Shooter: Minnesota, conceptually, has considered either renovating Williams Arena or building a new arena in the parking lots north of arena

Donate To GopherHole

Hates Monikers said:
With the renovation, Mariucci is now 200 x 100 and the Kohl Center is 200 x 97 (they're now renovating that to shorten it). Somehow, the Badgers make it work.

Since the Kohl Center is used for both hockey and basketball permanently, it's entirely possible the stands and other equipment needed to make it work well are different than what the U might use for one or two seasons -- or a four-day state tournament. But this can be done.
Click to expand...
Kohl was built as a multiple purpose arena so it is not apples and oranges. And it is not primary for hockey as hockey used to get booted to the Dane for the WCHA playoffs because of other events. (I think Volleyball playoffs kicked it out once)

Mariucci has the capacity for other events but it is a hockey arena and was built with that in mind. I would bet there are much better places for the Gophers to play if there is any renovations done.
 



disco said:
He's not exactly wrong.
Click to expand...
1. The discussion waa about raising funds, not about "a younger fanbase."

2. Dylan still sells out concerts, which refutes your point.

He isn't just wrong, he's arguing a point nobody made.
 


Dave H said:
Kohl was built as a multiple purpose arena so it is not apples and oranges. And it is not primary for hockey as hockey used to get booted to the Dane for the WCHA playoffs because of other events. (I think Volleyball playoffs kicked it out once)

Mariucci has the capacity for other events but it is a hockey arena and was built with that in mind. I would bet there are much better places for the Gophers to play if there is any renovations done.
Click to expand...
But probably not many better places where they 1) wouldn't have to pay rent, 2) could benefit from concession sales, 3) charge for parking (I know the athletic department doesn't receive that) and bring people to the U campus.
 

MplsGopher said:
Moody is the arena for Austin. It's Austin's main arena. UT is right downtown. There is no other major arena for Austin.

I mean, you can't possibly compare that to the Twin Cities??

Target and Xcel are never going away, now. They make too money money for too many people. They draw people to the respective downtowns. I could possibly see losing an anchor tenant, like the Twolves, but they'd still keep the arena. They wouldn't demolish it. Too big a draw.
Click to expand...
Maybe the City of Minneapolis would still keep Target Center if the Wolves/Lynx left but losing such anchor tenants with their 60-75 dates, I'm not sure.

If the land is more attractive to develop into some other use like the Twins are doing across the street from Target Field, I could see it being demolished.
 

AO54 said:
So you build a bigger lobby with more concessions and bathrooms, that has zero to do with needing a whole new arena. It also doesn't take a new arena or even a renovated lobby to switch out concessions if the food isn't currently what you're looking for. The new arena would lack all of the history that Williams has and would certainly not have the overhangs that Williams has meaning the fans would be farther away from the action. That's an amenity lost, not gained.
Click to expand...
Building a bigger lobby does squat for those in the upper deck at Williams Arena which as no elevator/escalator, no bathrooms nor concessions.
 

USAF said:
LOL.
Dylan toured this fall and the entire tour sold out within hours. He actually added shows due to demand.
Reviews were universally great.

A Dylan concert at Huntington Bank would be huge. It would absolutely make money.
Click to expand...
He played at venues like The Riverside Theater in Milwaukee. Capacity less than 2,500. The Cadillac Palace in Chicago, capacity less than 2,400. The Fillmore in Philly (one show), can sometimes push 3,000 capacity. The Beacon Theater NYC (one show), less than 3,000.

etc. etc. etc.
 




USAF said:
Nice strawman.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a strawman, it was poking fun (i.e. making a joke) at the fact that we have a ridiculously old fanbase for our three main sports which is often brought up when discussing the games and atmosphere. I doubt many people under the age of 50 are getting a tingle up their legs thinking about seeing Bob Dylan in concert ;)

I would have zero issue if Mr. Zimmerman decided to perform at The Bank though I wouldn't go.

The only real point I made was in a previous post that just because Bobby is from Minnesota and spent a little time at the U doesn't mean he has any tie to the school. Hell Ric Flair went to the U too he spends most of his time cheering for Michigan.
 

