Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
This doesn't make much sense...do you think larger engineering costs will be higher than the savings in construction? So much that it will increase the seating price more than a standard arena? From what I understand this will use a lot less concrete, and the big one is that the open roof span distance will be a lot shorter, which is always an engineering challenge, particularity considering snow load. The other major benefit is the building footprint can be smaller, which saves on land costs, and makes the building a bit less massive which is always a challenge for these things.
I'm hesitant about a few issues with the inverted bowl, but I don't think cost is going to be one of them. I could see it providing good savings.
|
I'm not a construction guy so my analogy will be crap, but imagine building one gigantic concrete staircase up Scotman's hill - let's just say it needs to be 100 feet high and 50 feet wide. Or, you can build five separate staircases, each is still 100 ft high, but only 5 ft wide. It's only half the materials, but I suspect the 5 smaller ones will take a lot longer and be more expensive...
If it was actually better and cheaper for all the reasons you list, don't you think it would be the new normal? Maybe it will become that way, but I'm not holding my breath.
It makes sense for the Clippers to try it...anything to differentiate them from the Lakers, and they're owner is a crazy man with more money than God.