This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
May 10, 2011
Developer proposes $1.95B Vegas sports complex
Texas developer Chris Milam has bought the minor-league Las Vegas 51's baseball team, which wouldn't normally be notable here — except for what Milam insists he plans to do next:
Milam has labeled the privately financed $1.95 billion project the Las Vegas National Sports Center.
With a 9,000-seat ballpark for the 51s, the proposed center, which will be located on a 63-acre parcel, will feature a 17,500-seat arena designed to house an NBA basketball team and a 36,000-seat stadium for a Major League Soccer squad.
"It's the beginning of the greatest thing ever to happen for sports in this community," said 51s executive director Don Logan, who helped broker the sale of the Pacific Coast League franchise.
That's right, $1.95 billion for an MLS stadium, an NBA arena, and a minor-league baseball stadium — and all privately financed! Since typically all three of those items put together wouldn't cost more than $600 million tops, either Milam has something up his sleeve or he's completely insane, or both. Though to be fair, it's got to cost a lot to build stadiums out of liquid metal.
For those playing along at home, this looks to be the warmed-over Cordish plan, which hasn't been heard from in a couple of years, but stadium and arena plans never really die, especially in Vegas. The baseball stadium would be expandable to 36,000 seats to be MLB-ready if a team could be lured there; as Craig Calcaterra notes, Las Vegas' entirely tourist-based economy is a lousy fit for MLB, but as vaportecture goes, at least Milam is dreaming big.
I understand there is a large non-tourist population that lives in Vegas, more than enough to support several major league sports teams.
But in my opinion there is way too much competition for people's entertainment spending in Vegas, whereas in other cities the teams are THE attraction.
Though I am curious to see the circus atmosphere and pomp of a team based there.
Posted by Dave on May 10, 2011 09:29 AM
The problem with the non-tourist population in Vegas is that it's 1) smallish and 2) poorish. It might just barely make a marginal MLB market, but it's certainly no better than Tampa Bay or any other market a team would be moving from.
Posted by Neil deMause on May 10, 2011 09:44 AM
Anyone think that the casino owners would actually be on board for any of this?
Yes, they want entertainment for spouses that do not gamble (so that there will be less resistance to a trip for spouses who do, of course), but professional sports is not the financial equivalent of a Vegas show. It's expensive, and that takes away some of the discretionary spending money the gaming spouse can deposit into the coffers of the gaming industry.
What Neil says about the population is also very true... it might be 2m people, but close to 2/3rds of them are either working or sleeping at any given time. And most don't make what we would call professional wages. Vegas is probably more like a "normal" city of 8-900,000 low to mid wage earners.
Hard to see how that demographic is attractive to any major sports league, particularly if it's one that has it's games on the boards...
But hey, I'd never discount Oscar's gonnegshuns...
Posted by John Bladen on May 10, 2011 10:29 AM
Liquid metal? Looks more like hospital bed pans.
Count me as another who finds Milam insane. And an open-air stadium in Las Vegas? Surely you jest.
Posted by Mark on May 10, 2011 11:37 AM
Considering a water resources expert recently predicted Las Vegas will become the first modern ghost town I�m not sure a long-term investment makes sense there. I don�t know if I would go so far as ghost town but I definitely think there is a strong possibility of population contraction. The water supply issue will become more exacerbated over time. There are already major issues with existing residential housing stock. I just don�t see Las Vegas as a long term �grow opportunity�. In fact, quite the opposite.
Posted by James on May 10, 2011 11:39 AM
I'm not sure there's anywhere in the country you can build an expandable baseball stadium, an NBA arena and a soccer stadium (which is essentially just a football stadium) for $600M. I'd be very surprised if Sac gets an arena proposal for under $450M, for example.
Yeah, $1.95B is too much. But $1.3B? If you don't get too fancy, you could probably do that. Throw in a little bold architecture and place it near the strip, and I don't think this is quite the stretch you're saying.
The problem, though, is that it won't pencil. Enthusiasm for going over $1.3B will quickly disappear. That's where I see the problem.
But, you know, if the casinos get on board and can use it for fights/conventions/Super Bowls, eh, maybe.
Posted by MikeM on May 10, 2011 03:31 PM
I was figuring $400 million for an arena (Orlando was $480m, Newark was $375m), $150 million for soccer (Harrison was $200m, Philly $120m), and $50 million for MiLB (Columbus $56m, Reno $50m). Even if you want to take the absolute most expensive price tags in history, though — Brooklyn $800m, Harrison $200m, and there's probably a AAA stadium somewhere that approaches $100m — that's still only $1.1 billion.
For $1.3 billion you should be able to get an arena, soccer, and a *major-league* stadium, with enough change left over to buy a velodrome or two.
Posted by Neil deMause on May 10, 2011 04:56 PM
A velodrome? Hmm. Now we're talking.
Where do I sign?
Posted by MikeM on May 10, 2011 05:55 PM
The Vancouver Whitecaps (MLS) spent $14M on a 20K seat stadium.
Posted by ExtraMedium on May 18, 2011 12:44 PM