Hates Monikers said:
But probably not many better places where they 1) wouldn't have to pay rent, 2) could benefit from concession sales, 3) charge for parking (I know the athletic department doesn't receive that) and bring people to the U campus.
Click to expand...
Possible...but it would be a scheduling nightmare even if the arena was a perfect fit. I think that would be a hard sell but I agree options might be limited when it comes to cost.

How long would a renovation take do we figure?
 




Dave H said:
Kohl was built as a multiple purpose arena so it is not apples and oranges. And it is not primary for hockey as hockey used to get booted to the Dane for the WCHA playoffs because of other events. (I think Volleyball playoffs kicked it out once)

Mariucci has the capacity for other events but it is a hockey arena and was built with that in mind. I would bet there are much better places for the Gophers to play if there is any renovations done.
Click to expand...
Yup. There is a significant amount of design and infrastructure to make that work effectively.

 

I have been there for hockey our seats about halfway up from the glass were great but I cant imagine sitting in the upper levels is much fun...
 



Dave H said:
Kohl was built as a multiple purpose arena so it is not apples and oranges. And it is not primary for hockey as hockey used to get booted to the Dane for the WCHA playoffs because of other events. (I think Volleyball playoffs kicked it out once)

Mariucci has the capacity for other events but it is a hockey arena and was built with that in mind. I would bet there are much better places for the Gophers to play if there is any renovations done.
Click to expand...
Compared to Williams Arena the Kohl Center is a horseshit basketball venue.
 

This is one of the best threads I've read on any subject in a long time.


Although it ostensibly applies to MLB stadiums, the same is true at a smaller scale of basketball arenas. A joy of watching a game at Williams Arena is its intimacy and closeness, and that's what I fear will be lost with a new facility. I'd mentioned I'm not sure I trust contemporary architects to get this right, and much of what I'm talking about is a right size. Modern arenas are more spacious than they really need to be, and like the baseball facilities, new designs unnecessarily take fans further away from the game. Modern engineers and designers don't know how to right size for intimacy and to a human scale.

I feel like a key question anyone needs to answer when they do an improvement is, what are we trying to accomplish; what problem(s) are we trying to solve? I think most would agree that the seating area of Williams is sufficient for the most part, except there should be no reason we can't all have seatbacks. The main functional deficits are in the common areas.
 

Bad Gopher said:
This is one of the best threads I've read on any subject in a long time.


Although it ostensibly applies to MLB stadiums, the same is true at a smaller scale of basketball arenas. A joy of watching a game at Williams Arena is its intimacy and closeness, and that's what I fear will be lost with a new facility. I'd mentioned I'm not sure I trust contemporary architects to get this right, and much of what I'm talking about is a right size. Modern arenas are more spacious than they really need to be, and like the baseball facilities, new designs unnecessarily take fans further away from the game. Modern engineers and designers don't know how to right size for intimacy and to a human scale.

I feel like a key question anyone needs to answer when they do an improvement is, what are we trying to accomplish; what problem(s) are we trying to solve? I think most would agree that the seating area of Williams is sufficient for the most part, except there should be no reason we can't all have seatbacks. The main functional deficits are in the common areas.
Click to expand...
The problems.

Lack of values suites and revenue
Lack of accessibility
Obstructed seat from seeing the scoreboard
Lack of valued courtside seats
Love the raised floor but it's dangerous and not needed.
Loose Rims ;)
Too big. 4,000 seats should be cut out.
 

Bad Gopher said:
This is one of the best threads I've read on any subject in a long time.


Although it ostensibly applies to MLB stadiums, the same is true at a smaller scale of basketball arenas. A joy of watching a game at Williams Arena is its intimacy and closeness, and that's what I fear will be lost with a new facility. I'd mentioned I'm not sure I trust contemporary architects to get this right, and much of what I'm talking about is a right size. Modern arenas are more spacious than they really need to be, and like the baseball facilities, new designs unnecessarily take fans further away from the game. Modern engineers and designers don't know how to right size for intimacy and to a human scale.

I feel like a key question anyone needs to answer when they do an improvement is, what are we trying to accomplish; what problem(s) are we trying to solve? I think most would agree that the seating area of Williams is sufficient for the most part, except there should be no reason we can't all have seatbacks. The main functional deficits are in the common areas.
Click to expand...
For me, it would be some further upgrades to the concourse, eliminating the obstructions, and reconfiguring the seating including all seat backs (maybe not in the student section since they pretty much stand the whole game). Also a rethinking of the suites set up. I think eliminating the obstructions would help with the viewing? I don't know what the lockerrooms are like, but any desired upgrades there as well. The team has everything else they need at the Village.
 

