Tom and Hunter go arena scouting

[vmd9]

Lets see... I can walk from Polsky to Infocision stadium in about... 20 minutes, give or take. I can walk from Infocision Stadium to the Rubber bowl in about.... 20 days (exaggerated to make a point).Point is, downtown is on the border of campus and within EASY walking distance from any point on campus. However, you CANNOT say the same about the Rubber Bowl. Your analogy holds NO water at all because its like comparing apples to oranges. Excluding the new dorms being built on Spicer, the average walk time from any of the dorms to the Polsky building (assumed as within the heart of downtown Akron) is something like 10-11 minutes walking, INCLUDING Garson Apartments which everyone here can agree is off-campus. Take that number and compare it to other MAC east schools. In fact, compare it to Can't state and you'd find that the average walking time for students to get to the MAC Center is just as much, if not more, than the average walking time for an Akron student living in a dorm. Yes, Can't State's campus is much larger and more spread out than ours, but is a 15 minute walk REALLY that bad? While Downtown Akron is not OFFICIALLY considered "on-campus" (disregarding Polsky building as on-campus), its proximity to campus and ease of access from any point on campus puts it well within the realm of possible locations for an arena. If I have to take a shuttle bus just to get to the arena, it is not somewhere thats good for the university.Keep in mind this entire post is disregarding the fact that the City/Port Authority is almost guaranteed to be a major contributor to the project, so they will have a very large say in where the arena goes. Putting a new arena funded in part by the City in the middle of campus WILL make the general public feel as though its only the University's and not both. Just food for thought.

I agree 100%. ...and if the City contributes I feel we will have a nicer and bigger arena built faster.

[vmd9]

Not sure if this has been mentioned much, but UA could possibly do what places like Villanova (who plays some on campus and some at the Sixers place) do:Play a MAJORITY of their games at a renovated JAR (which UA and their donors will fund) and play 3-4 "marquee" games at the new downtown arena (which the county, city, etc. will fund.) As an example this year...the opener against Austin Peay, the Saturday night game against BGSU and the finale against Can't could be played at the downtown arena. Hopefully, as Zeke and the boys make their mark, marquee games will be against Pitt, Purdue, Louisville, etc. (keeping Can't in there too).I would love to see Akron go after things that Cleveland doesn't have= Indoor soccer and indoor lacrosse. This would give Akron more of an "eastern pull" and the soccer could really help capitalize on the success of the Zips men's soccer team. How about "The Akron Attack"!?!?!!? Also, if they could land an NBDL team that is the "farm team" for the Cavaliers, all the better.

NO! the NBDL farm team for the Cavs are the Erie Bayhawks and that's my hometown. They aren't leaving! haha

[MaxZIP]

Lets see... I can walk from Polsky to Infocision stadium in about... 20 minutes, give or take. I can walk from Infocision Stadium to the Rubber bowl in about.... 20 days (exaggerated to make a point).Point is, downtown is on the border of campus and within EASY walking distance from any point on campus. However, you CANNOT say the same about the Rubber Bowl. Your analogy holds NO water at all because its like comparing apples to oranges. Excluding the new dorms being built on Spicer, the average walk time from any of the dorms to the Polsky building (assumed as within the heart of downtown Akron) is something like 10-11 minutes walking, INCLUDING Garson Apartments which everyone here can agree is off-campus. Take that number and compare it to other MAC east schools. In fact, compare it to Can't state and you'd find that the average walking time for students to get to the MAC Center is just as much, if not more, than the average walking time for an Akron student living in a dorm. Yes, Can't State's campus is much larger and more spread out than ours, but is a 15 minute walk REALLY that bad? While Downtown Akron is not OFFICIALLY considered "on-campus" (disregarding Polsky building as on-campus), its proximity to campus and ease of access from any point on campus puts it well within the realm of possible locations for an arena. If I have to take a shuttle bus just to get to the arena, it is not somewhere thats good for the university.Keep in mind this entire post is disregarding the fact that the City/Port Authority is almost guaranteed to be a major contributor to the project, so they will have a very large say in where the arena goes. Putting a new arena funded in part by the City in the middle of campus WILL make the general public feel as though its only the University's and not both. Just food for thought.

I agree 100%. ...and if the City contributes I feel we will have a nicer and bigger arena built faster.

A city contribution is years away. Don would be drawn and quartered on his front lawn by laid off city employees if the city financed an arena. It sucks but is probably true.

[UA Fan]

I won't be offended if UA buys every property they can get their hands on downtown and begins a "Landscape for Downtown" overhaul project. Any downtown businesses can find a nice spot in the burbs to relocate to, and downtown can become a vibrant entertainment district with student housing along with academic facilities and some hotel rooms. Close High or Broad for redevelopment and make the other a 2-way. And whenever the research medical center is built, move the nursing program there to free up the space "on campus".

[MaxZIP]

I won't be offended if UA buys every property they can get their hands on downtown and begins a "Landscape for Downtown" overhaul project. Any downtown businesses can find a nice spot in the burbs to relocate to, and downtown can become a vibrant entertainment district with student housing along with academic facilities and some hotel rooms. Close High or Broad for redevelopment and make the other a 2-way. And whenever the research medical center is built, move the nursing program there to free up the space "on campus".

That actually isn't that bad of an idea.

[tbozeglav]

A city contribution is years away. Don would be drawn and quartered on his front lawn by laid off city employees if the city financed an arena. It sucks but is probably true.

