Jump to content

Sounds Stadium design now starting

smeagolsfree

By smeagolsfree
in Nashville

Recommended Posts

smeagolsfree Gigalopolis

smeagolsfree

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here is the related news form media in todays papers.

Related ball park media from toady:

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?se...p;news_id=54619

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?se...p;news_id=54616

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...ESS01/702140429

I did post on another thread that the Sounds could partner with the concert promoters that have Starwood and do concerts at the stadium. Seems as if it would be a win win for both parties and give the extra income to the Sounds for an increase in construction cost. The only draw back would be the noise form a concert but if done early enough in the day, it seems as it would work. No worse than a late inning ballgame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 364
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Jeeper12 Hamlet

Jeeper12

Posted
Posted

A week or so ago it was reported that the city has also objected to "closing" the whole transaction based upon design development drawings (DD's) rather than 100% complete construction drawings (CD's). I'm a little suprised such confusion could rear its head so late in the game since it's not unusual to see a project move forward with construction based upon DD's.

However, only very experienced developers can generally manage this manuever and come through the process cleanly and with their cost budgets and timelines intact at the end. The developer usually enters into a guaranteed maximum price contract (GMP) with the GC and sets aside a contingency sufficient to allow for the additional costs that typically show up betweed DD's and CD's in the form of change orders.

My guess would be that when DD pricing came in they were already in a position of having to fully exhaust the contingency in the project budget just to cover the GMP. And if the team was significantly off in it's assessment of what DD pricing would be then all parties could be nervous about how much further damage (higher costs) might appear as they go from DD's to CD's. Further complicating things is the fact that it takes many months and much more money to get the design to 100% CD's that are fully priced by the GC.

So, I think you now have 3 different parties not only in disagreement about how to cover the deficit, but also unsure of what the ultimate price tag will be. Hopefully, someone will step up and agree to a plan for moving ahead. SBER is the only one of the three with the expertise to get from where they are to a finished product. Since I doubt the city will contribute another penny I think the Sounds are going to have to agree to absorb or share the overun with SBER and then trust SBER to work through the rest of the process. If they are lucky and can come to an agreement very quickly as to how this will be done (without city $'s) the city may agree to provide a little more time for the effort. But I think that is the best that the Sounds and SBER can hope for and the clock is ticking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeeper12 Hamlet

Jeeper12

Posted
Posted

An editorial in the City Paper today (see below) pretty much slams the Sounds and suggests that since the city and SBER are balking at contributing more money to cover the overruns the Sounds need to do so, and do it quickly. The piece also offers glowing praise of SBER as a developer that Nashville is "lucky to have" interested. I think they missed a few important points.

All indications are the Sounds have been relying soley upon SBER, the self-proclaimed ballpark development experts, to forecast costs and work through the planning and predevelopment process. If budgets were set and deals finalized a year ago based upon SBER's projections I think it would be reasonable for the Sounds to be upset about SBER's unwillingness to bear any responsiblity for the budget bust. And given the apparent history it would also seem reasonable for the Sounds not to be completely comfortable (and bound) to SBER's assessment of what it might take to get through the balance of the process (DD's to CD's): see my previous post. Seperately, SBER has further complicated the deal by spending far too much time (considering the previously agreed upon deadlines) conceptualizing their adjacent development plans; they still don't even have DD's for this. These problems caused SBER to be unable to meet the original deadlines for them to close the TIF financing, which has always represented almost half of the funds required to finance the ballpark. They say they'll be ready for the 4/15 deadline but we'll have to see.

Again, as I said in the earlier post, the Sounds and SBER need to resolve this quickly if the whole thing has any chance of being salvaged. However, as much as I admire SBER I don't think the CP got it quite right today in their editorial. I think SBER bears more responsiblity for the current plight of the ballpark effort than the CP article suggests. Let's hope they can patch things up with the Sounds ASAP so we can get a new ballpark.

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cf...p;news_id=54776

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayesmw Whistle-Stop

hayesmw

Posted
Posted
I think the Tennessean (once again) misreported the parking portion of the hotel. The City Paper reports that the parking will be above ground and surrounded by the hotel/office space. The Tennessean's report was the only one in which I've read/heard that parking would be on top of the hotel. I believe they're wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayesmw Whistle-Stop

hayesmw

Posted
Posted
An editorial in the City Paper today (see below) pretty much slams the Sounds and suggests that since the city and SBER are balking at contributing more money to cover the overruns the Sounds need to do so, and do it quickly. The piece also offers glowing praise of SBER as a developer that Nashville is "lucky to have" interested. I think they missed a few important points.

All indications are the Sounds have been relying soley upon SBER, the self-proclaimed ballpark development experts, to forecast costs and work through the planning and predevelopment process. If budgets were set and deals finalized a year ago based upon SBER's projections I think it would be reasonable for the Sounds to be upset about SBER's unwillingness to bear any responsiblity for the budget bust. And given the apparent history it would also seem reasonable for the Sounds not to be completely comfortable (and bound) to SBER's assessment of what it might take to get through the balance of the process (DD's to CD's): see my previous post. Seperately, SBER has further complicated the deal by spending far too much time (considering the previously agreed upon deadlines) conceptualizing their adjacent development plans; they still don't even have DD's for this. These problems caused SBER to be unable to meet the original deadlines for them to close the TIF financing, which has always represented almost half of the funds required to finance the ballpark. They say they'll be ready for the 4/15 deadline but we'll have to see.

Again, as I said in the earlier post, the Sounds and SBER need to resolve this quickly if the whole thing has any chance of being salvaged. However, as much as I admire SBER I don't think the CP got it quite right today in their editorial. I think SBER bears more responsiblity for the current plight of the ballpark effort than the CP article suggests. Let's hope they can patch things up with the Sounds ASAP so we can get a new ballpark.

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cf...p;news_id=54776

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayesmw Whistle-Stop

hayesmw

Posted
Posted
A week or so ago it was reported that the city has also objected to "closing" the whole transaction based upon design development drawings (DD's) rather than 100% complete construction drawings (CD's). I'm a little suprised such confusion could rear its head so late in the game since it's not unusual to see a project move forward with construction based upon DD's.

However, only very experienced developers can generally manage this manuever and come through the process cleanly and with their cost budgets and timelines intact at the end. The developer usually enters into a guaranteed maximum price contract (GMP) with the GC and sets aside a contingency sufficient to allow for the additional costs that typically show up betweed DD's and CD's in the form of change orders.

My guess would be that when DD pricing came in they were already in a position of having to fully exhaust the contingency in the project budget just to cover the GMP. And if the team was significantly off in it's assessment of what DD pricing would be then all parties could be nervous about how much further damage (higher costs) might appear as they go from DD's to CD's. Further complicating things is the fact that it takes many months and much more money to get the design to 100% CD's that are fully priced by the GC.

So, I think you now have 3 different parties not only in disagreement about how to cover the deficit, but also unsure of what the ultimate price tag will be. Hopefully, someone will step up and agree to a plan for moving ahead. SBER is the only one of the three with the expertise to get from where they are to a finished product. Since I doubt the city will contribute another penny I think the Sounds are going to have to agree to absorb or share the overun with SBER and then trust SBER to work through the rest of the process. If they are lucky and can come to an agreement very quickly as to how this will be done (without city $'s) the city may agree to provide a little more time for the effort. But I think that is the best that the Sounds and SBER can hope for and the clock is ticking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeeper12 Hamlet

Jeeper12

Posted
Posted
They said to the city that they were in budget and if they could close on the land and have a fast track design and construction schedule on 2/7/07, they could be open in April 2008 within their budget. Slowing the opening down should allow them to better bid and buy out the job.

The problems you have outlined above have not been the cause for the inability to close the TIF. The TIF notes cannot be sold until the unconditional private banking commitments are in place for the $23M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Hankster Town

Hankster

Posted
Posted
If the stadium deal falls through I think it will require a brand new RFP; they're not just going to hand all the additional land to SBER at the old terms. Given the prolonged debate and studies that preceeded getting to the terms of the current RFP I wouldn't expect anything to happen quickly. As I've mentioned previously, I think a more likely outcome is the future use of this site getting swept up into the politics/platforms of the mayoral race. That may not be a bad thing though in terms of really figuring out the highest and best use of this land sans a stadium.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kheldane Whistle-Stop

Kheldane

Posted
Posted
It's hard to fathom just what's going on behind the scenes. As long as the Sounds don't ask more more money to finance the stadium and just a reasonable short delay, I'm still optimistic thing thing will happen, just a lot later than I everyone originally thought. If the Sounds are stupid enough to ask for more contribution from Metro, this deal will fall through, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.