|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Feb 15, 2009 12:33:00 GMT -5
Can you believe it, perpetuating a topic I'm tired of. Make no mistake, I don't feel we need to do anything to MTSC besides some carpet, buckets of paint and plasma screens. But should our demand ever far exceed supply, here is what I wrote in another thread: Personally I don't know why MTSC isn't 3 rows bigger which would make it 16,800. A measily 3 rows and a slightly steeper upper bowl grade wouldn't have taken more than another 3 feet of building footprint and virtually no more money. I truly think our arena was purposely designed to make sure it could sellout regularly. Plus the last three rows fetch the least amount of money and only help reduce demand. I think one row can be added (600 seats) up top and I believe with relatively simple construction another row could be added below the first row of the upper bowl, which would add another 500. That one extra row below would still not obstruct any view from the private suites at MTSC. That's 1100 more seats without changing anything to do with the footprint or major engineering. Add 12 sky suites with another 200 seats and bang, the building is 16,300 just like that. Nothing bigger would even be necessary. I also think there is potential for corner suites just above the last row of the upper bowl as the building has space on the roof in the corners and endzone. 8 suites per corner and hallways with concessions connecting them at each endzone. Elevator could get people to the north end upper suites from its existing elevator shaft. South upper suites accessed by new method. That could be 32 extra suites if the roof is engineered to be able to load-bear a floor. That is 500 more premium seats making it 16,800 or 16,600 if you scrap the skysuites idea for this one. Anyway, still probably not even necessary but something that could be done should demand far exceed supply one day. See graphic below. Similar idea on north end with some modifications (elevator shaft is in the way etc). 30-32 more suites at slightly less money than the lower suites. Fun just to think up stuff. I had wanted to draw this up for years but never put it at the top of my list. Again, the existing roof would have to be able to transform into a floor. And I think access could be easily figured out as well. Also interesting how there is already the two cement slabs in place (where I have concessions) while other spaces in between pillars remain open. Could be nothing. Could be something. Tell me what you think? ![]() www.jetsowner.com/images/content/Extra Suites.jpg[/img] ![]() www.jetsowner.com/images/content/Extra Suites2.jpg[/img] |
|
|
|
Post by gee on Feb 15, 2009 13:52:48 GMT -5
I like it.
|
|
sharksphan
Veteran Member
No, I'm not a transplanted Canadian... I just play one on TV
Posts: 112
|
Post by sharksphan on Feb 15, 2009 15:03:06 GMT -5
I've never seen the inside of the existing building so I'm curious: would any of your proposed new seating be likely to have obstructed views from, say, unmoveable pillars or other aspects of the existing construction? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "sky suites" - an island or ring of seating suspended from the roof, perhaps? Another thought: as crazy as it might sound, I've often thought that an interesting viewpoint would be from lying face-down on the floor of a glass-bottomed room directly above the ice, kinda like looking through the glass floor of the CN Tower, only much closer of course (100'? 300'?). I'd pay a reasonable amount for "lying room only" seating (so to speak). That might add another 500 paid admissions or so. But if it were up to me, I would be sure not to sell alcohol in such a "seating" area...  |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Feb 16, 2009 10:45:44 GMT -5
nope. seats would be up front and so nothing would obstruct view.
sky suites mean a 12-suite row hung along the roof trusses but not obstructing upper bowl seating. I like the corner suite idea, but again, he existing roof would have to be able to support a floor. washrooms would tie in nicely to the plumbing for the washrooms below in the upper bowl concourse. All four stairwells could be accessed from this new level for fire safety. In fact, notice how they extend up to the roof already (hmmm). Just punch a doorway and add an extra flight of stairs and voila. This arena could be 16,600 no problem (1100 regular seats plus 500 premium seats).
|
|
|
|
Post by Ric O. on Feb 16, 2009 15:51:37 GMT -5
nope. seats would be up front and so nothing would obstruct view. sky suites mean a 12-suite row hung along the roof trusses but not obstructing upper bowl seating. I like the corner suite idea, but again, he existing roof would have to be able to support a floor. washrooms would tie in nicely to the plumbing for the washrooms below in the upper bowl concourse. All four stairwells could be accessed from this new level for fire safety. In fact, notice how they extend up to the roof already (hmmm). Just punch a doorway and add an extra flight of stairs and voila. This arena could be 16,600 no problem (1100 regular seats plus 500 premium seats). Yeah, I'm seeing it! |
|
|
|
Post by Hobble on Feb 16, 2009 16:31:16 GMT -5
I don't think their is one bad seat in the MTSC for hockey. I mean, where my dad and I usually sit, the only obstruction we may get is by a railing by the staircase, but that in no means lessens our enjoyment of the game. And when the Women's Championship was here, I went to the gold game and sat in the upper bowl, and it was still amazing even though we were higher up...
