[News] UPD: Aug 4 released renderings of Event Centre in OP (+ new ext. renders in post #704)

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Except the legroom doesn’t work that way in this style. You can have less distance between seats.

How do people get in and out of the seats, then?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/under...ty-rose-steele

Nothing in that article about the space between rows.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

People don't sit on the middle steps of a ladder. The comparison is invalid.



The seats are still the same horizontal distance from front to back. The legroom in front of each seat is still the same horizontal distance. Each tier of seats is level and takes up a certain horizontal distance, no matter how much higher or lower the row behind and the row in front are.

Am I going to have to draw a diagram?

Well the whole point of steeper arenas is improved sight lines. I understand your point and don’t need a diagram, thank you. If you just make it higher it may not necessarily be closer. But the further away you are, the higher you want to be in order to view the playing surface.

Isn’t it accepted now that newer stadiums have more of a stacked approach, trading off knee room? More like a ladder, less like gradual stairs. This is especially true in upper decks.

But to answer your original question, if I’m 100 feet from the playing surface I’d rather be higher than on the ground.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

How do people get in and out of the seats, then?

Same as before. With less room.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Same as before. With less room.

Good grief, there wasn't that much room to begin with. What do they do, put a sign at each entrance saying, ‘Your legs must be this skinny to go on this ride’?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well the whole point of steeper arenas is improved sight lines. I understand your point and don’t need a diagram, thank you. If you just make it higher it may not necessarily be closer. But the further away you are, the higher you want to be in order to view the playing surface..

This is quite true, and wasn't what I was disagreeing with. Being higher helps the sight lines, but it doesn't actually bring you any closer (except for cases like the inverted-bowl design, which I understand is not at issue here).

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Nothing in that article about the space between rows.

Well, all I can recommend is you attend a theatre in the West End of London.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Good grief, there wasn't that much room to begin with. What do they do, put a sign at each entrance saying, ‘Your legs must be this skinny to go on this ride’?

When the seating is steeper the row in front of you is much lower so your hips are well above the row in front. It’s just your lower leg that needs room when you stand. And when you sit, your legs hang more instead of sticking out.

[metroneck]

The club and regular seats at the very top of Rogers are much better than the top 25% of the Dome.

Far, but great sight lines, and you’re right on top of the ice.

[getbak]

I posted this earlier in the thread, but if you overlay the original pre-renovation blueprints for the Saddledome with the floor plans for the new building, the seating layouts are nearly identical.



If you remove the upper sections of the 300 level of the Saddledome, the two seating bowls line up almost 100%. Based on that, I'd expect the slope of the seating bowls in the new building to be very similar to what we're all used to in the Saddledome.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, all I can recommend is you attend a theatre in the West End of London.

Give me the money and I'll do it. I'm not spending six months' housekeeping money to sit in a theatre.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by getbak

I posted this earlier in the thread, but if you overlay the original pre-renovation blueprints for the Saddledome with the floor plans for the new building, the seating layouts are nearly identical.



If you remove the upper sections of the 300 level of the Saddledome, the two seating bowls line up almost 100%. Based on that, I'd expect the slope of the seating bowls in the new building to be very similar to what we're all used to in the Saddledome.

Come on now. We know the second level is going to be high steep and not great to sit in.

- big lower bowl
- large amount of luxury seating
- second level that is a mix of really high second level saddledome and press level.

It will be designed to maximize revenue and the average fan will suffer.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Come on now. We know the second level is going to be high steep and not great to sit in.

We don't actually know anything of the kind. The plans made available to the public through the City website don't include any side elevations of the seating bowl, so we actually have no real information about the angles in the upper bowl.

It will be designed to maximize revenue and the average fan will suffer.

You don't maximize revenue by making your customers suffer when they have the option not to buy at all.

[Strange Brew]

Intimacy and sight lines.

I’d be shocked if Weitz isn’t 100% right. More space dedicated to premium, high price experiences. Steep upper deck allowing for more seats, better sight lines , less “knee room” but as Gio points out its not as big an issue when you’re so much higher than row in front of you. Barclay’s is a great example of this.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I’d be shocked if Weitz isn’t 100% right.

1. Getbak posts actual plans of the two seating bowls showing that they are virtually identical in layout and capacity, except that the new building has no upper loges and the breakpoint between upper and lower bowls is slightly different.

2. Weitz, based on nothing more than cynicism, announces that the new building will offer a crappy experience to most ticket buyers because this will somehow increase revenue.

3. You agree with the cynic and disagree with the actual plans? Hmmmm.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

1. Getbak posts actual plans of the two seating bowls showing that they are virtually identical in layout and capacity, except that the new building has no upper loges and the breakpoint between upper and lower bowls is slightly different.

2. Weitz, based on nothing more than cynicism, announces that the new building will offer a crappy experience to most ticket buyers because this will somehow increase revenue.

3. You agree with the cynic and disagree with the actual plans? Hmmmm.

Nee arenas are steeper to allow for better sight lines. It’s not cynicism it’s a matter of preference. Can you tell me where I am being cynical? Can you also point out where you’re getting the information on the pitch of the sections from the plans? Are you suggesting that arenas that devote more space to premium experiences and have steeper pitches to upper decks are occupying a smaller footprint?

I’m stating it’s a trend in newer arenas (Barclays is a great example) and I fully expect it here.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

1. Getbak posts actual plans of the two seating bowls showing that they are virtually identical in layout and capacity, except that the new building has no upper loges and the breakpoint between upper and lower bowls is slightly different.

2. Weitz, based on nothing more than cynicism, announces that the new building will offer a crappy experience to most ticket buyers because this will somehow increase revenue.

3. You agree with the cynic and disagree with the actual plans? Hmmmm.

I bet you could make Rogers place look similar to that overlay.

Look, all I’m saying is the new arena is going to maximize premium seats. You’re silly if you think otherwise. Why would they build a new arena if they aren’t making a significant amount of more money per game? The formula to maximize money is simple. Large lower bowl, ton of luxury seats, small second bowl that is high and far from the ice.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Nee arenas are steeper to allow for better sight lines.

OK, so how does that suck? Weitz says it does.

It’s not cynicism it’s a matter of preference. Can you tell me where I am being cynical?

It's Weitz who is being cynical, and you're agreeing with him.

Can you also point out where you’re getting the information on the pitch of the sections from the plans?

I am saying that information isn't on the plans, and Weitz, when he claims to have such information, is lying.

Are you suggesting that arenas that devote more space to premium experiences and have steeper pitches to upper decks are occupying a smaller footprint?

Not at all. Steeper pitches do very little (if anything) to reduce the footprint of a seating bowl, and in any case the upper bowl of the Saddledome is quite steep already. Maybe you bourgeois types haven't gone high enough to notice, but I've sat in the top rows of the upper bowl many times and it's a bad climb for someone prone to suffer from vertigo.

I’m stating it’s a trend in newer arenas (Barclays is a great example) and I fully expect it here.

And Weitz is stating as a fact that the upper bowl is going to suck, which works directly against the idea of maximizing revenue.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

OK, so how does that suck? Weitz says it does.



It's Weitz who is being cynical, and you're agreeing with him.



I am saying that information isn't on the plans, and Weitz, when he claims to have such information, is lying.



Not at all. Steeper pitches do very little (if anything) to reduce the footprint of a seating bowl, and in any case the upper bowl of the Saddledome is quite steep already. Maybe you bourgeois types haven't gone high enough to notice, but I've sat in the top rows of the upper bowl many times and it's a bad climb for someone prone to suffer from vertigo.



And Weitz is stating as a fact that the upper bowl is going to suck, which works directly against the idea of maximizing revenue.

Sigh... No one is lying. Don't know why you're looking for arguments at every turn.

Here is an excerpt from an article talking about the steep pitch at Barclay's: (NY Post unfortunately)

"The steep nature of arenas is meant to bring fans who sit high closer to the action, architects and designers said.

“You don’t want to feel detached from the sport,” said Nader Tehrani, dean of Cooper Union’s Irwin S. Chanin School of Architecture. “You want the sweat to hit you.”

Some facilities, like opera houses and medical theaters, are intentionally steep to allow the audience the best view. Soccer stadiums in Europe and South America are “super steep,” Tehrani said, including the famed La Bombonera in Buenos Aires, where the upper deck has a vertigo-inducing 45-degree incline.

The upper bowl at Barclays Center sits at a 36-degree incline.

An arena spokesman called that “standard” for modern arenas, adding that at least nine other NBA arenas had a 36-degree pitch, and three others had 35-degree inclines.
Some experts disagreed.

Most sports venues in the United States typically have upper seating with an incline of 30 to 33 degrees, said James Renne of the Detroit-based firm Rossetti Architects, which designed Red Bull Arena in Harrison, NJ.

The recently “transformed” Madison Square Garden reshaped its upper bowl during a $1 billion, three-year renovation. It improved sightlines, put fans seven to 10 feet closer to the action, and made the area 17 percent steeper. But those changes still only brought the upper bowl’s pitch to about 30 degrees.

At Citifield, which opened in 2009, the upper-level incline is only 32degrees. Red Bull Arena, which opened in 2010, is 33 degrees. Data for Yankee and Metlife stadiums was not available.

Golden 1 Center in Sacramento, where two fans fell in the upper seats last year, has a slope of 34 degrees.

The higher the degree of incline, the steeper the stairs. There also is less legroom, and a feeling that getting to a seat is like walking a tightrope.

With little room to spare between rows, and cup holders which further block the space, fans in Barclays’ less-expensive seats struggle to walk past each other.

“Many fans are not comfortable with a steep bowl. You want more room when you go up higher,” Renne said. “There is a perception about the danger of falling.”

But there is no standard angle for upper-level seating, and building codes can allow for steep seating areas, he said.

Still, inclines of 34 degrees or more can start to feel “too steep,” Renne said. “It’s just not viable to sit in a seat in that kind of scenario or angle. There’s a threshold.”

I don't know what the pitch is at the Saddledome, just seems unlikely you're going to see the new one be less steep from a building built in the 80's. Not counting the nosebleeds which are a unicorn.

[SebC]

The Flames aren't spending 100s of millions of dollars to build a new arena that's the same as the old arena. I would think this to be self-evident.