Truthfully, I am okay with that. I would rather us build the right arena that benefits the entire community with a wide array of entertainment year round then try to take the pile of poo we have now and trying to make it better. If that means having to wait 5 more years until a new mayor is in town and the economy has improved, then I am all for it. Like with Infocision Stadium, Id rather us do it right the first time than regretting not having done it for the next 40 years.

[MaxZIP]

A city contribution is years away. Don would be drawn and quartered on his front lawn by laid off city employees if the city financed an arena. It sucks but is probably true.

Truthfully, I am okay with that. I would rather us build the right arena that benefits the entire community with a wide array of entertainment year round then try to take the pile of poo we have now and trying to make it better. If that means having to wait 5 more years until a new mayor is in town and the economy has improved, then I am all for it. Like with Infocision Stadium, Id rather us do it right the first time than regretting not having done it for the next 40 years.

I am ok with that as well. It just seems like the University has more positive momentum that the city at this point and for years to come. If the city had been run like this university there would be an arena already, population would be on the rise, and the overall appeal of the area would have been much improved.

[MaxZIP]

ZipsRifle,They were in toledo to get ideas for a new range not an arena...http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,564081...test=latestnews

[ZippyTuba11]

I am ok with that as well. It just seems like the University has more positive momentum that the city at this point and for years to come. If the city had been run like this university there would be an arena already, population would be on the rise, and the overall appeal of the area would have been much improved.

And taxes would be skyrocketing like tuition rates.I understand the bind this city is in. It seems to me like Akron's officials do a horrible job fighting to get state and national $$$. I don't want to delve into politics though. If there was some way the city could come up with the money, they should go all in for this project now. Bad economies need to be taken advantage of by builders.Now there are many construction workers without work who would be willing to work for less than usual. More people would be willing to work as event staff for less. Supplies are in smaller demand and they could find a supplier that needs to push for less. Property values have collapsed and the necessary land can be bought for less.If whatever backer waits until the economy, et al, recovers, all of those things above go up in price.

Close High or Broad for redevelopment and make the other a 2-way.

I would be highly against this. The streets the U closed for the Landscape for learning really limited access to downtown, and the city really didn't take well to that. Closing another very high traffic street for "university space" would create a lot of furor that the University doesn't want to deal with.

[ZachTheZip]

Close High or Broad for redevelopment and make the other a 2-way.

I would be highly against this. The streets the U closed for the Landscape for learning really limited access to downtown, and the city really didn't take well to that. Closing another very high traffic street for "university space" would create a lot of furor that the University doesn't want to deal with.

I'm for this, if it gets transformed into a walkway like Front Street in Cuyahoga Falls, with shops lining both sides of the street. But only if the city did it on its own. UA shouldn't be involved in that kind of civil planning stuff unless it directly affects the university.

[scottditzen]

Great point, would LOVE to see the University and its students just completely take over downtown. I'm not sure I am for closing the street to traffic completely....but it is critical that downtown become a vibrant, walkable place with a good mix of retail and residential space.And right now downtown is little more than a series of one way highways channeled to get traffic in and out as quickly as possible. Make all of those streets 2 way and slow "traffic" the F down!!!!

Close High or Broad for redevelopment and make the other a 2-way.

I would be highly against this. The streets the U closed for the Landscape for learning really limited access to downtown, and the city really didn't take well to that. Closing another very high traffic street for "university space" would create a lot of furor that the University doesn't want to deal with.

I'm for this, if it gets transformed into a walkway like Front Street in Cuyahoga Falls, with shops lining both sides of the street. But only if the city did it on its own. UA shouldn't be involved in that kind of civil planning stuff unless it directly affects the university.

[Dave in Green]

I don't think you want to go too far either way in terms of traffic vs. pedestrians. It's great to have a core area that's pedestrian friendly. But if you make it too difficult for commuters, it may drive some businesses out to more traffic-friendly suburbs. A vibrant, active downtown requires just the right mix of friendliness for both pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Ultimately, you want the university to benefit from the city and the city to benefit from the university.

[Blue & Gold]

I don't think you want to go too far either way in terms of traffic vs. pedestrians. It's great to have a core area that's pedestrian friendly. But if you make it too difficult for commuters, it may drive some businesses out to more traffic-friendly suburbs. A vibrant, active downtown requires just the right mix of friendliness for both pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Ultimately, you want the university to benefit from the city and the city to benefit from the university.

A truly difficult balance to achieve. Especially in America, where everyone is accustomed to having their own car, and parking right in front of the store/restaurant they're frequenting. That's another reason I'm quite amped about all the dorms going up - UA being adjacent to downtown is giving downtown establishments thousands of potential customers right next door.

[jaycevs]

The East Campus parking deck to the College of Business Administration was a 7 minute walk, I did it daily because Polsky was always full that time of day, so from there to downtown would be maybe 10-11 minutes at most from the furthest spot on campus, its not quite the same trek as campus to Rubber Bowl. I also do not see the benefit of using the limited space on campus and ruining the greenspace that has been created just to have "On Campus basketball". This Arena would benefit the city, a fraction of which would be through UA basketball. If money is going to come in to this project from other sources to go with Canal Park and make downtown Akron a better place, then that in turn will benefit the University.

[Jake]

Building an arena on campus will not take away from green space anymore than any other new project. The arena can go on many campus or soon-to-be campus areas that won't disturb the growing campus green space. It doesn't make sense to argue that we can't have campus facilities because we want to have grass and trees and therefore must build all future structures off campus in order to have green space. The stadium did not pose such a cooked up green space problem and it is far larger than any arena could be. Why pose such an argument against a campus arena but not against other future campus facilities? Your claim that an arena will "ruin" campus green space comes off as contrived and disingenuous.

[bandzip]

Can we get a troll smiley?

[Jake]

Lets see... I can walk from Polsky to Infocision stadium in about... 20 minutes, give or take. I can walk from Infocision Stadium to the Rubber bowl in about.... 20 days (exaggerated to make a point).Point is, downtown is on the border of campus and within EASY walking distance from any point on campus. However, you CANNOT say the same about the Rubber Bowl. Your analogy holds NO water at all because its like comparing apples to oranges. Excluding the new dorms being built on Spicer, the average walk time from any of the dorms to the Polsky building (assumed as within the heart of downtown Akron) is something like 10-11 minutes walking, INCLUDING Garson Apartments which everyone here can agree is off-campus. Take that number and compare it to other MAC east schools. In fact, compare it to Can't state and you'd find that the average walking time for students to get to the MAC Center is just as much, if not more, than the average walking time for an Akron student living in a dorm. Yes, Can't State's campus is much larger and more spread out than ours, but is a 15 minute walk REALLY that bad? While Downtown Akron is not OFFICIALLY considered "on-campus" (disregarding Polsky building as on-campus), its proximity to campus and ease of access from any point on campus puts it well within the realm of possible locations for an arena. If I have to take a shuttle bus just to get to the arena, it is not somewhere thats good for the university.Keep in mind this entire post is disregarding the fact that the City/Port Authority is almost guaranteed to be a major contributor to the project, so they will have a very large say in where the arena goes. Putting a new arena funded in part by the City in the middle of campus WILL make the general public feel as though its only the University's and not both. Just food for thought.

The City/Port authority is in no financial position to be a contributor, let alone a major contributor to a UA arena. For crying out loud, the City/Port Authority can barely support The Akron Civic Theater. It's ludicrous to believe that it can contribute any amount of money to a UA Arena. It is clear to me that the proponents of a downtown arena want to ride UA's purse right into the ground with all of this absurd talk that the city is actually going to chip in financuially on the effort. The city is attempting to take UA for the ride of its lifetime on this bogus downtown arena debacleAlso, proximity to campus and walking distance is not the issue. The issue is that UA will be the major if not only contributor to its arena and needs to construct it on campus. Close to campus is not good enough. Downtown is not on campus nor does it look or feel like a campus. Just because you can walk from point A to point B does not make point B on campus or worthy of campus identity. Again, UA went to a great deal of trouble and $$$ to create a pedestrian friendly, real campus that no longer looks like hilltop high. We don't need UA to turn the clock back to hilltop high days with major traffic running through the middle of campus facilities and activities. When parents and potential students come to UA to consider enrolling, they are not going to be impressed with an arena that is close to campus as they will with an arena that is on campus. Comparing the rubber bowl to Polsky is not apples and oranges. Both are owned by UA and both do not look on campus and both are not considered by UA as being on campus. Please take note of the UA trail blazer on Main Street next to Polsky. It has an arrow pointing east indicating that UA is east of downtown and not in downtown. Universities with credibility are self-contained and have clearly marked boundaries and many of these universities are in the heart of their host cities. Shuttle busses are not the issue either. And to even imply that an on-campus facility would alienate the community is so absurd it's almost criminal. Does the on-campus stadium send the message to the community that it is for the university only? Of course not and I think you already know that. Are you aware that InfoCision is hosting 7 community high school football games this season and that the general public uses Jackson Field, the student union, Rhodes Arena the residence halls, the Rec Center, Paul Daum Theater, Guzzetta Hall, The Martin Center and E.J. Thomas Hall on a regular basis? All of these facilities are 100% UA facilites and clearly on campus proper. They have no problem making the greater Akron/Northeast Ohio general public feel welcome to campus. So, quit pulling arguments from your butt.Also, we don't need to advocate the take over of downtown by UA. Both entities can and should exist on their own. One doesn't need to cancel out the other. Nor, should both entities glob into one another. Real universites and their real host communities know how to co-exist and interdepend (symbiosis) on one another without losing their unique and separate indentities.Believe it or not, UA can have a real campus that is self-contained and still have its arms open to the community. It's doing it as we speak. A pseudo college/downtown arena cheapens both the university and the city. It would be a monument to mediocrity illustrating that neither entity can stand on its own. It will make Akron, Ohio the shell game capitol of the nation and revert UA back to Hilltop High.Nothing could be better for this community than to be host to a prestigious, authentic, well known and credible university with it's own clear sense of visual/physical boundaries separate from that of the greater city. It's how real universities present themselves and it is how real universities attract more students and gain popularity. No one wants to attend, let alone support a fake looking university.Also, It doesn't follow that a better downtown helps UA. In fact it's the other way around. Once UA starts to water down its identity to downtown politicians and businesses, both the university and community will suffer in the long run. The University of Akron is the horse and downtown Akron is at best, the cart. Reverse that order and the Akron dinasours will ruin everything this university has gained for itself, the community and the region.

[Jake]

Can we get a troll smiley?

Your's will do just fine.

[Dave in Green]

Also, proximity to campus and walking distance is not the issue. The issue is that UA will be the major if not only contributor to its arena and needs to construct it on campus. Close to campus is not good enough. Downtown is not on campus nor does it look or feel like a campus. Just because you can walk from point A to point B does not make point B on campus or worthy of campus identity. Again, UA went to a great deal of trouble and $$$ to create a pedestrian friendly, real campus that no longer looks like hilltop high. We don't need UA to turn the clock back to hilltop high days with major traffic running through the middle of campus facilities and activities. When parents and potential students come to UA to consider enrolling, they are not going to be impressed with an arena that is close to campus as they will with an arena that is on campus. Comparing the rubber bowl to Polsky is not apples and oranges. Both are owned by UA and both do not look on campus and both are not considered by UA as being on campus. Please take note of the UA trail blazer on Main Street next to Polsky. It has an arrow pointing east indicating that UA is east of downtown and not in downtown. Universities with credibility are self-contained and have clearly marked boundaries and many of these universities are in the heart of their host cities. Shuttle busses are not the issue either. And to even imply that an on-campus facility would alienate the community is so absurd it's almost criminal. Does the on-campus stadium send the message to the community that it is for the university only? Of course not and I think you already know that. Are you aware that InfoCision is hosting 7 community high school football games this season and that the general public uses Jackson Field, the student union, Rhodes Arena the residence halls, the Rec Center, Paul Daum Theater, Guzzetta Hall, The Martin Center and E.J. Thomas Hall on a regular basis? All of these facilities are 100% UA facilites and clearly on campus proper. They have no problem making the greater Akron/Northeast Ohio general public feel welcome to campus. So, quit pulling arguments from your butt.Also, we don't need to advocate the take over of downtown by UA. Both entities can and should exist on their own. One doesn't need to cancel out the other. Nor, should both entities glob into one another. Real universites and their real host communities know how to co-exist and interdepend (symbiosis) on one another without losing their unique and separate indentities.Believe it or not, UA can have a real campus that is self-contained and still have its arms open to the community. It's doing it as we speak. A pseudo college/downtown arena cheapens both the university and the city. It would be a monument to mediocrity illustrating that neither entity can stand on its own. It will make Akron, Ohio the shell game capitol of the nation and revert UA back to Hilltop High.Nothing could be better for this community than to be host to a prestigious, authentic, well known and credible university with it's own clear sense of visual/physical boundaries separate from that of the greater city. It's how real universities present themselves and it is how real universities attract more students and gain popularity. No one wants to attend, let alone support a fake looking university.Also, It doesn't follow that a better downtown helps UA. In fact it's the other way around. Once UA starts to water down its identity to downtown politicians and businesses, both the university and community will suffer in the long run. The University of Akron is the horse and downtown Akron is at best, the cart. Reverse that order and the Akron dinasours will ruin everything this university has gained for itself, the community and the region.

Jake, first I want to say that I appreciate the point of view that it would be better to build a new facility on campus than off campus. I think this is a valid point of view, and I like hearing different people present different rationales for different opinions.A couple of points, though. Unless one subscribes to the black and white viewpoint that one inch off campus is purgatory and one inch on campus is heaven, no amount of arguing is going to convince more than a few people that the facility must be built on campus to be truly successful for UA. Quite the contrary, that will be interpreted by most open-minded people as an extremist position that will turn off those who are looking for the most rational position that benefits the most people. Proximity is important, and it's undeniable that there is a significant difference between the distant location of the Rubber Bowl and a block or two off campus. So if you want to be taken seriously, you need to seriously evaluate whether you are putting forth the best possible argument in favor of your postion.Secondly, if, as you say, UA will be the major if not only contributor to its arena, then, of course, there'd be no reason not to have it on campus. The whole concept of having it downtown is based on sharing costs with the city and perhaps also the county. Many people here might be more inclined to support your position if what you say is proven fact. But I haven't seen any hard evidence that what you are presenting is anything more than your opinion, even though you appear to state your opinion as hard fact. And since you are so vehemently against having the new facility anywhere but on campus under any conceivable circumstances, open-minded people like me are going to have a hard time not believing that you are only making these definitive statements to support your passionately held personal opinion.Again, I think the position you have taken is a good one to be made, and I hope that you and others will continue to try to make points for why it would be better for a new facility to be built on campus rather than off. But if the objective is to win people over to your point of view, I think you need to give consideration to the fact that the people who you are addressing on this forum are sophisticated enough not to confuse the validity of a position with the persistence of that position's advocates.

[infofan]

I think we all would love to see a new multi-purpose arena constructed but keep in mind a big difference of on campus vs off campus Jake. Alcohol! Im not advocating that beer/alcohol are a necessity but what is a necessity is feasibility of such a project. Theres a big difference between a facility used 40 dates ( mens BB, womens BB, womens VB) and a facility used 200+ days (BB, hockey, sports shows, car shows, garden shows, circus, concerts , etc.) You know what Jake- they aint going to a facility with no liquor. Check out regional sports facilities: Lucas county arena, Fifth third field,Hara arena, Canal Park,Eastwood stadium,Cavelli center, Nationwide arena, Quick loans, csu convo, Tulio arena (Erie), Wesbanco Arena ( Wheeling). All sell beer. Guess what- decision was made for better or worse at INFO to not sell alcohol and the same would go for arena on campus. Just my two cents. And one has to wonder why Jake is so adamant about this point. You werent even on this board 5 months ago. some of us have been zip fans/area residents for 40+years!!

[ZachTheZip]

The MAC is looking to move the Women's basketball tournament out of the Q in two years. Can it get done in that time frame, so we can compete with the Lucas County Arena? Having the tourney in Akron makes sense from a media coverage standpoint, since it allows reporters to go to both tournaments easily. It's also far enough away that it can be considered its own event out of the shadow of the men's tourney.

[Jake]

Also, proximity to campus and walking distance is not the issue. The issue is that UA will be the major if not only contributor to its arena and needs to construct it on campus. Close to campus is not good enough. Downtown is not on campus nor does it look or feel like a campus. Just because you can walk from point A to point B does not make point B on campus or worthy of campus identity. Again, UA went to a great deal of trouble and $$$ to create a pedestrian friendly, real campus that no longer looks like hilltop high. We don't need UA to turn the clock back to hilltop high days with major traffic running through the middle of campus facilities and activities. When parents and potential students come to UA to consider enrolling, they are not going to be impressed with an arena that is close to campus as they will with an arena that is on campus. Comparing the rubber bowl to Polsky is not apples and oranges. Both are owned by UA and both do not look on campus and both are not considered by UA as being on campus. Please take note of the UA trail blazer on Main Street next to Polsky. It has an arrow pointing east indicating that UA is east of downtown and not in downtown. Universities with credibility are self-contained and have clearly marked boundaries and many of these universities are in the heart of their host cities. Shuttle busses are not the issue either. And to even imply that an on-campus facility would alienate the community is so absurd it's almost criminal. Does the on-campus stadium send the message to the community that it is for the university only? Of course not and I think you already know that. Are you aware that InfoCision is hosting 7 community high school football games this season and that the general public uses Jackson Field, the student union, Rhodes Arena the residence halls, the Rec Center, Paul Daum Theater, Guzzetta Hall, The Martin Center and E.J. Thomas Hall on a regular basis? All of these facilities are 100% UA facilites and clearly on campus proper. They have no problem making the greater Akron/Northeast Ohio general public feel welcome to campus. So, quit pulling arguments from your butt.Also, we don't need to advocate the take over of downtown by UA. Both entities can and should exist on their own. One doesn't need to cancel out the other. Nor, should both entities glob into one another. Real universites and their real host communities know how to co-exist and interdepend (symbiosis) on one another without losing their unique and separate indentities.Believe it or not, UA can have a real campus that is self-contained and still have its arms open to the community. It's doing it as we speak. A pseudo college/downtown arena cheapens both the university and the city. It would be a monument to mediocrity illustrating that neither entity can stand on its own. It will make Akron, Ohio the shell game capitol of the nation and revert UA back to Hilltop High.Nothing could be better for this community than to be host to a prestigious, authentic, well known and credible university with it's own clear sense of visual/physical boundaries separate from that of the greater city. It's how real universities present themselves and it is how real universities attract more students and gain popularity. No one wants to attend, let alone support a fake looking university.Also, It doesn't follow that a better downtown helps UA. In fact it's the other way around. Once UA starts to water down its identity to downtown politicians and businesses, both the university and community will suffer in the long run. The University of Akron is the horse and downtown Akron is at best, the cart. Reverse that order and the Akron dinasours will ruin everything this university has gained for itself, the community and the region.

Jake, first I want to say that I appreciate the point of view that it would be better to build a new facility on campus than off campus. I think this is a valid point of view, and I like hearing different people present different rationales for different opinions.A couple of points, though. Unless one subscribes to the black and white viewpoint that one inch off campus is purgatory and one inch on campus is heaven, no amount of arguing is going to convince more than a few people that the facility must be built on campus to be truly successful for UA. Quite the contrary, that will be interpreted by most open-minded people as an extremist position that will turn off those who are looking for the most rational position that benefits the most people. Proximity is important, and it's undeniable that there is a significant difference between the distant location of the Rubber Bowl and a block or two off campus. So if you want to be taken seriously, you need to seriously evaluate whether you are putting forth the best possible argument in favor of your postion.Secondly, if, as you say, UA will be the major if not only contributor to its arena, then, of course, there'd be no reason not to have it on campus. The whole concept of having it downtown is based on sharing costs with the city and perhaps also the county. Many people here might be more inclined to support your position if what you say is proven fact. But I haven't seen any hard evidence that what you are presenting is anything more than your opinion, even though you appear to state your opinion as hard fact. And since you are so vehemently against having the new facility anywhere but on campus under any conceivable circumstances, open-minded people like me are going to have a hard time not believing that you are only making these definitive statements to support your passionately held personal opinion.Again, I think the position you have taken is a good one to be made, and I hope that you and others will continue to try to make points for why it would be better for a new facility to be built on campus rather than off. But if the objective is to win people over to your point of view, I think you need to give consideration to the fact that the people who you are addressing on this forum are sophisticated enough not to confuse the validity of a position with the persistence of that position's advocates.

