The new W-R - Evanston docs

[Cat Fan in Buckeye Land]

I'm a believer in atmosphere over ticket sales. I think kids would be stoked to play in a full, loud arena as opposed to a cavernous big building with no energy. All this back and forth about how many seats...I don't care, as long as they're all Northwestern fans!

 

[YesterdaysCat]

I still think that a 10,000 seat stadium would be appropriate for a B1G team that wants to be a player in the national scene.

Did you select 10k because it's a pretty number? What's the rationale?

 

[Turk]

I'm not sure if 'seating capacity' will be the same as 'sellout capacity'. With the open concourses, it seems to me that there will be SRO as well if needed. Toss in the suites, etc., and the sellout capacity may very well be 7,800. Toss in another 1200 for service providers and professional staff, TV crews, security, sales, vendors, professional staff, admin, etc. I figure if the total non pay staff was 600 last year, doubling the concessions, etc., may double the non-paid staffers. Thus any future expansion seat capacity couldn't possibly be more than 8,700.


My guess on new arena 7,800 capacity breakdown:
400 suites/luges (top of first and second level).
100 2 rows courtside
6,800 other general seating
500 SRO

At any rate, I saw the plans and the 6,800 figure but maybe that was an estimate on general admission in recognition to parking spots needed?

Bottom line is that more than 8,100 is too many seats if we want to protect the environment, increase the bottom dollar, and enhance the experience. Those advocating 10,000 simply don't know the NU market.

Remember, the purple pricing overpriced several games and underpriced Purdue. This is NU and there just isn't the sorta demand that demands anything more than 8,000 if you raise ticket prices. That said, my understanding is that there is suppose to be a certain level of donation for many seat varieties. The entire lower bowl will most likely have something $500+ premium per year per seat. Tax deductible to swoop in all the givens. But like the parking lots for football, NU has to be careful as well. They overpriced the parking lots as there simply isn't that sorta interest to dictate a $600 value. Unfortunately, half the west lot was empty this year. The demand simply isn't there. This is a pro sports town and the Cubs can't even sell out Wrigley for most games with a season ticket holder base of 15,000.

 

[hdhntr1]

Speaking of comfort, I'm not seeing anything in the way of more or larger rest rooms. That looks like it will remain a problem, even with the small decline in capacity.

There are at least two sets on the upper level

 

[hdhntr1]

I'm not sure if 'seating capacity' will be the same as 'sellout capacity'. With the open concourses, it seems to me that there will be SRO as well if needed. Toss in the suites, etc., and the sellout capacity may very well be 7,800. Toss in another 1200 for service providers and professional staff, TV crews, security, sales, vendors, professional staff, admin, etc. I figure if the total non pay staff was 600 last year, doubling the concessions, etc., may double the non-paid staffers. Thus any future expansion seat capacity couldn't possibly be more than 8,700.


My guess on new arena 7,800 capacity breakdown:
400 suites/luges (top of first and second level).
100 2 rows courtside
6,800 other general seating
500 SRO

At any rate, I saw the plans and the 6,800 figure but maybe that was an estimate on general admission in recognition to parking spots needed?

Bottom line is that more than 8,100 is too many seats if we want to protect the environment, increase the bottom dollar, and enhance the experience. Those advocating 10,000 simply don't know the NU market.

Remember, the purple pricing overpriced several games and underpriced Purdue. This is NU and there just isn't the sorta demand that demands anything more than 8,000 if you raise ticket prices. That said, my understanding is that there is suppose to be a certain level of donation for many seat varieties. The entire lower bowl will most likely have something $500+ premium per year per seat. Tax deductible to swoop in all the givens. But like the parking lots for football, NU has to be careful as well. They overpriced the parking lots as there simply isn't that sorta interest to dictate a $600 value. Unfortunately, half the west lot was empty this year. The demand simply isn't there. This is a pro sports town and the Cubs can't even sell out Wrigley for most games with a season ticket holder base of 15,000.

