Lifespan of new-age arenas

[Dilbert]

Senators are also looking to replace Canadian Tire Centre built in 1996 and while its only 22 years old the issue here is location. (Sens looking to move from Kanata into Ottawa proper).

[B-Rich]

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 1:59 PM, dfwabel said:

Upper bowl seats in the corners aren't really able to be sold but for concerts.

 

This is a point I was thinking of the other day.

 

I can't remember the last time I sat in an upper bowl seat for any sporting event in an arena (mainly hockey or basketball).  Today, to me, most of them are essentially worthless, and you're right-- no one wants to buy them, even when a team is doing great or in the playoffs. I've looked at ticket prices for them from the team/Ticketmaster  -- often $10/$15 corners and behind basket, and on secondary markets like StubHub they often go as low as $5.  That's like giving them away.

 

Especially today, with HDTV and free broadcast of almost all home games, unless you are sitting in the lower bowl, it's not worth it at all.

 

Part of it is suite-centered architecture.  In the Smoothie King Center (New Orleans Arena), you've got the lower bowl, then a full concourse with entries at the top of that. Above that, you've got a circle of suites. So the difference between the last seat in the lower bowl and the first seat in the upper bowl is more than 2 stories in height, probably 25-30'.  That's a big jump.

 

Just as an aside, when the Hornets first moved to New Orleans, I and some acquaintances got a pair of season tickets to share. 1st row, mid-court/dead center, upper bowl.  By the end of the 2nd season, we were not satisfied and talked to our ticket rep, who let us try out comparably-priced seats for the playoffs that year. And so for year three, for the same price, we moved to lower bowl seats around row 10, on a corner section in the 1st section off from the sidelines.  Much better, no comparison.

[The_Admiral]

17 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

The lifespan of any arena, properly maintained and upgraded, could be 75 years.  An outdoor stadium could go 150, or perhaps indefinitely - hell, the Roman Coliseum is still standing.  The question is who is going to fit the bill for construction or renovation that is the chief determining factor though.

 

I don't think it's crazy to say that Fenway, Wrigley, and Dodger Stadium will exist in some form forever. With the money that's gone into them to modernize them, and the brand equity they keep building up by being there, why leave?

 

16 hours ago, Dilbert said:

Senators are also looking to replace Canadian Tire Centre built in 1996 and while its only 22 years old the issue here is location. (Sens looking to move from Kanata into Ottawa proper).

Location is the chief issue (not unlike The Frozen Ice Of The Non-Believers, the Palladium was built in anticipation of significant westward suburbanization that never happened because the economy slowed down) but it was also overbuilt for the market size and wasn't really maintained to be a great venue. It's essentially a carbon copy of the Palace of Auburn Hills, but built much more cheaply and without the year-to-year capital improvements the Palace enjoyed. 

[Chromatic]

It really does just depend on how much effort into renovations, maintenance and upgrades is put into the arena. MSG is the oldest arena in both the NBA and NHL, yet its still considered state of the art. I know Rogers Arena in Vancouver likely won't be replaced for a long time, due to how much in renovations and upgrades has been put into it. They just completed construction on adding condo towers to the arena. Not something you just abandon quickly. Location is a big thing too. The way real estate is going and how scarce land is in Vancouver, it makes sense for them to continue putting as much into the arena as possible, as its in the best location possible and if they wanted to build a new one they're never going to find a better spot.

[The_Admiral]

Have they put any money into perking up the facade? Last I saw, it was a big grey box between big grey viaducts.

[Chromatic]

20 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Have they put any money into perking up the facade? Last I saw, it was a big grey box between big grey viaducts.

 

A little bit. Here's an example.

 

Still nothing to write home about but it is an improvement.

Before:

Now:

 

[NeauXone]

If we really are going to start replacing/renovating these current, 20-year old arenas, I request one simple thing.

Don't make them giant glass boxes and nothing else. We can come up with better designs than a simple facade made of only glass. Throw some brick or steel in there, just do something besides murder innocent birds.

[DrAwesomeberry]

2 hours ago, B-Rich said:

 

This is a point I was thinking of the other day.

 

I can't remember the last time I sat in an upper bowl seat for any sporting event in an arena (mainly hockey or basketball).  Today, to me, most of them are essentially worthless, and you're right-- no one wants to buy them, even when a team is doing great or in the playoffs. I've looked at ticket prices for them from the team/Ticketmaster  -- often $10/$15 corners and behind basket, and on secondary markets like StubHub they often go as low as $5.  That's like giving them away.

 

Especially today, with HDTV and free broadcast of almost all home games, unless you are sitting in the lower bowl, it's not worth it at all.

 

Part of it is suite-centered architecture.  In the Smoothie King Center (New Orleans Arena), you've got the lower bowl, then a full concourse with entries at the top of that. Above that, you've got a circle of suites. So the difference between the last seat in the lower bowl and the first seat in the upper bowl is more than 2 stories in height, probably 25-30'.  That's a big jump.

 

Just as an aside, when the Hornets first moved to New Orleans, I and some acquaintances got a pair of season tickets to share. 1st row, mid-court/dead center, upper bowl.  By the end of the 2nd season, we were not satisfied and talked to our ticket rep, who let us try out comparably-priced seats for the playoffs that year. And so for year three, for the same price, we moved to lower bowl seats around row 10, on a corner section in the 1st section off from the sidelines.  Much better, no comparison.

Honestly, for hockey I'd rather be upper bowl behind one of the nets or close to center ice than high up in one of the corners of the lower bowl. When you're at an weird angle that close to the ice vertically, you lose sight of the play in a lot of areas because of the boards so you end up watching the tron for a lot of it. 

 

I'm ALWAYS gonna prefer going to a game to watching it on TV, though. 

[Chromatic]

4 hours ago, DrAwesomeberry said:

Honestly, for hockey I'd rather be upper bowl behind one of the nets or close to center ice than high up in one of the corners of the lower bowl. When you're at an weird angle that close to the ice vertically, you lose sight of the play in a lot of areas because of the boards so you end up watching the tron for a lot of it. 

 

I'm ALWAYS gonna prefer going to a game to watching it on TV, though. 

I remember going to a game and sitting in the lower bowl about 9 rows back from the  net. They were actually the worst seats I'd ever had, including corners in the nosebleeds, because the glass from the boards ended right at eye level with the other end of the rink, so anytime the play was in that zone I was essentially looking at a crappy distorted version.

[RedRenesis]

43 minutes ago, Chromatic said:

I remember going to a game and sitting in the lower bowl about 9 rows back from the  net. They were actually the worst seats I'd ever had, including corners in the nosebleeds, because the glass from the boards ended right at eye level with the other end of the rink, so anytime the play was in that zone I was essentially looking at a crappy distorted version.

 

Completely agree.  I've told people that if you can score tickets within a few rows of the glass, as a one-off it's fun.  Now that I've had that experience, I try for the top of the lower bowl or the club level, for actually watching and following a hockey game, it's significantly better.  

[AnPheitseog]

11 hours ago, RedRenesis said:

 

Completely agree.  I've told people that if you can score tickets within a few rows of the glass, as a one-off it's fun.  Now that I've had that experience, I try for the top of the lower bowl or the club level, for actually watching and following a hockey game, it's significantly better.  

I sat behind the bench once at an AHL game, and the fun part was seeing all of the players up close. 

 

Game view was lacking, but was fun to do once. 

[Sport]

^my favorite seats are a couple rows down from the top of the lower bowl. Better than the TV angle, but the glass doesn't make for any obstructed views. We need someone to invent an invisible forcefield that keeps pucks in the play, is rigid so players can still check, but doesn't create obstructed views.

 

To answer the OP I think we're going to start to see some arenas remove their upper bowls and replace them with that inverted bowl seating that we had a thread about here not too long ago. That would be the most significant undertaking in a renovation. Now that public attitude is more vocally against publicly funded stadia I hope we might actually see more renovation rather than completely new builds and that’s just fine with me.

 

Of the “new” build arenas, I’ve been in Columbus, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Denver, Nashville, and Chicago. Pittsburgh’s is relatively new, but it didn’t feel significantly shinier than Columbus, Cleveland, Denver, or Nashville. The only thing I liked about Pittsburgh better than Nationwide Arena was the upper bowl seats were entered from the top, but it mostly felt like the same experience. I think as long as an arena is in a good location and they update thisses and thats every so often then an arena can last a pretty long time. I’m surprised Philadelphia is talking about a new one so soon.

[JayMac]

4 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 I’m surprised Philadelphia is talking about a new one so soon.

 

AFAIK, it will be series of renovations over the next 3 years. No new arena in the plans.

[crashcarson15]

Columbus has held up really well, to be honest. I’ve been to Philadelphia and Buffalo over the last couple years (both for NCAA tournament basketball, FWIW) and both venues definitely felt more than ~5 years older than Columbus and Indianapolis, for example, which have both held up extremely well.

 

Not sure if it’s because I spent most of my time in media areas or what, but those arenas definitely felt like they needed something to get up to date.

[dfwabel]

2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

^my favorite seats are a couple rows down from the top of the lower bowl. Better than the TV angle, but the glass doesn't make for any obstructed views. We need someone to invent an invisible forcefield that keeps pucks in the play, is rigid so players can still check, but doesn't create obstructed views.

 

To answer the OP I think we're going to start to see some arenas remove their upper bowls and replace them with that inverted bowl seating that we had a thread about here not too long ago. That would be the most significant undertaking in a renovation. Now that public attitude is more vocally against publicly funded stadia I hope we might actually see more renovation rather than completely new builds and that’s just fine with me.

 

Of the “new” build arenas, I’ve been in Columbus, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Denver, Nashville, and Chicago. Pittsburgh’s is relatively new, but it didn’t feel significantly shinier than Columbus, Cleveland, Denver, or Nashville. The only thing I liked about Pittsburgh better than Nationwide Arena was the upper bowl seats were entered from the top, but it mostly felt like the same experience. I think as long as an arena is in a good location and they update thisses and thats every so often then an arena can last a pretty long time. I’m surprised Philadelphia is talking about a new one so soon.

 

While I'm not sure if the inverted bowl* is the solution to many venues, but I was thinking along the similar line that many are planning for the changes in how younger generations (Millennial and Generation Z) congregate.  

 

These venues are changing like hotels are trying to adapt, like Marriott's and Holiday Inn's redesigns in late 2015 in which they got rid of closets and took desks out of rooms because they researched how Millennials use work groups and often aren't unpacking or working in their rooms.  But they both didn't take into account that many companies discourage working in public spaces due to security reasons. 

 

*-Inverted Bowl will partially be used in a Las Vegas (yea, another new Vegas arena), with MSG and Sands building a 360 foot spherical arena. 

 Boxing will likely be the only sport there,no ball/stick sports. 

[Digby]

Another thing I wonder if we might see more of is the development of other arena land. Like Philadelphia put in an entertainment district with a bunch of branded bars near its stadiums a few years back, and while my desire to visit those particular bars is in the negatives, it's a thing. Here in Boston, Jacobs is constructing a pair of massive skyscrapers adjacent to the TD Garden/on the old Boston Garden site (which has been a parking lot for 20 years), and presumably that's going to be a hell of a revenue stream both on gamedays and not. Especially necessary here since lord knows constructing another new arena won't fly for a very long time.

[chcarlson23]

On 3/12/2018 at 12:23 PM, McCarthy said:

^my favorite seats are a couple rows down from the top of the lower bowl. Better than the TV angle, but the glass doesn't make for any obstructed views. We need someone to invent an invisible forcefield that keeps pucks in the play, is rigid so players can still check, but doesn't create obstructed views.

 

The St. Paul Civic Center had clear dasher boards till somewhere in the 90s... The reason they were replaced is the same reason why that clear forcefield idea won't fly... There's no space for advertisements... 

[Gothamite]

On 3/10/2018 at 12:50 PM, ozzyman314 said:

Oh yeah, forgot about MSG for some reason. 

But even that isn’t the original. 

 

Still, I don’t think it’s going anywhere anytime soon. Despite it losing tenents recently because the rent is so ludicrously expensive.

 

There was a plan to knock it down as part of the Penn/Moynihan Station renovations, but unfortunately I think those plans were scrapped. 

[kroywen]

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

There was a plan to knock it down as part of the Penn/Moynihan Station renovations, but unfortunately I think those plans were scrapped. 

 

The Dolans have no desire to relocate MSG, so they'd be forced to move unwillingly by the city if/when that ever occurs. I haven't heard anything about the city trying to relocate MSG in years, though I wouldn't be surprised if it comes up again when MSG's current operating permit is up in 2023 (I believe).

 

As for arena/stadium replacements in general, it seems like the ones with 'fatal flaws' that can't be changed are those that are being replaced after 20-25 years. The Ballpark at Arlington lacks a roof despite being in Texas, the Canadian Tire Centre is in a far-flung suburb that never really developed (in an age where most teams want to be right downtown), the Bradley Center is on way too small a footprint and lacks adequate parking, and Turner Field was in a location seen as undesirable and unprofitable by the Braves (though that one was frankly asinine).

 

Most stadiums and arenas don't have those sort of fatal flaws - terrible location, tiny square footage, etc. - that would cause their replacement. Given the money being poured into a number of 20+ year old venues now - Wells Fargo Center, TD Garden, MSG, Joe Robbie Stadium, etc., all receiving expensive renovations - I don't see most of them going away anytime soon. If nothing else, space in most downtowns is extremely limited, and if a team already has a plot of land there, they're going to be hard pressed to a.) find adequate new land to build upon and b.) build an expensive new arena while c.) having their municipality underwrite most of the cost. It's not realistic at this point.

 

There's a few venues in that 20-30 age range that have fatal flaws that will probably lead to their relatively early demise. The Rogers Center, new Comiskey, and Tropicana were always behind the time, and the Trop is terribly located to boot - I can see those three being replaced within the next 15 years. I can see Marlins Park having a short (less than 30 year) lifespan, not due to anything wrong with the venue or location, but just because the Marlins have perpetually struggled to be profitable in that market, and may throw in the white flag if the new ownership fails to obtain sufficient profits in a decade or so. The same goes for Glendale, on an even worse scale. I'd be surprised if any other venues built since the early-90s shut down in the next 20-30 years, though.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Rather than replacing the Trop, MLB should either contract the Rays or move them.

 

Contraction seems a better idea, TBH. The world doesn't need any more baseball stadiums.