Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
But he's right. If all facilities get built regardless, integrating a fieldhouse into a larger project can save some money rather than having the fieldhouse built separately. Parking infrastructure, utility infrastructure, peripheral infrastructure upgrades, property acquisition costs (in some cases)... these are all money saving opportunities.
|
Save who some money?
That's the biggest question.
Considering KK wants property acquisition costs to be free (ie. borne by the city), the infrastructure costs to be completely borne by the city, and he wants to have basically no on-site parking infrastructure, doesn't sound like any of the examples you have used help the case.
Also there was thought that KK wants the integrated fieldhouse as an argument that the city should own the facility - ie. a depreciating asset with extremely high operational and lifetime costs.