[News] Flyers, 76ers announce plans for new arena

[cam_calderon]

The Flyers and 76ers have announced plans to build a new arena to be open by 2031.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

76ers were previously (3 weeks ago) approved to build a downtown arena:

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...-plan/4058338/

[cam_calderon]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

76ers were previously (3 weeks ago) approved to build a downtown arena:

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...-plan/4058338/

My bad, thought I remembered they were intending to stay at Wells Fargo, which had a renovation in 2023.

[Toonage]

Crazy to think that their current building has been around 30 years already.

[kevman]

Crazy to think that the life cycle of these buildings is just generally accepted to be 30 years.

[Kipper_3434]

30 years....man what will new arena cost in say 2060. 5 billion? 4 bitcoin?

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by kevman

Crazy to think that the life cycle of these buildings is just generally accepted to be 30 years.

Is there something wrong with that though? I think overall - all buildings should be redeveloped - neighborhoods, houses etc once every 30 years ... if not then....atleast once every 40 years.

A community built in 1990 should be redeveloped by 2030 imo.

[mogg]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Is there something wrong with that though? I think overall - all buildings should be redeveloped - neighborhoods, houses etc once every 30 years ... if not then....atleast once every 40 years.

A community built in 1990 should be redeveloped by 2030 imo.

Why?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Is there something wrong with that though? I think overall - all buildings should be redeveloped - neighborhoods, houses etc once every 30 years ... if not then....atleast once every 40 years.

A community built in 1990 should be redeveloped by 2030 imo.

I personally find visiting a city where everything is less than 30 years old is a pretty sterile experience. Visiting a place where the building age spans hundreds of years is a super interesting experience that I far prefer.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Is there something wrong with that though? I think overall - all buildings should be redeveloped - neighborhoods, houses etc once every 30 years ... if not then....atleast once every 40 years.

A community built in 1990 should be redeveloped by 2030 imo.

Haha, what? A 30 year old building is just getting broken in.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Is there something wrong with that though? I think overall - all buildings should be redeveloped - neighborhoods, houses etc once every 30 years ... if not then....atleast once every 40 years.

A community built in 1990 should be redeveloped by 2030 imo.

It is disgusting with that notion that some people could conceivably attend Flames games in 3 different home venues in their lifetime given the cost, basic waste of material and emissions released to construct these buildings.

When modern engineering and design is more than capable of building something that can stand up for double or triple that there is no excuse. You also don't build character and anything of value by turning over neighborhoods and buildings every 30 years!

Maybe refurbish the venue (which should be much more feasible than it was 30 years ago) but advocating for new buildings and communities every 30 years??? Think about parts of the world that just want proper communities and housing and we have people here who are actually onboard with this kind of waste.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by mogg

Why?

Costs more to repair, maintain and bring to current day standards.

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I personally find visiting a city where everything is less than 30 years old is a pretty sterile experience. Visiting a place where the building age spans hundreds of years is a super interesting experience that I far prefer.

Yes so do I. As a tourist. But you wouldn't live in a house that's 200 years old. Sports teams dont have Stadiums that are 100 years old.

It's impossible to keep up the maintenance and repair. Costs a fortune to bring everything up to current day standards.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by kevman

Haha, what? A 30 year old building is just getting broken in.

The saddledome is 42 years old. There is unanimous agreement that it was ready to be replaced 10 years ago as the Flames have been looking to build a new building since the late 2000s.

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

It is disgusting with that notion that some people could conceivably attend Flames games in 3 different home venues in their lifetime given the cost, basic waste of material and emissions released to construct these buildings.

When modern engineering and design is more than capable of building something that can stand up for double or triple that there is no excuse. You also don't build character and anything of value by turning over neighborhoods and buildings every 30 years!

Once the building has been fully depreciated, the land value has appreciated enough for developers to invest further capital in a redo. After 30 years, the value of the structure itself is minimal. From a developer's POV, its mostly just land value.

Yes a person born in 2000 will likely watch Flames games in the Saddledome, this new Arena and then another one probably around 2060-2070 if they live to be 70 years old.

[getbak]

Here's the official press release: https://comcastspectacor.com/news/20...-announcement/

The plan is for the new arena to open in 2031, so there's still a long way to go.

The deal will also see them come up with a new plan for the downtown area where the Sixers were planning on building their new basketball-only arena. Comcast (which owns the Flyers) will get the naming rights to the building and a minority ownership stake in the Sixers.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

The saddledome is 42 years old. There is unanimous agreement that it was ready to be replaced 10 years ago as the Flames have been looking to build a new building since the late 2000s.



Once the building has been fully depreciated, the land value has appreciated enough for developers to invest further capital in a redo. After 30 years, the value of the structure itself is minimal. From a developer's POV, its mostly just land value.

Yes a person born in 2000 will likely watch Flames games in the Saddledome, this new Arena and then another one probably around 2060-2070 if they live to be 70 years old.

OK, now I know you're trolling. Even on a Flames fan forum the new arena was never "unanimous".

There are no shortage of people that think knocking down 30 year old buildings is incredibly wasteful.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by mogg

Why?

Because depreciation of a building is about 25 to 30 years before needing massive renos. An arena gets more wear and tear with so much foot traffic, so I can see why 30 years is the useful life. The other route is to go the MSG route and do $1B+ renos each time. For that type of money, I can see why some go the new arena route rather than continuous renos.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Because depreciation of a building is about 25 to 30 years before needing massive renos. An arena gets more wear and tear with so much foot traffic, so I can see why 30 years is the useful life. The other route is to go the MSG route and do $1B+ renos each time. For that type of money, I can see why some go the new arena route rather than continuous renos.

Yup. I'm shocked there are some who don't understand this. It's not some conspiracy theory that around 30 years lifespan... teams seem to be getting new arenas.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by kevman

OK, now I know you're trolling. Even on a Flames fan forum the new arena was never "unanimous".

I think anything more than 2/3 or > 66% is pretty unanimous. I am not intending to say that it was 100%.

[SuperMatt18]

Honestly to me the Saddledome is still completely useable.

Is it an amazing state of the art experience...nope

Is it still 100% a passable experience...yup.

I was at Wells Fargo last April and I honestly don't really think it had that many issues. Concourse didn't seem too small, sightlines seemed fine. The seats were a bit tight but that's something that a lot of new stadiums have issues with in the 200 level since they want to pack more people in.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Crazy to think that their current building has been around 30 years already.

A lot changes over three decades. In 1995 I didn't walk around with a cell phone and never heard of wifi. With the money charged to attend sporting events, concerts, etc I guess the facility should meet a certain standard. Location also plays a role and I believe the current arena is not a great location as it's in no-man's land and not very walkable. That said they just spent $400 million on renovations to Wells Fargo Center so I'm sure the facility would be totally fine for another decade at least.