They should be getting rid of the two rows of courtside seating as it blocks others (unless the other seats are raised so the view is not blocked)

 

[Turk]

There are at least two sets on the upper level

The official documents have doubled the amount of bathrooms. The official release also said explicitly that the number of toilets would be doubled. Each concourse has extra bathrooms. I'm not familiar with the north end but on the south end immediately before entering the NGN club, that whole area will be a brand new bathroom. Not sure what people are talking about when they claim things aren't being done. The concourses look a lot wider on the plans plus the concourses appear to be open in several spots. The old closed-in concrete corridors resembled dungeons I've seen in movies.

 

[Turk]

They should be getting rid of the two rows of courtside seating as it blocks others (unless the other seats are raised so the view is not blocked)

When they installed courtside seating, they removed the lower rows of the purple seats. All purple seats are elevated with nothing on the floor level. And at $4,500 per pop x 80, it brings in about $350,000. I doubt they will be removing them soon. Unfortunately, myself and others may have to subsidize our courtside seats as they may go up in price.

 

[willycat]

I'm not sure if 'seating capacity' will be the same as 'sellout capacity'. With the open concourses, it seems to me that there will be SRO as well if needed. Toss in the suites, etc., and the sellout capacity may very well be 7,800. Toss in another 1200 for service providers and professional staff, TV crews, security, sales, vendors, professional staff, admin, etc. I figure if the total non pay staff was 600 last year, doubling the concessions, etc., may double the non-paid staffers. Thus any future expansion seat capacity couldn't possibly be more than 8,700.


My guess on new arena 7,800 capacity breakdown:
400 suites/luges (top of first and second level).
100 2 rows courtside
6,800 other general seating
500 SRO

At any rate, I saw the plans and the 6,800 figure but maybe that was an estimate on general admission in recognition to parking spots needed?

Bottom line is that more than 8,100 is too many seats if we want to protect the environment, increase the bottom dollar, and enhance the experience. Those advocating 10,000 simply don't know the NU market.

Remember, the purple pricing overpriced several games and underpriced Purdue. This is NU and there just isn't the sorta demand that demands anything more than 8,000 if you raise ticket prices. That said, my understanding is that there is suppose to be a certain level of donation for many seat varieties. The entire lower bowl will most likely have something $500+ premium per year per seat. Tax deductible to swoop in all the givens. But like the parking lots for football, NU has to be careful as well. They overpriced the parking lots as there simply isn't that sorta interest to dictate a $600 value. Unfortunately, half the west lot was empty this year. The demand simply isn't there. This is a pro sports town and the Cubs can't even sell out Wrigley for most games with a season ticket holder base of 15,000.

Nu used to draw nearly 10,000 for lots of games in old McGaw Hall, where they played top programs, including Kansas and Kentucky. They also sold our or nearly sold out the 8,100 old W-R on numerous occasions last season and I'm afraid 6,800 seats are at least at two to three thousand seats to few for a contending Big Ten contender. Also Turk, the Cubs played to 90% capacity for almost every game last season. Looking forward to seeing you at the games.

 

[Turk]

Nu used to draw nearly 10,000 for lots of games in old McGaw Hall, where they played top programs, including Kansas and Kentucky. They also sold our or nearly sold out the 8,100 old W-R on numerous occasions last season and I'm afraid 6,800 seats are at least at two to three thousand seats to few for a contending Big Ten contender. Also Turk, the Cubs played to 90% capacity for almost every game last season. Looking forward to seeing you at the games.

What I'm saying is that I'm assuming NU wants to have more control over pricing, i.e., supply and demand. The purple pricing actually couldn't get the demand level up for 2 games. One of which was Illinois. The whole idea of limiting the seats is to place a greater value on the product. One that is sustainable. No more $30 tickets Willy for Bigten games.
As far as the Cubs, they limit the amount of STH. In doing so, they were able to thoroughly increase the STH cost. Of course, the price was so high that they could never sell out their infield club seats or bullpen infield seats. So they used Cubbie pricing which is a sliding price depending upon game. I picked up 20 games with infield club seats sitting within the first 10 rows of the field.

Due to the secondary market, sports teams were losing revenue with STH. Thus the cubs signed a deal with Stubhub and floods Stubhub with thousands of tickets. Even after single game sales didn't sell out [due to the very high cost of tickets] the Cubs had to release 2,000 more tickets on stubhub for great games like the Yankees, etc.