Bad Gopher said:
This is one of the best threads I've read on any subject in a long time.


Although it ostensibly applies to MLB stadiums, the same is true at a smaller scale of basketball arenas. A joy of watching a game at Williams Arena is its intimacy and closeness, and that's what I fear will be lost with a new facility. I'd mentioned I'm not sure I trust contemporary architects to get this right, and much of what I'm talking about is a right size. Modern arenas are more spacious than they really need to be, and like the baseball facilities, new designs unnecessarily take fans further away from the game. Modern engineers and designers don't know how to right size for intimacy and to a human scale.

I feel like a key question anyone needs to answer when they do an improvement is, what are we trying to accomplish; what problem(s) are we trying to solve? I think most would agree that the seating area of Williams is sufficient for the most part, except there should be no reason we can't all have seatbacks. The main functional deficits are in the common areas.
Click to expand...
Twins nailed it with Target Field, and the U nailed it with the Bank and Mariucci from a fan viewing experience. I tend to move around at those venues and have never felt far away at all.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Twins nailed it with Target Field, and the U nailed it with the Bank and Mariucci from a fan viewing experience. I tend to move around at those venues and have never felt far away at all.
Click to expand...
The Twins had the "problem" of only having a postage-stamp size plot of land to work with. In my engineering profession, I've found that our people do their best work under constrained circumstances and in tight spaces. Maybe the key is to impose an artifical constraint or a performance spec of how close fans should be to the floor.
 

Bad Gopher said:
The Twins had the "problem" of only having a postage-stamp size plot of land to work with. In my engineering profession, I've found that our people do their best work under constrained circumstances and in tight spaces. Maybe the key is to impose an artifical constraint or a performance spec of how close fans should be to the floor.
Click to expand...
Problem or opportunity? ;)
 

MaxyJR1 said:
The problems.

Lack of values suites and revenue
Lack of accessibility
Obstructed seat from seeing the scoreboard
Lack of valued courtside seats
Love the raised floor but it's dangerous and not needed.
Loose Rims ;)
Too big. 4,000 seats should be cut out.
Click to expand...
I had to re-read this. At first I thought you said 4,000 seats should cut it. I think the seating should not be below 10,000, which allows for many options in The Barn.
 


Ben Johnson was on KFAN this morning and mentioned how Baylor got it right by building the smaller stadium. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a lot of talk within the program about reducing the seating count to add more modern amenities and suites.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
The problems.

Lack of values suites and revenue
Lack of accessibility
Obstructed seat from seeing the scoreboard
Lack of valued courtside seats
Love the raised floor but it's dangerous and not needed.
Loose Rims ;)
Too big. 4,000 seats should be cut out.
Click to expand...
I’ve been thinking about the raised floor recently. In fact every time I see a crash on the sidelines at courtside seats or scorers press tables. The raised floor is less dangerous than the crowded areas around courts in most arenas. Raised floor risk is a red herring and a myth. All hail the raised floor! The final four has it right!
 

Bad Gopher said:
The Twins had the "problem" of only having a postage-stamp size plot of land to work with. In my engineering profession, I've found that our people do their best work under constrained circumstances and in tight spaces. Maybe the key is to impose an artifical constraint or a performance spec of how close fans should be to the floor.
Click to expand...
I’m an architectural appreciator. I can announce that I appreciate buildings. I’ve always said I love the Barn. We need something new. Biggest risk in my perspective is losing the intimacy of the upper deck especially. I don’t know of any modern arenas that have replicated the sight lines and proximity of our overhanging upper deck seats.

I know the smaller arenas are the rage. My biggest fear of them is reducing supply and increasing prices and keeping a lot of people out. Advantage of cavernous arenas is a reasonable price most nights.
 

I’m on the fence whether or not a smaller arena would be good. It’s hard to say whether cbb attendance will remain lower than in the past. It it suddenly goes back up then it’s harder for people that don’t live near it to get tickets to the occasional game. Meanwhile we get less and less games televised.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom