up against some traditional hockey markets that are desperate to get hockey back.
"I'd run over my mother to win the Super Bowl." - Russ Grimm
Atlanta’s fanbase was a lot better than it looked on the surface. The ownership essentially did everything they could to alienate fans and get them to NOT spend money so they could get rid of the team. They only bought the team in the first place because they had to to get the NBA team and the arena.
Winnipeg faces a lot of uncertainty, as hockey mad as they are. If they don’t go from crappy to pretty great in five or so years, they may have trouble selling seats at the prices they are expecting to. Not saying it’s bound to fail, just that there are big questions about it. They’ve lost a team before. It can happen again.
It comes down to the fact that there’s not a whole lot of certainty about any of these markets and the risk is pretty high right now. These deals take time, though and things can change. But if I were the NHL, I’d wait several years to see how WPG works out before investing in another small market over a large one, wherever it’s located.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Part Predator, part Lightning.
I completely get that you’re okay with Seattle getting a team. I’m just throwing out the reasons why they might get one before Kansas City. Quebec City will like get one before anyone else, frankly.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Sep 15, 2011 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Every time you mention Quebec getting a team, I can almost hear some resentment there.
The facts are that there’s a very willing owner in Quebec City, that the potential owner has just launched a new, French-language all-sports channel to compete with RDS, and the municipal and provincial governments have committed to fund construction of a new arena for Quebec City.
Add all that up, and yeah, those are some pretty good reasons to favour Quebec over Kansas City, where there is no owner, and Seattle, where there is no building and also no owner.
Quebec City will get another team for the same reasons Winnipeg did – because it’s Canada, and the nostalgia is just too much for people to ignore.
Funny, that scoffing sounds a lot like the way many Canadian fans scoffed when they watched teams go to Phoenix, Anaheim, Nashville, Florida, etc:
“Oh, Atlanta will get another team for the same reasons Anaheim did, because it’s the US, and the short-term payoff of expansion fees and massive media markets is just too much for people to ignore.”
More than a whiff of condescension in both of those attitudes.
I hope the league never puts a team in Houston. Hell they couldn’t even support the Aeros when they were in the Calder Cup finals in 2010 I would love a Wash/Hampton/Baltimore rivalry, but the problem with Hampton is the area already has a hockey team and the problem with Baltimore is they have lost 3 teams already
The NHL has wanted to put a team in Seattle for at least 20 years now.
I’m sorry, but how does anyone actually know this? Has Gary Bettman talked about how he’s wanted a team there throughout his term? I’ve seen plenty of speculation on the internet about how there could maybe, someday be a team in Seattle, but I’ve never heard anyone from the league say that they want a team there.
The only thing that’s stopped them is potential ownership and a building.
Two pretty big stumbling blocks. Lots of cities, in fact, face the very same two obstacles.
As for hockey in the PNW
What about Portland?
by Alexander Calloway on Sep 14, 2011 8:22 PM EDT reply actions
I’ve hear conflicting reports that the owner of the Trailblazers doesn’t want to share an arena with an NHL team, and that he’s open to bringing in an NHL team. So, take your pick. Your guess is a good as mine with that one. There’s definitely a building available, but perhaps not a willing ownership.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Sep 14, 2011 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Awww, shucks.
Thanks for the shout-out, Cassie.
Bottom line: you and I both know unless someone moves a team to Greater Seattle and has enough pocket change to finance the stadium him/herself, the NHL isn’t going anywhere near King County.
"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
Yeah, but right now, it sounds like that Bellevue venture think they can pull it off with private financing. And there’s more than enough money in that town to do it. So that seems the most likely scenario, frankly.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Sep 15, 2011 7:57 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree; Bellevue if anywhere, especially since they’ve had a modest economic resurgence in the past 10 years. I still don’t think it likely an NHL team moving there any time soon. I’ll be happy to be wrong (I’m a supporter of all Seattle teams), but I don’t think I am.
"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
I just don’t know about putting a “Seattle” team in a fairly far-flung suburb. You mention people from Alaska and Montana at Mariners’ games, but the Mariners are the only MLB team in an 800 mile radius – they have a TON of territory to themselves, and frankly, most of it just isn’t very densely populated.
People might drive down from Seattle, but I doubt that enough of them would for weeknight games. There is a very good reason that the only teams now building stadiums/arenas in suburban/exurban/rural areas are NFL teams: They play once a week, usually on Sundays, and demand for tickets is so high that most of those teams could play 100 miles out of town and still sellout. Hockey, baseball, basketball: all of the teams in these sports have realized that the way to succeed financially is with a downtown stadium or arena.
People in Ottawa still complain about the drive to Kanata on weeknights, and those are people who were raised with hockey en masse (sorry Cassie, I know you like to dispute that, but it’s true). Everything that I read about Phoenix says that the franchise was doomed the moment they moved to Glendale. How many people are realistically going to drive in rush hour traffic from Seattle to Tacoma (37 minutes without traffic, Google tells me) to watch Seattle play St. Louis on a Tuesday night?
Look – none of this is to knock Seattle as a potential hockey market. I have no idea whether Seattle could support a team. But I really think that if you put them in an arena that isn’t in Seattle proper, you’re tying one hand behind their back.
I just don’t know about putting a "Seattle" team in a fairly far-flung suburb. You mention people from Alaska and Montana at Mariners’ games, but the Mariners are the only MLB team in an 800 mile radius – they have a TON of territory to themselves, and frankly, most of it just isn’t very densely populated.
People might drive down from Seattle, but I doubt that enough of them would for weeknight games.
I get the feeling you’ve never been to Seattle. Bellevue is not a “far-flung” suburb. With traffic it’s maybe 30 minutes. Without traffic it’s 5 minutes. Seattle also has an odd economic structure because most of the major corporations in the area are located nearer to Bellevue than Seattle and people are generally commuting from the city to the suburbs for work. Microsoft’s main campus ispretty much right next to where a Bellevue arena would be located. So it would actually be incredibly convenient for the area to have an arena there with a professional team.
Seattle proper is horribly compact and leaves no room for an arena. It’s impossible to find parkign anywhere and traffic is always backed up in the evenings.
Putting an arena with an NHL franchise in Bellevue and calling it Seattle makes a lot of sense. The Thunderbirds play in Kent, WA which is about 30-40 miles from Seattle, not the 5 that Bellevue is away, but they still call themselves the Seattle Thunderbirds. You may not recall, but the San Jose Sharks originally played in Daly City, over an hour’s drive north of San Jose and actually a suburb of San Francisco.
Oh, and I don’t have much of a problem with teams locating in a neighbouring municipality but going by the city name that everyone recognizes, I just think that in most cases these days (maybe with a few exceptions as you point out here), it makes a lot more sense for non-NFL pro sports teams to be located in their city centres.

by ![The Tacoma Dome, the SR-509 bridge, and the Thea Foss Waterway from the Chihuly Bridge of Glass in downtown Tacoma. (by SchmuckyTheCat [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons )](http://cdn3.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/1905776/Tacoma_Dome_large.jpg)






