It's a brilliant plan. I mean the cubs were charging over $200 for most lower bowl seats and close to $300 and still almost hit its metric. So the new seats on Stubhub have decreased value and aren't bad deals however Stubhub raised its fees for MLB after the agreement in order to pay the teams an additional 10% on each sale.

This effectively has cut out the secondary market in my opinion other than prime seats.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

What I'm saying is that I'm assuming NU wants to have more control over pricing, i.e., supply and demand. The purple pricing actually couldn't get the demand level up for 2 games. One of which was Illinois. The whole idea of limiting the seats is to place a greater value on the product. One that is sustainable. No more $30 tickets Willy for Bigten games.

Turk, the ONLY reason why seats are being reduced is because the same building footprint is being used. Obviously, if you replace bleachers with full comfortable seats (without increasing the total footprint of the building) fewer total seats will fit in. Right?

Just like if you convert all seats in a plane to first class, obviously there will be fewer total seats, since a first-class seat occupies more space (fewer passengers). Of course if you move up to a bigger plane size, then you may have all first-class seats and still fit the original number of passengers. Right?

 

[Turk]

Turk, the ONLY reason why seats are being reduced is because the same building footprint is being used. Obviously, if you replace bleachers with full comfortable seats (without increasing the total footprint of the building) fewer total seats will fit in. Right?

Just like if you convert all seats in a plane to first class, obviously there will be fewer total seats, since a first-class seat occupies more space (fewer passengers). Of course if you move up to a bigger plane size, then you may have all first-class seats and still fit the original number of passengers. Right?

yea but aren't they basically just keeping the shell and otherwise just doing a tear down? Seems like a pretty cheap price tag and a good deal for a cozy Lair. Seems like they can have a lot more control. With 3400 season ticket holder accounts, it gives them a chance to raise ticket prices and fill all of the seats without seeking new season ticket holders. Prolly raise it just enough to fill the place. Assuming they have to leave some ticket stock for the opposing team, I'm guessing the current season ticket holders will satisfy the remaining seats available. Instead of $280 per seat, it will prolly look more like $400. Easily making up the cost of losing 1,000 seats.

 

[Bwm57]

Did you select 10k because it's a pretty number? What's the rationale?

Yes, to some extent it's simply a round number.
Do I think 9500 would be fine, yes.
Do I think 10,500 would be fine, yes.
There's no magic to the 10,000, but it fits in with the size of the newer stadiums constructed for schools who are national players and are not huge state schools.
I'm probably also reflecting back a bit on the rebuild of Soldier Field, when they also inexplicably decreased the number of seats.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

yea but aren't they basically just keeping the shell and otherwise just doing a tear down? Seems like a pretty cheap price tag and a good deal for a cozy Lair.

Turk, please learn about the brand new DP arena, and see how DP managed to get a 10K-seat state-of-the-art arena with a total out of pocket investment of $70MM (of which they recovered over $20MM for 15-year naming rights). Of course a smaller arena would have costed less.

You seem confused. NU eliminates seats, so that it can raise the ticket prices, so that it can raise as much revenue as NU would with the original number of seats???

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Sorry.

In principle, for a given amount of revenue, a larger crowd is better (more exposure, publicity, etc). Opposing fans are OK, provided locals still outnumber them by a significant margin (say 2-to-1, which should be enough to get the HF advantage, amounting to a basket or 2).

 

[Turk]

Turk, please learn about the brand new DP arena, and see how DP managed to get a 10K-seat state-of-the-art arena with a total out of pocket investment of $70MM (of which they recovered over $20MM for 15-year naming rights). Of course a smaller arena would have costed less.

You seem confused. NU eliminates seats, so that it can raise the ticket prices, so that it can raise as much revenue as NU would with the original number of seats???

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Sorry.

In principle, for a given amount of revenue, a larger crowd is better (more exposure, publicity, etc). Opposing fans are OK, provided locals still outnumber them by a significant margin (say 2-to-1, which should be enough to get the HF advantage, amounting to a basket or 2).

It's not all about the revenue but, yes, at least as much as last year. There will be NO disadvantage of revenue with this new arena. And who knows if the city of Evanston would have allowed a new arena. I mean where would you put a 10,000 seat arena? Certainly not on Ashland. Too many problems.