Dave, I really think you are personifying the issue. You are placing too much weight on the sender of the message as opposed to the message. I would suggest that your preocupation with what you think is "having an open mind" is taking precedent over the need to do the right thing. Your type of thinking is not what got us an on-campus stadium. While it may serve the purposes of having a blog, it does very little for serving reality and progress. Your heaven/purgatory analogy is at best over the top. I'm surprised that you didn't use the worn out cliche', "think outside the box" on me along with the "have an open mind" ruse. There comes a time when an open mind is nothing more than riding the fence. I also think that people in general and not just on this nice little blog, are sophisticated enough to know that there is no hard proof that the city or county is going to assist UA in building an arena. Your condemnation of the quality, known as persistence is disturbing. For it was this quality along with steadfastness, passion and assertiveness that got us more green space on campus, the closing of Buchtel and Carroll Streets, the University Park Alliance, InfoCision Stadium and a more pedestrian friendly UA campus.One cannot come up against the powers that would emasculate UA and hi-jack its facilities with the type of wishy-washy postureing you advocate.

[Jake]

I think we all would love to see a new multi-purpose arena constructed but keep in mind a big difference of on campus vs off campus Jake. Alcohol! Im not advocating that beer/alcohol are a necessity but what is a necessity is feasibility of such a project. Theres a big difference between a facility used 40 dates ( mens BB, womens BB, womens VB) and a facility used 200+ days (BB, hockey, sports shows, car shows, garden shows, circus, concerts , etc.) You know what Jake- they aint going to a facility with no liquor. Check out regional sports facilities: Lucas county arena, Fifth third field,Hara arena, Canal Park,Eastwood stadium,Cavelli center, Nationwide arena, Quick loans, csu convo, Tulio arena (Erie), Wesbanco Arena ( Wheeling). All sell beer. Guess what- decision was made for better or worse at INFO to not sell alcohol and the same would go for arena on campus. Just my two cents. And one has to wonder why Jake is so adamant about this point. You werent even on this board 5 months ago. some of us have been zip fans/area residents for 40+years!!

You mean like the alcohol that is served in The University of Akron's on-campus E.J. Thomas Performing Arts Hall, student union, Martin Center and dorms? IS that the alcohol that you are talking about? Alcohol has been served on the UA campus for the past 35 plus years and it's not going to stop. Please stop with the fake issues that don't even belong in the conversation. The decision to not serve liquor in Info was a qualified one with liquor being served in parts of it and there is every reason to believe that that policy will be made more liberal by next season. There is no credence to the claim that an on-campus arena can't have liquor. It simply isn't true and you are using it as a red herring to cloud the issue and win your position at all cost.Also, try taking a look at the amount and variety of events that take place in UA's performing arts hall. As I have said before, the UA campus is replete with examples of the huge amount and variety of events it holds in its many facilities. It makes no sense to claim that UA would not accomodate car shows, home and garden shows, circuses, concerts, and hockey, when for the most part it already has. An on-campus arena is just as capable of being multi-purpose as and off-campus arena.And, please tell me what you think my motives are since I've not been a part of the precious blog long enough to satisfy you. Did you ever stop to think that some issues are bigger than this little narrow blog of sports fans? Did you ever stop to think that all of UA and not just its sports programs have enjoyed the support and vision of many giving people in this community long before this blog was a twinkle in anyone's eye? Let me give you a clue. IT'S NOT ABOUT THIS BLOG AND IT NEVER WAS AND ITS NOT EVER GOING TO BE: This blog is fine but it needs kept in perspective. I guess I made the mistake of thinking it is a means to an end and not an end in itself. I didn't realize it was an extension of the Buchtelite - a publication that doesn't know the means from the end if its life depended on it.And by the way, many of Akron's dinasours who have held our university back have been residents for 40+ years. In fact, they are the same dinasours who wanted the on-campus football stadium "closer to downtown" so it wouldn't look like a campus facility and city hall could take credit for it.

[Dave in Green]

Also, proximity to campus and walking distance is not the issue. The issue is that UA will be the major if not only contributor to its arena and needs to construct it on campus. Close to campus is not good enough. Downtown is not on campus nor does it look or feel like a campus. Just because you can walk from point A to point B does not make point B on campus or worthy of campus identity. Again, UA went to a great deal of trouble and $$$ to create a pedestrian friendly, real campus that no longer looks like hilltop high. We don't need UA to turn the clock back to hilltop high days with major traffic running through the middle of campus facilities and activities. When parents and potential students come to UA to consider enrolling, they are not going to be impressed with an arena that is close to campus as they will with an arena that is on campus. Comparing the rubber bowl to Polsky is not apples and oranges. Both are owned by UA and both do not look on campus and both are not considered by UA as being on campus. Please take note of the UA trail blazer on Main Street next to Polsky. It has an arrow pointing east indicating that UA is east of downtown and not in downtown. Universities with credibility are self-contained and have clearly marked boundaries and many of these universities are in the heart of their host cities. Shuttle busses are not the issue either. And to even imply that an on-campus facility would alienate the community is so absurd it's almost criminal. Does the on-campus stadium send the message to the community that it is for the university only? Of course not and I think you already know that. Are you aware that InfoCision is hosting 7 community high school football games this season and that the general public uses Jackson Field, the student union, Rhodes Arena the residence halls, the Rec Center, Paul Daum Theater, Guzzetta Hall, The Martin Center and E.J. Thomas Hall on a regular basis? All of these facilities are 100% UA facilites and clearly on campus proper. They have no problem making the greater Akron/Northeast Ohio general public feel welcome to campus. So, quit pulling arguments from your butt.Also, we don't need to advocate the take over of downtown by UA. Both entities can and should exist on their own. One doesn't need to cancel out the other. Nor, should both entities glob into one another. Real universites and their real host communities know how to co-exist and interdepend (symbiosis) on one another without losing their unique and separate indentities.Believe it or not, UA can have a real campus that is self-contained and still have its arms open to the community. It's doing it as we speak. A pseudo college/downtown arena cheapens both the university and the city. It would be a monument to mediocrity illustrating that neither entity can stand on its own. It will make Akron, Ohio the shell game capitol of the nation and revert UA back to Hilltop High.Nothing could be better for this community than to be host to a prestigious, authentic, well known and credible university with it's own clear sense of visual/physical boundaries separate from that of the greater city. It's how real universities present themselves and it is how real universities attract more students and gain popularity. No one wants to attend, let alone support a fake looking university.Also, It doesn't follow that a better downtown helps UA. In fact it's the other way around. Once UA starts to water down its identity to downtown politicians and businesses, both the university and community will suffer in the long run. The University of Akron is the horse and downtown Akron is at best, the cart. Reverse that order and the Akron dinasours will ruin everything this university has gained for itself, the community and the region.

