Wells Fargo sees the value of stadium's proximity

  • Article by: LEE SCHAFER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 26, 2013 - 10:41 PM

The proposed Downtown East real estate project in Minneapolis has been pushed along by the developer Ryan Cos., but it’s clear that it has been a Wells Fargo deal since Day One.

  • 13
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
larrymickOct. 26, 13 4:07 PM

So, the Vikings will want to stop WF from placing its name atop two buildings in which they will either own or be the sole tenant. Just so the Vikings can make more money off the stadium.

14
1
neilgdOct. 27, 13 4:42 AM

Why not just sell the naming rights to the new stadium to Wells Fargo, too? What's another $8 mil in a $400 million dollar investment.

7
0
herby2013Oct. 27, 13 5:56 AM

When it comes to choosing a business to deal with or a product or service, I think most people decide based on the value and quality they receive. No amount of advertising or 5-foot tall letters with the corporate name is going to offset that. Most money spent on advertising is wasted and all money spent on "naming rights" is absolutely wasted. I have never in my life got the itch to do business with a bank because I read their name on the side of a building.

8
2
localguyOct. 27, 13 8:27 AM

This is a pipe dream. The new Vikings stadium will have a roof and moveable front windows. The fans won't see the Wells Fargo logo during the game unless Wilf wants them to. Any blimp shots will be transient and will only include the Wells Fargo logo if Wilf permits that camera angle. I suppose that the fans will see the logo when they're rushing to or from the game, but their minds will be elsewhere. The only way that Wells Fargo will get significant exposure out of this is if they pay the Wilf for it. And you can bet that Ziggy will make the pay.

5
3
RossbergOct. 27, 13 9:00 AM

"Shrewd and creative"? How many football fans will rush to their phones to open a new checking account with Wells Fargo after seeing the sign? While it's WF's money to do with as they please this is just some realtor's far-fetched way to promote a sale since there's no logic in locating an office building near a stadium. Worse, it reeks of politicians trying to place buildings near the stadium so they can portray it as a successful project. But in the end the area surrounding the new stadium will be the same wasteland which surrounds the current stadium. The only additions will be a the relocation of a few bars to support the needs of the expected game attendees.

8
4
ddellwoOct. 27, 13 9:18 AM

It seems odd that the Vikings could "call the shots" on signage that might appear on nearby buildings? I'm all for the team making money on their venue, but feel the ability to prohibit certain types of signage on adjacent properties crosses over a line that inhibits other businesses from making money on their venues.

10
0
quinnerooOct. 27, 1310:47 AM

This is still just a pipe dream; nothing is settled. As the article points out, WF is ambivalent to say the least. The EXACT same proposal was brought up to the Bassett Creek/Bryn Mar by Ryan two years ago and was just shifted to the downtown east project to grease the skids for the stadium. I guarantee it will be cut back if not eliminated.

3
2
garagewineOct. 28, 13 2:29 PM

Would this be the same Wells Fargo that just laid off 750 workers in their local offices due to the slowdown in refinancing activity? I didn't think they would be in a position to get involved in high-stakes real estate dealings.

2
1
minnymnOct. 29, 13 2:39 PM

I've got news for you garagewine, you are drinking too much of your namesake if you think 750 workers out of 20,000 in Minnesota affects the need for office space by WF.

0
1
kkrugerudOct. 29, 13 4:37 PM

Amazing how WF sees the value be it in the hindsight or in the specular. When the tax payer is responsible, where is the risk? Amazing how WF "saw" this from the very beginning: such a win-win non-investment, for WF did not have to actually spend any of their monies. Funny how they more than likely would have, seeing this value from the beginning but refrained, knowing the taxpayer was behind it.

1
1

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT