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

[Toonage]

I'm just saying time flies. I remember the Spectrum.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

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.

This new arena is going to be in the same area.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Honestly to me the Saddledome is still completely useable.

Having been to most of the buildings in the NHL.... the Saddledome is absolutely horrendous and an inexcusable experience. To that point, the most obvious indication is that no major concerts come here anymore. Wonder why they think its not "useable".

[The Yen Man]

With the Saddledome, it's barely passable from a user standpoint. But how much money goes to yearly maintenance and break / fix things? Don't they also have a roofing issue? At some point, people just need to let it go. It would just be a money pit just to upkeep it to it's currently passable standards.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by getbak

This new arena is going to be in the same area.

Yeah I think the 76ers wanted a downtown location but that fell through. I suppose it makes sense to keep the arena in that sports district as there's probably not much undeveloped land around that area.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

With the Saddledome, it's barely passable from a user standpoint. But how much money goes to yearly maintenance and break / fix things? Don't they also have a roofing issue? At some point, people just need to let it go. It would just be a money pit just to upkeep it to it's currently passable standards.

No kidding, that point was about 5 months ago.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yeah I think the 76ers wanted a downtown location but that fell through. I suppose it makes sense to keep the arena in that sports district as there's probably not much undeveloped land around that area.

It didn't fall through, in fact, it was approved by the city three weeks ago.

Obviously, it was enough to get Comcast to step up and throw a bunch of money at the Sixers to get them to change their plans.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

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.

I think that makes sense to a degree but I do think that we have reached a point where arenas can last for a longer period of time. The Well-Fargo Center is the same age as the Bridgestone Arena in Nashville and only 4 years older than the XCel Center in St. Paul and yet to the best of my knowledge there is no discussion about replacing either of those buildings.

I think that the Saddledome needed replacement due to structural issues and the stadium's age, but other than wanting new things, what is the rationale for newer buildings needing replacement? I have been to quite a few NHL arenas, and for the most part, they are pretty similar, with only very minor differences. The biggest issues are associated with traffic flow.

Out of every NHL building I have been in the only one that seemed like it needed replacement was the Canadian Tire Center due to the location as well as the fact that in the Melnyk years absolutely no money was put into the arena and it showed. Other than that they were all very much identical experiences with decent seats, short lineups, and insanely expensive drinks.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I think that makes sense to a degree but I do think that we have reached a point where arenas can last for a longer period of time. The Well-Fargo Center is the same age as the Bridgestone Arena in Nashville and only 4 years older than the XCel Center in St. Paul and yet to the best of my knowledge there is no discussion about replacing either of those buildings.

I think that the Saddledome needed replacement due to structural issues and the stadium's age, but other than wanting new things, what is the rationale for newer buildings needing replacement? I have been to quite a few NHL arenas, and for the most part, they are pretty similar, with only very minor differences. The biggest issues are associated with traffic flow.

Nashville is going the route of extending life of the building. From 30 years to 55 years. They will spend about $500M between 2010-2049 on renovations.

I don't think thats done with the best interest of the fans as the primary goal.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Having been to most of the buildings in the NHL.... the Saddledome is absolutely horrendous and an inexcusable experience. To that point, the most obvious indication is that no major concerts come here anymore. Wonder why they think its not "useable".

Having been to more than half the buildings in the NHL, the Saddledome is completely fine. Way better sitelines than most of these modern buildings, so if watching hockey matters to you it is great. If you want more washrooms and more food to eat in the concourse while the game is on it kinda sucks.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by getbak

It didn't fall through, in fact, it was approved by the city three weeks ago.

Obviously, it was enough to get Comcast to step up and throw a bunch of money at the Sixers to get them to change their plans.

It's an interesting deal because Comcast is getting some ownership of the 76ers and I paying some money for revitalizing the downtown area that was earmarked for the arena.

[Lewis_D]

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.

Have you ever been outside of Canada/USA lol?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Having been to more than half the buildings in the NHL, the Saddledome is completely fine. Way better sitelines than most of these modern buildings, so if watching hockey matters to you it is great. If you want more washrooms and more food to eat in the concourse while the game is on it kinda sucks.

Yeah, I understand and accept all the justifications for why it should be replaced. Times have changed, the needs of fans have changed, and the needs of artists/promotors/etc have changed. Totally cool.

But calling it horrendous and inexcusable is absurdly dramatic. It’s fine.

If you’re someone without a drinking problem with even basic time management skills, a normally functioning bladder, and are just there to enjoy some hockey or a concert, the difference between the Saddledome and some of the newest arenas is negligible.

It’s like “needing” to buy a brand new car because your working car is 20 years old. Yes, I’m sure the new one is nicer and will require less maintenance over the next five years than the old one. But at the end of the day they’re both still getting you to where you need to go.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Having been to more than half the buildings in the NHL, the Saddledome is completely fine. Way better sitelines than most of these modern buildings, so if watching hockey matters to you it is great. If you want more washrooms and more food to eat in the concourse while the game is on it kinda sucks.

Both things are important though as it is an entertainment event and people have come to expect more things and to be entertained at all times. Food choices in society as a whole were much more limited as well. Plus half the people in attendance were outside to smoke during intermissions. There is now a greater emphasis on what happens between whistles and intermissions where due to technology changing there is a need to fill the void, even though everyone is already on their phones. I am surprised that they don't have a system where people order food before and then scan to pick it up but I haven't thought about the logistics behind that.

I think the thing that makes the stadium the best is the atmosphere of the fans and that is only built through a winning team. No one cheers because the stadium is newer.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by 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.

They just spent something like 400 million on Renos to it I think

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, I understand and accept all the justifications for why it should be replaced. Times have changed, the needs of fans have changed, and the needs of artists/promotors/etc have changed. Totally cool.

But calling it horrendous and inexcusable is absurdly dramatic. It’s fine.

If you’re someone without a drinking problem with even basic time management skills, a normally functioning bladder, and are just there to enjoy some hockey or a concert, the difference between the Saddledome and some of the newest arenas is negligible.

It’s like “needing” to buy a brand new car because your working car is 20 years old. Yes, I’m sure the new one is nicer and will require less maintenance over the next five years than the old one. But at the end of the day they’re both still getting you to where you need to go.

And Taylor Swift ain't gonna ride with you in your new one either.

[konradical]

Philly plopped 3 sporting arena/stadiums around massive parking lots, it was bound for the arena to leave. Its just around a parking wasteland which was fashionable back in the day. Especially in a city like Philly that is extremely urban and populated having it in downtown and apart of the fabric will make this way better.

I dont think this has that much to do with the state of the arena as it does with location. Having done to MSG, Centre Bell or Chase Centre (all different ages for arenas) they are great because they are in way better locations and apart of the city.

[Locke]

Must be nice to have an NBA team to share principle tenancy with.

NHL Team: "We need a new arena!"

"What was that? Did you hear something? Wait...are you guys still here?"

NBA Team: "We need a new arena!"

"Yes sir. Absolutely sir. Right away sir!" *sounds of construction begin*

[dammage79]

Everyday technologies advance far quicker than buildings, and if your building is still analogue it'd be hard pressed to adapt to advancements. The dome is easily outside of adaptability IMO. Especially given the roof isn't even useable for concerts as is. I'd guess if the roof wasn't the way it is, theyd have done the guts tear out and update it.



Nashville's barn likely can be extended beyond its life cycle as it's a newer design, MSG may be an Outlier simply because it's NYC and they don't really have a choice but to tear out it's guts and dump billions in constantly updating it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

Must be nice to have an NBA team to share principle tenancy with.

NHL Team: "We need a new arena!"

"What was that? Did you hear something? Wait...are you guys still here?"

NBA Team: "We need a new arena!"

"Yes sir. Absolutely sir. Right away sir!" *sounds of construction begin*

The Flyers and the Sixers seem to flip flop in popularity pretty regularly.

Neither are the Eagles, which is the only team that really matters there. And the Phillies when they’re good.