Tacoma’s new $30 million Cheney Stadium isn’t even finished yet, and already there’s nostalgia for the old one.
Or at least for the old one’s roof, the one that covered a good portion of the cheap seats.
Even fans in the premium uncovered box seats would often move up under the roof and be sheltered if it started raining – which is known to happen in these parts. On sunny days, it was nice for those whose winter-white skin was starting to burn to be able to move to a shaded seat.
That’s going to be a little harder to do in coming seasons. The new roof won’t extend out very far, and at least 1,700 seats will lack the coverage provided by the old stadium. The stadium doesn’t have a field-view concourse like Safeco Field, so fans who want shelter from the rain or sun but still want to watch the game will be out of luck.
What’s curious about all this is that the formal requirement provided to those bidding on the renovation contract was that the new design provide at least as much roof coverage as the old stadium.
So how did this design, the only one with a greatly shortened roofline, win the bid?
According to public documents requested by The News Tribune’s Lewis Kamb, a member of Tacoma’s selection committee – Rainiers President Aaron Artman – told the eventual winning bidder (Mortenson Construction) that it didn’t have to abide by the roof requirement.
Mortenson used that savings to enhance other aspects of the design – ones that appealed to the Rainiers’ owners. Those enhanced design elements were what won the contract for Mortenson, even though its bid came in $2 million higher than the lowest bid.
Why didn’t the other bidders do the same, and pick up savings with a smaller roof?
Because no one told them they could. Their bids were based on the idea that the design required a roof that was “equivalent” to the old one. They essentially were operating at a competitive disadvantage, and the city will be fortunate if it escapes litigation.
Everyone connected with the new stadium – from city officials to team ownership – is now saying that it will be better for not having many covered seats. If that’s so, why was the size of the roof even in the original requirements? Were fans consulted about whether they cared one way or the other? City officials seem to have been more concerned about the team owners’ wish list than fan comfort.
The new Cheney Stadium will have some wonderful things going for it – including more restrooms and concessions as well as the luxury suites the owners wanted – but it will be tainted by the fact that the contract was decided in a way that an unbiased outsider could consider unfair.
All of the bidders should have been given the same information – and the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.