We just disagree Felis.

The reality is that it's all about the fan base. Your positoin seems to be that we could somehow fill 10,000 seats, right?

Honestly, we simply don't have a fan base that dictates a 10,000 seat arena. If so, then I'm sure Phillips and the NU trustees are smart enough to figure that out.
Even when we were doing really great this year, NU couldn't compete with the walk up sales at the curb which were selling tickets for the Michigan game for $10, and stubhub brokers lowered their prices to around $20. Why? Because of demand. There is little demand to suggest 10,000 seats. And NU peeps really aren't the rabid sports fans of Michigan, Iowa, etc. They want to come to a game and pay no more than $20. Sports isn't a huge part of their white collar lives, so it seems to me. At least not enough to dictate what you are suggesting.

Michigan did end up selling out this year but you guys keep talking about a 10,000 arena and your witness is that we sold out 3 games this year. Really? 3 times?

First off, Indiana always sells out. Second off, we won 24 games this year and if we had a great fan base then it would have naturally followed that we would have had more than 3 sellouts. Look, we aren't a final four team like some are now saying, and who knows when 24 wins will come again. We are a good ballclub that I presume will go to the NCAA yearly now but even that isn't a given. But, certainly, with irrefutable evidence, this program simply will not fill up a 10,000 seat arena regularly due to fan base of a small school, location, and in a big pro sports town. Again, if it did, then you would have a 10,000 seat arena, somewhere if not on Ashland.

At any rate, your opinion will be on full display next year. The All State arena seats 19,000. Without any doubt, they will close off the whole upper level for the awful OOC games we schedule [MVSU, etc]. With great access to all highways, my guess is that the Cats average 10,000 per Big Ten game PROVIDED ticket prices are $30 or under. That prolly includes a sellout if Indiana comes to town. Other games should have face value placed at no more than $10 if you want to put in a nice crowd at ALLSTATE.

 

[catfans5]

Turk, please, read and consider the arguments that have been given. I have already answered your arguments, but you just ignore the answers and repeat the same arguments.

1) If a small arena was chosen, $110MM was enough to build a BRAND NEW STATE-OF-THE-ART arena. DP's arena costs $173MM for 10K seats (and they even had to buy land). Do simple math. A BRAND NEW small 6,500-seat would cost about $110MM. About as much money as NU is spending to renovate a 64-y.o. building. NO EXCUSE to burn $110MM in renovations when for about the same money NU can get a BRAND NEW arena of about the same size as the renovated one. Right???
Can you PLEASE read the above paragraph and ponder it before any further reply?

2) Fan base depends on the competitiveness of the team. This season with only the SIXTH best B1G team NU filled a 8,117-seat arena multiple times. It went well over 7,000 many other times. Obvious that with a B1G contending team attendance would have been larger. How much larger? Just say 20% larger, as an example. That's already about 9,700 fans (do the math). OBVIOUS that a 10K-seat arena is appropriate. And even if NU doesn't sell every single seat, so what. 8,117 is already 81% of a 10K arena. Just a 10% increase is about 9,000 or 90% of a 10K arena. That'D be a virtual sell out.

3) An arena is a multipurpose building. A 10K-seat arena can be rented out for major events (concerts, political events, etc., etc.). McGaw Hall was. That can also help pay for the extra cost of making it a bit larger. The original capacity of McGaw was 9,500.

4) The foot-print of a 10K-seat arena is not necessarily much larger than the current one. Remember the new arena might be taller. But NU has a lot of land around the current arena. Some parking space may be used and replaced with an underground garage, the baseball/softball field could be "merged" into a multiuse facility (they exist) to save land, etc., etc. Space is NOT the problem here.

You can make your points and ignore logical and reasonable comments until you are purple in the face. You and others on the larger arena are just wrong. Your comparison to Depaul is faulty at best. Depaul is the largest catholic university in the country with about 16,000 undergraduates who the vast majority are from the Chicago area and remain in the Chicago after graduation. You also never take into account what role Evanston may have in limiting expansion and/or use for other events

You and others espouse this large arena, but how many tickets will you buy? Turk is correct that the ticket base is just not that large to justify a larger arena. I base my opinion on actual attendance at games, non-conference and conference games.

