Downtown Arena!

[Spin]

OK I see what you're saying. Take your expected crowd and figure that to be 70% of what capacity your building should be.

That might be a good way to look at it.

I just think we're going to see a big increase in attendance the day we move out of that band box. Even in the JAR attendance increased 10% overall and 15% in conference games last season. Cavs attendance increased 26% when it moved from Cleveland Arena to the Richfield Coliseum.

[Spin]

I was looking at pics of "arenas" and this one looks earily similar to the JAR. Maybe less people in the bottom section, but more in the top.

Welcome to Orrville High School

[Blue & Gold]

I was looking at pics of "arenas" and this one looks earily similar to the JAR. Maybe less people in the bottom section, but more in the top.

Welcome to Orrville High School

I think that's the Canton Field House.

[LZIp]

I was looking at pics of "arenas" and this one looks earily similar to the JAR. Maybe less people in the bottom section, but more in the top.

Welcome to Orrville High School

Canton McKinley there boss, but your point still stands.

[Hilltopper]

This place is a better venue than the JAR. And that's not saying much.

[Dave in Green]

OK I see what you're saying. Take your expected crowd and figure that to be 70% of what capacity your building should be.

That might be a good way to look at it.

I just think we're going to see a big increase in attendance the day we move out of that band box. Even in the JAR attendance increased 10% overall and 15% in conference games last season. Cavs attendance increased 26% when it moved from Cleveland Arena to the Richfield Coliseum.

Right, Spin. That 70% number was just a quick and dirty first stab at figuring how to calculate a new arena capacity. I'll continue to look for better numbers. But it's always just going to be an estimate. I don't think there's a hard formula that works under all conditions.

I agree with you that a new arena will result in an increase in basketball attendance, assuming Zips basketball doesn't drop off the face of the earth the way Zips football did just as the new stadium was opening. Can you imagine what attendance would have been like at the Rubber Bowl during the Ianello era? I just don't know what a realistic increase would be -- 10%? 15%? 20%? I don't think there's a hard formula for calculating that, either. But I'm confident that as long as the Zips remain a top 100 team with a realistic shot to win the MAC and the NCAA tournament invitation every season, a fan-friendly new arena would certainly attract more fans to more games.

[K92]

This place is a better venue than the JAR. And that's not saying much.

Perhaps we should start playing home games there and see if there is an attendance spike.

[Dave in Green]

The Canton Memorial Civic Center is a well-preserved example of the type of arena being built circa 1951. At 63 years old, it's interesting to compare with modern arenas to see how they're being designed and built differently today.

[Zipmeister]

Yes, I think one of the most interesting development is the increased use of steel frameworks.

[taxpayer]

Canton Fieldhouse capacity is 4,800 and is preferable to me than the JAR from what I see from a fan's perspective. Seating is much closer and other than wasted space behind one of the baskets and the little partioned off courtside areas across from the player benches it seems like a bandbox that would provide great sight lines and a home court advantage.

Has UA ever performed a feasibility study to determine the cost and time frame of renovating the JAR and making it a high end facility for hoops and volleyball only?

[g-mann17]

Canton Fieldhouse capacity is 4,800 and is preferable to me than the JAR from what I see from a fan's perspective. Seating is much closer and other than wasted space behind one of the baskets and the little partioned off courtside areas across from the player benches it seems like a bandbox that would provide great sight lines and a home court advantage.

Has UA ever performed a feasibility study to determine the cost and time frame of renovating the JAR and making it a high end facility for hoops and volleyball only?

Yes, they spent about $375,000 on a three year feasibility study. Nothing has been released from that study, but I'd assume it was fairly costly to do anything.

Lowering seats or removing the track (to improve sight-lines) presents the issue of losing functionality in the building (labs, class rooms, additional practice space) along with having to find a way to re-route the flow of fans. Capacity expansion requires major structural changes as the four main supports are in the corners of the actual arena, a whole new roof system would have to be installed.

Neither of these things get at what the real problem to the fan experience is, which is congestion around the ticket lines, lack of restrooms, concessions, and team shops and difficulty getting from your seat to whatever does exist.

[skip-zip]

Yes, they spent about $375,000 on a three year feasibility study. Nothing has been released from that study, but I'd assume it was fairly costly to do anything.

Lowering seats or removing the track (to improve sight-lines) presents the issue of losing functionality in the building (labs, class rooms, additional practice space) along with having to find a way to re-route the flow of fans. Capacity expansion requires major structural changes as the four main supports are in the corners of the actual arena, a whole new roof system would have to be installed.

Neither of these things get at what the real problem to the fan experience is, which is congestion around the ticket lines, lack of restrooms, concessions, and team shops and difficulty getting from your seat to whatever does exist.

You touch on a number of things here about the study quite accurately. For me, it was somewhat encouraging to see that some dramatic improvements can be made. Other changes are just impossible, based on the existing structure, as you point out. I just have a big problem with lowering the capacity significantly for the sake of comfort for fans who already attend the games anyway, when I feel like the program can still do so many things to reach higher and increase demand from area fans. The reduction would limit that growth, and may limit it for many years.

[Balsy]

Classrooms, labs...in the JAR? We risk those? There's none that I know of...any in the JAR were moved to The Big Dialer...

[LZIp]

Classrooms, labs...in the JAR? We risk those? There's none that I know of...any in the JAR were moved to The Big Dialer...

I had a class in the JAR once.

[Dave in Green]

We've been going around in circles on this subject for years with the same options discussed over and over again. Let's take a realistic look at the options.

1. There's no way to improve JAR seating at a reasonable cost without reducing capacity. It makes no sense to improve seating to attract more fans to games if you're going to turn fans away because you've reduced seating capacity below demand. The odds of UA knowingly reducing capacity below demand are close to zero.

2. To improve JAR seating without losing capacity would require major structural surgery. Tearing a building half down and building it back up with mostly new materials is almost as expensive as new construction and the finished product is still inferior to all-new construction. The odds of UA spending so much to transform the JAR are close to zero.

3. The best option to create the best fan experience is to build a new arena with or without city and county participation, which requires substantial financial investment. If the sales tax increase fails, it's unlikely that UA in the near future will have the resources to finance a new arena on its own.

4. The easiest fallback option is to soldier on with the JAR with a minor patch job and the current seating. The good part about this is that it will keep ZN.o active for years complaining about the JAR and discussing options 1, 2 and 3.

[Zipmeister]

?

[Zipmeister]

We've been going around in circles on this subject for years with the same options discussed over and over again. Let's take a realistic look at the options.

1. There's no way to improve JAR seating at a reasonable cost without reducing capacity. It makes no sense to improve seating to attract more fans to games if you're going to turn fans away because you've reduced seating capacity below demand. The odds of UA knowingly reducing capacity below demand are close to zero.

2. To improve JAR seating without losing capacity would require major structural surgery. Tearing a building half down and building it back up with mostly new materials is almost as expensive as new construction and the finished product is still inferior to all-new construction. The odds of UA spending so much to transform the JAR are close to zero.

3. The best option to create the best fan experience is to build a new arena with or without city and county participation, which requires substantial financial investment. If the sales tax increase fails, it's unlikely that UA in the near future will have the resources to finance a new arena on its own.

4. The easiest fallback option is to soldier on with the JAR with a minor patch job and the current seating. The good part about this is that it will keep ZN.o active for years complaining about the JAR and discussing options 1, 2 and 3.

I must have missed something.

How is UAs ability to finance a new arena on its own in the near future tied to an increase in the sales tax?

[taxpayer]

gmann17 - I'm from out of town and get to the JAR on gamedays so I don't have great insight as to all the structural issues you bring up but I have seen the track level bleachers pushed back and all that is there is floor space, no classrooms. I'll guess there are rooms at the court endzones since I've not seen those bleacher ends pushed back. I have a hard time believing that changing the seating system would require taking the roof off the JAR. My thought would be to install chairback seating that would be suported on top of the existing track level with fan access from under the new seating structure. In short, the access to the new seating would be from under the new seating structure; some concession room would be available under these seats. Again, I imagine some capacity would be lost but getting creative in the corner design might keep the JAR in the 4800 - 5000 neighborhood.

My point is that NOW is the time for UA to act; KD has momentum built up and I hope the leadership doesn't take it or him for granted. To keep the status quo with the JAR is a huge mistake in my opinion if the goal is to continue being a top mid level program. Each year the JAR remains as is puts the Zips further behind in being the program we all dream about.

I'd love to see what a $375,000 feasibility study recommended; has it ever been made public?

[Spin]

Canton Fieldhouse capacity is 4,800 and is preferable to me than the JAR from what I see from a fan's perspective. Seating is much closer and other than wasted space behind one of the baskets and the little partioned off courtside areas across from the player benches it seems like a bandbox that would provide great sight lines and a home court advantage.

Funny you should mention that as the CCC has a full sized floor. Yet the crowd looks closer to the action than at the JAR, I was there for many indoor soccer games (a different sport from futsal) and arena football. The stage makes it a poor design for sporting events, if that wasn't there it would be very close to the capacity Akron needs. it's also showing it's 63 years if you look past the renovations. One unique feature of the complex is the performing arts center "attached" to the civic center has a parking deck as a roof. That is very convenient, but would probably be cost prohibitive today.

[Spin]

Classrooms, labs...in the JAR? We risk those? There's none that I know of...any in the JAR were moved to The Big Dialer...

I had classes at the JAR well after the Dialer was built.

[zippy5]

I'd love to see what a $375,000 feasibility study recommended; has it ever been made public?

I think we saw the recommendation when they announced the ballot measure

[zippy5]

I'd love to see what a $375,000 feasibility study recommended; has it ever been made public?

I think we saw the recommendation when they announced the ballot measure

[ZachTheZip]

There are still a few traditional classrooms in the JAR, on the north end.

Aside from that, when the bleachers are pushed back, the floorspace is used as "lab" space for physical education classes.

[zippy5]

Grr triple post

[g-mann17]

I'd love to see what a $375,000 feasibility study recommended; has it ever been made public?

$49,750 for the initial study on rehab to the arena. 20% of the master plan budget dedicated researching locations and traffic flow around campus. 10% of the master plan follow up. And I believe 10% of the Infocision Stadium study was in regards to creating designs for a domed stadium and creating a Carrier Dome situation. So yes, a grand total of $375,000 has been spent studying these ideas.

There are classrooms around the arena and under it. Lab space exists, like Zach said, in the empty space after the bleachers are put away. Physical education uses this space.

What you suggest still would cost millions, and you don't spend millions on something if it isn't going to be the final solution. What you suggest is far from a final solution and it does not take into account other glaring issues with the arena.