Jake, first I want to say that I appreciate the point of view that it would be better to build a new facility on campus than off campus. I think this is a valid point of view, and I like hearing different people present different rationales for different opinions.A couple of points, though. Unless one subscribes to the black and white viewpoint that one inch off campus is purgatory and one inch on campus is heaven, no amount of arguing is going to convince more than a few people that the facility must be built on campus to be truly successful for UA. Quite the contrary, that will be interpreted by most open-minded people as an extremist position that will turn off those who are looking for the most rational position that benefits the most people. Proximity is important, and it's undeniable that there is a significant difference between the distant location of the Rubber Bowl and a block or two off campus. So if you want to be taken seriously, you need to seriously evaluate whether you are putting forth the best possible argument in favor of your postion.Secondly, if, as you say, UA will be the major if not only contributor to its arena, then, of course, there'd be no reason not to have it on campus. The whole concept of having it downtown is based on sharing costs with the city and perhaps also the county. Many people here might be more inclined to support your position if what you say is proven fact. But I haven't seen any hard evidence that what you are presenting is anything more than your opinion, even though you appear to state your opinion as hard fact. And since you are so vehemently against having the new facility anywhere but on campus under any conceivable circumstances, open-minded people like me are going to have a hard time not believing that you are only making these definitive statements to support your passionately held personal opinion.Again, I think the position you have taken is a good one to be made, and I hope that you and others will continue to try to make points for why it would be better for a new facility to be built on campus rather than off. But if the objective is to win people over to your point of view, I think you need to give consideration to the fact that the people who you are addressing on this forum are sophisticated enough not to confuse the validity of a position with the persistence of that position's advocates.

Dave, I really think you are personifying the issue. You are placing too much weight on the sender of the message as opposed to the message. I would suggest that your preocupation with what you think is "having an open mind" is taking precedent over the need to do the right thing. Your type of thinking is not what got us an on-campus stadium. While it may serve the purposes of having a blog, it does very little for serving reality and progress. Your heaven/purgatory analogy is at best over the top. I'm surprised that you didn't use the worn out cliche', "think outside the box" on me along with the "have an open mind" ruse. There comes a time when an open mind is nothing more than riding the fence. I also think that people in general and not just on this nice little blog, are sophisticated enough to know that there is no hard proof that the city or county is going to assist UA in building an arena. Your condemnation of the quality, known as persistence is disturbing. For it was this quality along with steadfastness, passion and assertiveness that got us more green space on campus, the closing of Buchtel and Carroll Streets, the University Park Alliance, InfoCision Stadium and a more pedestrian friendly UA campus.One cannot come up against the powers that would emasculate UA and hi-jack its facilities with the type of wishy-washy postureing you advocate.

The sender of the message in a discussion forum is irrelevant. The message is everything, and the message is in the words. For example, persistence, steadfastness, passion and assertiveness are all neutral qualities that can be associated with either good or bad outcomes. They do not in themselves make one side of an argument more valid or authoritative than another.I'll happily continue to ride the fence until I'm convinced by logical points of fact that one option clearly makes more sense than the others.

[Jake]