 

[Turk]

Turk, please learn about the brand new DP arena, and see how DP managed to get a 10K-seat state-of-the-art arena with a total out of pocket investment of $70MM (of which they recovered over $20MM for 15-year naming rights). Of course a smaller arena would have costed less.

You seem confused. NU eliminates seats, so that it can raise the ticket prices, so that it can raise as much revenue as NU would with the original number of seats???

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Sorry.

In principle, for a given amount of revenue, a larger crowd is better (more exposure, publicity, etc). Opposing fans are OK, provided locals still outnumber them by a significant margin (say 2-to-1, which should be enough to get the HF advantage, amounting to a basket or 2).

I see your point but it may be that any new facility would take an extended delay as well and not be ready for the 2018 season. Moreover, the only thing remaining with the "Old" W/R is the shell. I mean, not even the shell's cosmetics [rock, bricks, etc] just the beams it seems. The whole inside is gutted or will be. The outside is getting completely ripped down as we speak. Basically the only thing that will stay is the beams and core structural support items. Am I missing something? And by the looks of the drawings, I'll give credit to the designer because the arena not only looks and will be new but it actually looks incredible and will put our arena in the "Top" spots of most wonderful Big10 Arenas to visit.

So the idea that one wants a "Brand New Arena" vs "Updating W/R" isn't the reality of the situation. W/R is going to be completely new for all intents and purposes. I'm not a structural engineer or a permit attorney but my guess is that they may be able to cut through some red tape as well if they claim this is just a renovation as opposed to a new facility. Maybe they save a lot of money.

The only thing that I agree with you on regarding DP is that it would have been nice to get some public monies, or so it would seem. But maybe NU wanted complete control and since the Ryan's and Wilson's and others had their back, NU had the ability to keep this facility as a private one. So I guess beer sales is out of the question still.

 

[willycat]

I see your point but it may be that any new facility would take an extended delay as well and not be ready for the 2018 season. Moreover, the only thing remaining with the "Old" W/R is the shell. I mean, not even the shell's cosmetics [rock, bricks, etc] just the beams it seems. The whole inside is gutted or will be. The outside is getting completely ripped down as we speak. Basically the only thing that will stay is the beams and core structural support items. Am I missing something? And by the looks of the drawings, I'll give credit to the designer because the arena not only looks and will be new but it actually looks incredible and will put our arena in the "Top" spots of most wonderful Big10 Arenas to visit.

So the idea that one wants a "Brand New Arena" vs "Updating W/R" isn't the reality of the situation. W/R is going to be completely new for all intents and purposes. I'm not a structural engineer or a permit attorney but my guess is that they may be able to cut through some red tape as well if they claim this is just a renovation as opposed to a new facility. Maybe they save a lot of money.

The only thing that I agree with you on regarding DP is that it would have been nice to get some public monies, or so it would seem. But maybe NU wanted complete control and since the Ryan's and Wilson's and others had their back, NU had the ability to keep this facility as a private one. So I guess beer sales is out of the question still.

You may be right that it will be a top arena for others to visit but where will they sit?

 

[gocatsgo2003]

You may be right that it will be a top arena for others to visit but where will they sit?

Hopefully in front of their televisions because the place is packed with NU fans.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Basically the only thing that will stay is the beams and core structural support items. Am I missing something?.

Has anyone with technical knowledge of the project confirmed that only the structural elements would be kept? The NU press release would have made a point of saying that, I would assume.

Anyway, that would actually make the decision even more puzzling. Keeping whatever they are keeping isn't saving any money (projecting down from DP facility). Why not just remove those elements and ask the architects to design the nicest possible state-of-the-art facility they can (for the given money) working on a completely clean slate?

A new arena may have taken longer. But the benefits of having a brand new state-of-the-art facility should outweigh the inconvenience of an additional year playing off campus.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Has anyone with technical knowledge of the project confirmed that only the structural elements would be kept? The NU press release would have made a point of saying that, I would assume.

