Three future arenas, two in Canada and on the U.S. West Coast, will be built using the new seating concept, Rossetti said. He declined to name the projects because of nondisclosure agreements and because the cities or teams involved have not announced their design plans.
One city likely to use the design is Calgary, where the NHL's Flames are seeking a new home to replace the Scotiabank Saddledome that was built in 1983. Rossetti has being doing work for the Flames while a debate on funding a new arena is an ongoing issue in the city.
Would make sense since the Flames like the idea enough to do it for Calgary Next. And owners need to make every seat in the venue worth it to maximize ticket sales.
Would make sense since the Flames like the idea enough to do it for Calgary Next. And owners need to make every seat in the venue worth it to maximize ticket sales.
I knew I'd be paying more for my PL seats, but this indicates it could be substantially more if they're reclassified as "more of a premium space."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article says:
The new design theoretically allows teams and venues to charge more for what has been the traditional "nose bleed" seats. Upper tiers of seating have always been more expensive to build but generate less revenue. And by making them more of a premium space, that allows additional revenue creation via food and beverage sales, too, he added.
There won't be press level seats anymore. I doubt there will be green seats.
8000 lower bowl and 8000 box/loge/premium seats
Nothing under $100 per seat.
HD is too good to fund marginal seating.
Which is to be expected look at Edmonton. Premium games (non season ticket holder pricing) are $100 bucks and non premium games are $75.00 for the cheapest ticket. Add 5 years of inflation and we are going to be right around $100.00 for a Tuesday night game.
It doesn't matter what the stadium design is that is going to be the baseline. No way flames undercut pricing to what Edmonton is already having success with. So if the stadium is cheaper to build for the Flames and City and increases my experience in stadium I am all for original ideas. We are all going to be paying the same amount of money anyways with just your typical Rogers Centre build
I would expect an increase in ticket prices across the board obviously but going by that video and reading the article it sounds like they would just add more concession spaces along the top 4 rows making it easier/more convenient to buy food & drinks meaning its likely the average fan would buy more, or at least they would hope the average fan would buy more.
Ok so I can't be the only one who thinks the inverted bowl thing is not remotely original nor does it seem appealing.
I get that their building designs are somewhat unique in the way that the upper bowl is suspended and uses less space. Looks like the quidditch stadium from harry potter and I think it looks idiotic.
But I'm just not seeing the advantage for the fan.
I see only a few options. Less total seats, meaning higher prices. In all of the photos the entire upper tiers just look like private suites. Even if they're not, I'm sure they'd be priced higher.
The viewing angles look odd. You'd be able to see the ice but not the rest of the crowd. Part of the arena experience is feeling like part of the crowd. Sitting at the top of the ring looks really isolated and if you can't see half of the arena, I don't think that makes for a good experience.
And in the concert picture from their website, it hardly looks different from a normal stadium. It kinda looks like the ACC or Staples center. Except there are no more pleb seats at all. The entire arena looks like suites except the lower bowl.
This explains why the initial CalgaryNEXT sketches looked so bad, but it does hint at this inverted bowl concept.
Rossetti was still working on the concept and wasn't even ready till this week when they announced it. CalgaryNEXT would probably have been the first arena to make use of this new concept. Now I really wonder what the Victoria Park project would have looked like, if it featured the same design.
Last edited by rage2; 10-12-2017 at 03:08 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rage2 For This Useful Post:
Interesting concept for sure; however, on the website it has the sight lines appearing to be pretty much "overhead" meaning you would only have 3-4 rows of seats for each tier?
Spoiler!
Spoiler!
That seems rather small given the potential expense, no?
At least we have some sort of potential concept to discuss now!
That seems rather small given the potential expense, no?
At least we have some sort of potential concept to discuss now!
I wonder if a shorter roof span compared to most arenas would create a problem similar to the Saddledome- that concerts with big stage setups can't fit?
Interesting concept for sure; however, on the website it has the sight lines appearing to be pretty much "overhead" meaning you would only have 3-4 rows of seats for each tier?
Spoiler!
Spoiler!
That seems rather small given the potential expense, no?
At least we have some sort of potential concept to discuss now!
I wonder if a shorter roof span compared to most arenas would create a problem similar to the Saddledome- that concerts with big stage setups can't fit?
I wouldn't think so. The shorter span could potentially be much stronger. The Saddledome's problem is the roof isn't designed to hold much weight. I don't think size is an issue, it would still be a large open space.
I don't think capacity is an issue with the design since they mention up to 20000 people. I also don't see it costing any more. Less material, shorter roof spans etc.
The biggest issue would be being the guinea pig and having the first of that design. There would be kinks to work out, and you might run the risk of having some major deficiencies that get sorted in gen 2 or 3 of the design, but of course be stuck with it. And the Flames would then say it is obsolete! The first of it's kind! No one is building them like this anymore! And so on.
The biggest issue would be being the guinea pig and having the first of that design. There would be kinks to work out, and you might run the risk of having some major deficiencies that get sorted in gen 2 or 3 of the design, but of course be stuck with it. And the Flames would then say it is obsolete! The first of it's kind! No one is building them like this anymore! And so on.
Yeah that's my biggest concern with it.
Yeah great ideas require risk and somebody has to be first. But I just know I never want to be the first to go all-in with something in my industry. You're either the last one to do it, or get to tell everybody else how to do it right. But it's easy to take risks when somebody else is paying.
But I am definitely intrigued by it. And definitely seems to have the potential to maximize the atmosphere for other smaller events, too. The moving roof was a cool concept but incredibly expensive no doubt, and would have had more risk of being the first than anything else. The tighter space for a Hitmen game that only needs to sell the lower bowl would be good.
I figure the most potential with that kind of concept would be with football. Where the social areas would get the most use and be the most beneficial. Going to a CFL game with a group of people would be a lot more attractive with that kind of setup. Have felt for a while the loge seating was being underused in new stadium designs (or at least seemed that way, relative to the arena designs).