Also, proximity to campus and walking distance is not the issue. The issue is that UA will be the major if not only contributor to its arena and needs to construct it on campus. Close to campus is not good enough. Downtown is not on campus nor does it look or feel like a campus. Just because you can walk from point A to point B does not make point B on campus or worthy of campus identity. Again, UA went to a great deal of trouble and $$$ to create a pedestrian friendly, real campus that no longer looks like hilltop high. We don't need UA to turn the clock back to hilltop high days with major traffic running through the middle of campus facilities and activities. When parents and potential students come to UA to consider enrolling, they are not going to be impressed with an arena that is close to campus as they will with an arena that is on campus. Comparing the rubber bowl to Polsky is not apples and oranges. Both are owned by UA and both do not look on campus and both are not considered by UA as being on campus. Please take note of the UA trail blazer on Main Street next to Polsky. It has an arrow pointing east indicating that UA is east of downtown and not in downtown. Universities with credibility are self-contained and have clearly marked boundaries and many of these universities are in the heart of their host cities. Shuttle busses are not the issue either. And to even imply that an on-campus facility would alienate the community is so absurd it's almost criminal. Does the on-campus stadium send the message to the community that it is for the university only? Of course not and I think you already know that. Are you aware that InfoCision is hosting 7 community high school football games this season and that the general public uses Jackson Field, the student union, Rhodes Arena the residence halls, the Rec Center, Paul Daum Theater, Guzzetta Hall, The Martin Center and E.J. Thomas Hall on a regular basis? All of these facilities are 100% UA facilites and clearly on campus proper. They have no problem making the greater Akron/Northeast Ohio general public feel welcome to campus. So, quit pulling arguments from your butt.Also, we don't need to advocate the take over of downtown by UA. Both entities can and should exist on their own. One doesn't need to cancel out the other. Nor, should both entities glob into one another. Real universites and their real host communities know how to co-exist and interdepend (symbiosis) on one another without losing their unique and separate indentities.Believe it or not, UA can have a real campus that is self-contained and still have its arms open to the community. It's doing it as we speak. A pseudo college/downtown arena cheapens both the university and the city. It would be a monument to mediocrity illustrating that neither entity can stand on its own. It will make Akron, Ohio the shell game capitol of the nation and revert UA back to Hilltop High.Nothing could be better for this community than to be host to a prestigious, authentic, well known and credible university with it's own clear sense of visual/physical boundaries separate from that of the greater city. It's how real universities present themselves and it is how real universities attract more students and gain popularity. No one wants to attend, let alone support a fake looking university.Also, It doesn't follow that a better downtown helps UA. In fact it's the other way around. Once UA starts to water down its identity to downtown politicians and businesses, both the university and community will suffer in the long run. The University of Akron is the horse and downtown Akron is at best, the cart. Reverse that order and the Akron dinasours will ruin everything this university has gained for itself, the community and the region.

Jake, first I want to say that I appreciate the point of view that it would be better to build a new facility on campus than off campus. I think this is a valid point of view, and I like hearing different people present different rationales for different opinions.A couple of points, though. Unless one subscribes to the black and white viewpoint that one inch off campus is purgatory and one inch on campus is heaven, no amount of arguing is going to convince more than a few people that the facility must be built on campus to be truly successful for UA. Quite the contrary, that will be interpreted by most open-minded people as an extremist position that will turn off those who are looking for the most rational position that benefits the most people. Proximity is important, and it's undeniable that there is a significant difference between the distant location of the Rubber Bowl and a block or two off campus. So if you want to be taken seriously, you need to seriously evaluate whether you are putting forth the best possible argument in favor of your postion.Secondly, if, as you say, UA will be the major if not only contributor to its arena, then, of course, there'd be no reason not to have it on campus. The whole concept of having it downtown is based on sharing costs with the city and perhaps also the county. Many people here might be more inclined to support your position if what you say is proven fact. But I haven't seen any hard evidence that what you are presenting is anything more than your opinion, even though you appear to state your opinion as hard fact. And since you are so vehemently against having the new facility anywhere but on campus under any conceivable circumstances, open-minded people like me are going to have a hard time not believing that you are only making these definitive statements to support your passionately held personal opinion.Again, I think the position you have taken is a good one to be made, and I hope that you and others will continue to try to make points for why it would be better for a new facility to be built on campus rather than off. But if the objective is to win people over to your point of view, I think you need to give consideration to the fact that the people who you are addressing on this forum are sophisticated enough not to confuse the validity of a position with the persistence of that position's advocates.

Dave, I really think you are personifying the issue. You are placing too much weight on the sender of the message as opposed to the message. I would suggest that your preocupation with what you think is "having an open mind" is taking precedent over the need to do the right thing. Your type of thinking is not what got us an on-campus stadium. While it may serve the purposes of having a blog, it does very little for serving reality and progress. Your heaven/purgatory analogy is at best over the top. I'm surprised that you didn't use the worn out cliche', "think outside the box" on me along with the "have an open mind" ruse. There comes a time when an open mind is nothing more than riding the fence. I also think that people in general and not just on this nice little blog, are sophisticated enough to know that there is no hard proof that the city or county is going to assist UA in building an arena. Your condemnation of the quality, known as persistence is disturbing. For it was this quality along with steadfastness, passion and assertiveness that got us more green space on campus, the closing of Buchtel and Carroll Streets, the University Park Alliance, InfoCision Stadium and a more pedestrian friendly UA campus.One cannot come up against the powers that would emasculate UA and hi-jack its facilities with the type of wishy-washy postureing you advocate.

The sender of the message in a discussion forum is irrelevant. The message is everything, and the message is in the words. For example, persistence, steadfastness, passion and assertiveness are all neutral qualities that can be associated with either good or bad outcomes. They do not in themselves make one side of an argument more valid or authoritative than another.I'll happily continue to ride the fence until I'm convinced by logical points of fact that one option clearly makes more sense than the others.

Fair enough. You can ride the fence for as long as you wish. In the mean time, the effort to build an arena either on-campus or not, continues and there are people on both sides of that fence who are pushing their agenda in the midst of others who think that the issue is something to play Socrates over.I'm happy that you think the sender of the message is irrelevant. However, I disagree with your calling the qualities known as, persistence, steadfastness, passion and assertiveness as neutral. They are not. They are positive qualities and are the mark of prudent people and institutions who know how and when to go full steam ahead! We are closer to a new University of Akron Arena than you might think. Its location on campus is critical to more than its singular success in the parochial vacuum that too many Akronites like to place everything. Its campus location and identity plays into the bigger picture of a vibrant, influential institution of higher learning that will make the difference between a Northern Ohio region that struggles and one that succeeds. In that vein, reducing it to a "downtown Akron" issue is ridiculously beyond parochial.