Anyway, that would actually make the decision even more puzzling. Keeping whatever they are keeping isn't saving any money (projecting down from DP facility). Why not just remove those elements and ask the architects to design the nicest possible state-of-the-art facility they can (for the given money) working on a completely clean slate?

A new arena may have taken longer. But the benefits of having a brand new state-of-the-art facility should outweigh the inconvenience of an additional year playing off campus.

Permitting issues. Timeline issues. Any number of potential issues about which you have no clue, but I suppose that's never really stopped you before.

PS -- we will have a "new, state-of-the-art facility" after the renovations are done. To wit, that's literally the phrase included in the official releases. If you prefer, you can use Collins' descriptor of the renovations as a "game changer:"
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/february/trienens-performance-center/

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Permitting issues. Timeline issues. Any number of potential issues about which you have no clue, but I suppose that's never really stopped you before.

The timeline has been addressed. Brand-new/SOTA trumps an additional year of inconvenience. De Paul could solve all permit and technical issues without difficulties. See no reason why NU wouldn't. I am not going to assume that the City of Evanston somehow would have preferred keeping a non-historic 64-y.o. building over a brand new facility at the same site. Having the brand new arena would also be good for the city, and could lead to major events coming to EV, which may also help public revenue.

They are working under the constraints imposed on them by whatever they are keeping from 64-y.o building (which isn't saving any significant amount of money). Cannot possibly be as nice as a SOTA facility designed from scratch, with money as the only constraint.

 

[NJCat]

Has anyone with technical knowledge of the project confirmed that only the structural elements would be kept? The NU press release would have made a point of saying that, I would assume.

Check out the Preliminary Design Review document.

https://www.cityofevanston.org/home/showdocument?id=4100

The interior will be completely gutted and rebuilt. The North and South facades will remain, but the East and West sides will be new with windows in both. There will be new stairwells at the four corners of the building. Nothing is mentioned about the roof.

 

[willycat]

Permitting issues. Timeline issues. Any number of potential issues about which you have no clue, but I suppose that's never really stopped you before.

PS -- we will have a "new, state-of-the-art facility" after the renovations are done. To wit, that's literally the phrase included in the official releases. If you prefer, you can use Collins' descriptor of the renovations as a "game changer:"
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/february/trienens-performance-center/

Guess this is what the NU faithful will settle for. As you and others know I will continue to think the size of the arena is to small. I would think that it will need to be replaced/re-done within 15 to 20 years when NU is competing for championships, playing against the "blue bloods" of basketball and predicted crowds of 10,000 plus will be needed.

 

[willycat]

Check out the Preliminary Design Review document.

https://www.cityofevanston.org/home/showdocument?id=4100

The interior will be completely gutted and rebuilt. The North and South facades will remain, but the East and West sides will be new with windows in both. There will be new stairwells at the four corners of the building. Nothing is mentioned about the roof.

A bar? Oh, forgot this is Evanston.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

The timeline has been addressed. Brand-new/SOTA trumps an additional year of inconvenience. De Paul could solve all permit and technical issues without difficulties. See no reason why NU wouldn't. I am not going to assume that the City of Evanston somehow would have preferred keeping a non-historic 64-y.o. building over a brand new facility at the same site. Having the brand new arena would also be good for the city, and could lead to major events coming to EV, which may also help public revenue.

They are working under the constraints imposed on them by whatever they are keeping from 64-y.o building (which isn't saving any significant amount of money). Cannot possibly be as nice as a SOTA facility designed from scratch, with money as the only constraint.

Annnddddd I'm done with you on this topic. You've made your points. A lot of times. Repetition does not strengthen said points.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Guess this is what the NU faithful will settle for. As you and others know I will continue to think the size of the arena is to small. I would think that it will need to be replaced/re-done within 15 to 20 years when NU is competing for championships, playing against the "blue bloods" of basketball and predicted crowds of 10,000 plus will be needed.

REAL FANS WANT IT MORE!!!!

 

[Turk]

The timeline has been addressed. Brand-new/SOTA trumps an additional year of inconvenience. De Paul could solve all permit and technical issues without difficulties. See no reason why NU wouldn't. I am not going to assume that the City of Evanston somehow would have preferred keeping a non-historic 64-y.o. building over a brand new facility at the same site. Having the brand new arena would also be good for the city, and could lead to major events coming to EV, which may also help public revenue.