If the MTSC can be expanded as easily as Darren's said, then I don't see how Winnipeg can be refused a team... Our time may be coming quickly, because how long can teams buy their own tickets and embellish attendance numbers until they become broke?!?
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Feb 16, 2009 23:35:55 GMT -5
Make it 4 suites each corner with 20 seats each. So 16x20 = 320 extra premium seats. Couldn't squish 2 suites in between each pillar. Plus you want to fetch the same money for the upper suites as the lower ones and so you offer 4 mores seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Feb 17, 2009 0:33:35 GMT -5
Could never put 8 suites per corner. More like 4 suites per corner. Plumbing, fire exit stairwells are already in place and line up okay. 16 suites total with 320 seats (20 in each rather than 16 to be able to fetch same cost as lower suites).
Add a row or two to certain parts upper bowl. 1000+
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Feb 17, 2009 0:39:31 GMT -5
correct...see new drawings at start of thread
|
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Feb 17, 2009 0:40:53 GMT -5
agreed...there's no reason to divide the areas between the columns, as that would lead to more obstruction, less room for seats... i think these "suites" could be marketed as "party suites" for small and medium sized businesses to hold staff and client type parties...that is in fact how they are used in Vancouver...i don't believe they would command the same amount as most of the regular suites... i can see two rows as possible, assuming raised bar stools are used behind an initial row of seating...at the very least there would be standing room only available behind an initital row... the key issue is whether the MTS Centre roof on both the north and south ends can support, or be made to support a large number of people, because those areas could also be used to take some of the pressure off the upper concourse in between periods and provide for more concession and washroom areas... here are some pics of similar areas at GM Place:   |
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Feb 17, 2009 2:19:55 GMT -5
in the first, and especially, third photo down, note the heavy iron load bearing beams/trusses supporting the north/portage side roof...they suggest to me that the roof was designed to/could support foot traffic...at most, a few vertical pillars would need to be constructed... www.mtscentre.ca/construction/front/040531b.php |
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Feb 17, 2009 2:33:45 GMT -5
north side iron trusses...sure looks to me that they could support a little foot traffic...was it planned that way??  |
|
|
|
Post by White-Out on Feb 17, 2009 4:15:25 GMT -5
You know what I noticed in the visual concept was the 1 tunnel only when in reality now we have tunnels on each corner in the lower bowl... Maybe if we cut down the 2 smaller ones on opposite ends and create seating? allows for about 100 seats more and they're pricey seats too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Feb 17, 2009 10:08:02 GMT -5
exactly Wagner.
Those are thick cross-beams, 4-6 feet maybe in between, that could morph into floors quite easily I'd imagine. Just cheap sheet metal on top right now too. And the main staircase up the north side has one more space to elevate one more level perfectly. Elevator shaft reaches higher than it has to (i think) and stairwells are all accessible from the areas I've proposed. plumbing is directly below from upper bowl for washrooms. Just fun to do this stuff. I'll try my best for confirmation on these ideas, it will be tough though.
|
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Feb 18, 2009 1:55:29 GMT -5
here is the idea for two rows, normal seats plus bar stools behind them, from GM Place...looks nice!   |
|
sharksphan
Veteran Member
No, I'm not a transplanted Canadian... I just play one on TV
Posts: 112
|
Post by sharksphan on Feb 20, 2009 4:32:26 GMT -5
That looks like an awesome place to watch a game. I can SO easily see myself chillin' there with a beer, watching the Canucks lose (hopefully). ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Jiffy~ on Mar 10, 2009 12:08:17 GMT -5
I sat at Labatt Lounge for Monster Jam.. it was freakin awesome.
I agree... more seats would be better.. and almost in every section at the place.. i am positive to say.. all seats are great seats... Trav (6"2) has a room to sit!!!! The bomber stadium, he is a little uncomfortable at certain areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjmclean on Apr 17, 2009 20:34:20 GMT -5
All great ideas, but why the hell wasn't it done in the first place.
The fact the Darren is weighing in on this just confirms that it is currently too small
|
|
|
|
Post by mrconfusion87 on May 30, 2009 2:27:32 GMT -5
I know... Why didn't they think of that in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Post by allthisgold on Sept 15, 2009 16:39:23 GMT -5
If what people are saying is true (such as the roof being constructed strong to easily allow more construction on top) then it clearly was not an after thought. In fact they would then have thought it through well. But without an NHL team why would they spend the extra millions to increase capacity when it is not needed. No reasonable business person would have increased capacity without the need for it.
|
|