They are working under the constraints imposed on them by whatever they are keeping from 64-y.o building (which isn't saving any significant amount of money). Cannot possibly be as nice as a SOTA facility designed from scratch, with money as the only constraint.

If we can agree that the only thing remaining from the old facility will be the foundation and outer beams or structural items, and that everything else is brand new and state of the art, then the only thing that is preventing you from recognizing this as a brand new arena is the beams and foundation, right? I mean if you could get beyond that, then is it safe to say that you would consider this as a brand new state of the art arena, and our only dispute would then be that you wanted more seats?

Again, I'm not a permit attorney but I gotta think there would have to be new environmental checkoffs, etc if they rip out the foundation and literally scrap the entire building. Just seems logical to keep the foundation and structural elements if one already knows that the location and dimensions are still going to be the same. And, is it safe to assume that you felt the same way about Soldier Field? Didn't the City of Chicago say that it was more feasible to keep the shell and build a brand new facility within the old shell? I had mixed emotions about it since I would have liked to at least see a retractable roof but at any rate, the city of Chicago saw fit to keep the old soldier field shell, just like NU. I'm thinking there is some logic and $$ and environmental, historical, strategy to keeping the shell.

 

[Medill90]

And, is it safe to assume that you felt the same way about Soldier Field? Didn't the City of Chicago say that it was more feasible to keep the shell and build a brand new facility within the old shell? I had mixed emotions about it since I would have liked to at least see a retractable roof but at any rate, the city of Chicago saw fit to keep the old soldier field shell, just like NU. I'm thinking there is some logic and $$ and environmental, historical, strategy to keeping the shell.

Good to see your name on the board Turk.

I think the issue with Soldier Field was that at some point it was identified as a historically significant building. It's not, but it was annointed as such.

And then hizzoner believed that his architectural opinion had merit and wanted to keep the building. So, they stuck a really bad modern stadium in a really bad early 20th century field house.

But I agree completely with your point. It's a brand new building that leverages some remnants of the old WR super structure.

A couple architects frequent this board and may know better...

 

[Mr Wickerpark]

If we can agree that the only thing remaining from the old facility will be the foundation and outer beams or structural items, and that everything else is brand new and state of the art, then the only thing that is preventing you from recognizing this as a brand new arena is the beams and foundation, right? I mean if you could get beyond that, then is it safe to say that you would consider this as a brand new state of the art arena, and our only dispute would then be that you wanted more seats?

Again, I'm not a permit attorney but I gotta think there would have to be new environmental checkoffs, etc if they rip out the foundation and literally scrap the entire building. Just seems logical to keep the foundation and structural elements if one already knows that the location and dimensions are still going to be the same. And, is it safe to assume that you felt the same way about Soldier Field? Didn't the City of Chicago say that it was more feasible to keep the shell and build a brand new facility within the old shell? I had mixed emotions about it since I would have liked to at least see a retractable roof but at any rate, the city of Chicago saw fit to keep the old soldier field shell, just like NU. I'm thinking there is some logic and $$ and environmental, historical, strategy to keeping the shell.

You still havent addressed felis' points.
No, it isnt going to be brand new. Felis is right again. Look at the documents and it clearly says that this is just a renovation. DP did it right. I am glad that we are updating the facility but there are valid points that require the 10,000 seats.

 

[Styre]

I think the issue with Soldier Field was that at some point it was identified as a historically significant building. It's not, but it was annointed as such.

And then hizzoner believed that his architectural opinion had merit and wanted to keep the building. So, they stuck a really bad modern stadium in a really bad early 20th century field house.

It wasn't the mayor's opinion - the old Soldier Field was designated a National Historic Landmark, the highest honor that the National Park Service can bestow upon a building. They kept the shell in an attempt to preserve that status and to avoid the negative publicity that would result from bulldozing it. Naturally, they lost the landmark status and got a bunch of negative publicity anyway.

 

[Medill90]

It wasn't the mayor's opinion - the old Soldier Field was designated a National Historic Landmark, the highest honor that the National Park Service can bestow upon a building. They kept the shell in an attempt to preserve that status and to avoid the negative publicity that would result from bulldozing it. Naturally, they lost the landmark status and got a bunch of negative publicity anyway.

My point is that SF was none of: national; historic; or architecturally significant. The "Soldier" was slapped on post construction as an after thought. Over zealousness got the designation and it could have been over turned.

Daley was wrong about putting money into Soldier Field.

Wrong about the location for the new football stadium.

Wrong to put tax payers on the hook for its cost.

 

[willycat]

It wasn't the mayor's opinion - the old Soldier Field was designated a National Historic Landmark, the highest honor that the National Park Service can bestow upon a building. They kept the shell in an attempt to preserve that status and to avoid the negative publicity that would result from bulldozing it. Naturally, they lost the landmark status and got a bunch of negative publicity anyway.

It was discussed that they could have keep the historical shell and made the interior festival site , not unlike the Milwaukee spot by the lake. I think the Halas family had something to do with putting the horrible modern interior field.

 

[willycat]

Good to see your name on the board Turk.

I think the issue with Soldier Field was that at some point it was identified as a historically significant building. It's not, but it was annointed as such.

And then hizzoner believed that his architectural opinion had merit and wanted to keep the building. So, they stuck a really bad modern stadium in a really bad early 20th century field house.

But I agree completely with your point. It's a brand new building that leverages some remnants of the old WR super structure.

A couple architects frequent this board and may know better...

Soldier Field is now correctly identified as the mistake by the lake. Hope NU is not building another in Evanston.

 

[rwhitney014]

Soldier Field is now correctly identified as the mistake by the lake. Hope NU is now building another in Evanston.

You hope?

 

[NJCat]

You hope?

I hope it was a typo, "now" is really "not".......

 

[T_Levine]

The tribune article from the June announcement listed a source saying approx 7500 seats. Keep in mind the new layout looks to have room for standing room only. So we may be able to put 7500-8000 people in there.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

So we may be able to put 7500-8000 people in there.

I doubt it. The required number of parking spots is determined (as you would expect) by the number of people inside the building. For this purpose, it matters little whether they are sitting or standing. The number used to verify that there were sufficient parking spots was 6800, because that is the maximum expected attendance, per the official documents submitted to the city for approval.

Packing people inside would raise great concerns with respect to emergency exit (fire, terrorism, etc). The way to fit more people is to design the arena from the ground up for higher capacity. Like the new De Paul arena.

 

[NJCat]

I doubt it. The required number of parking spots is determined (as you would expect) by the number of people inside the building. For this purpose, it matters little whether they are sitting or standing. The number used to verify that there were sufficient parking spots was 6800, because that is the maximum expected attendance, per the official documents submitted to the city for approval.

Packing people inside would raise great concerns with respect to emergency exit (fire, terrorism, etc). The way to fit more people is to design the arena from the ground up for higher capacity. Like the new De Paul arena.

Actually, the maximum is given as in excess of 9,000 people since they already have that many parking spots. It is clearly shown in the potion of the application you posted in a separate thread. NU obviously has enough parking for at least 8,117 since that is the capacity of the old arena! No parking spots are being destroyed by the redo.

 

[rwhitney014]

Actually, the maximum is given as in excess of 9,000 people since they already have that many parking spots. It is clearly shown in the potion of the application you posted in a separate thread. NU obviously has enough parking for at least 8,117 since that is the capacity of the old arena! No parking spots are being destroyed by the redo.

Classic.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Actually, the maximum is given as in excess of 9,000 people since they already have that many parking spots. It is clearly shown in the potion of the application you posted in a separate thread. NU obviously has enough parking for at least 8,117 since that is the capacity of the old arena! No parking spots are being destroyed by the redo.

Read it again. You totally MISUNDERSTOOD.
NU can have one million parking spots. That is NOT what matters.

The city officer used the number 6,800 to VERIFY COMPLIANCE with the parking regulation, because according to the official project documents the expected number of attendees is 6,800. If there was a SRO area that would hold, say 1000 additional attendees, then he would have used 6,800+1,000=7,800 to verify that there were enough parking spaces (780 in this example).