|
|
Post by JETStender on Dec 29, 2008 3:30:49 GMT -5
Idea 1: for the north and south "end zones" 1) knock out the walls just above/behind the last row of seats in the upper deck between the support beams that hold up the roof...i.e., the yellow coloured unfinished walls in this pic:  In the South end if you knock out those walls you would see daylight because thats the end, theres no possible room past that point. 2) in the pics below notice that the roof could serve as a floor to support more seating (a row or so and standing room behind such seats) as well as additional spaces for washrooms/concessions. The north side of the arena has more space, than the south, but here is a good pic of the smaller south side:  Some further pics of the south side "end zone" Again, not intended for the weight that would be required for what you intend. ![]() www.mtscentre.ca/construction/040220/image2.jpg[/img] |
|
|
|
Post by JETStender on Dec 29, 2008 14:05:33 GMT -5
In the South end if you knock out those walls you would see daylight because thats the end, theres no possible room past that point. Of course you would see daylight, but it's not the end; it's the beginning of the roof as seen in the next pic.Not in the South end, there is no lobby roof like the Portage side. Again, not intended for the weight that would be required for what you intend. How do you know? Is it possible they a) planned to use these areas or b) even if you are correct, could add the necessary support for the weight in the future?Again anything COULD be done, but the cost of the modification does not make it feasible. That roof is only intended to protect the lobby from weather, and support the weight of snow in the winter. Major structural changes would need to be made to support additional weight |
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Dec 29, 2008 16:29:43 GMT -5
Not in the South end, there is no lobby roof like the Portage side. Again anything COULD be done, but the cost of the modification does not make it feasible. That roof is only intended to protect the lobby from weather, and support the weight of snow in the winter. Major structural changes would need to be made to support additional weight This is the south side of the arena (along Graham Avenue): This is the north side (along Portage Avenue):  Both sides have plenty of room. In fact, MTS Centre while very narrow is actually longer than many current NHL arenas – that’s an area that could be exploited hopefully. Agreed anything could be done depending on cost. Whether it is feasible or not is another matter: the arena only cost 133 million. The new arena proposed for Edmonton could cost more than 400 million. |
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Dec 30, 2008 11:07:42 GMT -5
Idea 2 1) remove current roof:  2) add new, taller roof with sky suites around the upper bowl, similar to GM Place in Vancouver:   |
|
|
|
Post by jhendrix70 on Dec 30, 2008 11:22:16 GMT -5
Ahhhh, Wagner; That's the kind of picture of GM Place i've been trying to find for a while now! Take the sky suites out of it and BAM: MTS Centre!  Well done! Thanks for posting, |
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Dec 30, 2008 11:25:47 GMT -5
Ahhhh, Wagner; That's the kind of picture of GM Place i've been trying to find for a while now! Take the sky suites out of it and BAM: MTS Centre! Well done! Thanks for posting, the pic was too large so i edited my post, but it can be found here: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Gmplace-pano.jpgPS: notice that GM Place also has some suites or “areas” as described in Idea 1 above also… |
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 2, 2009 23:28:08 GMT -5
Some photos from GM Place to further illustrate the concept...   now, at GM Place they are not lacking for capacity...but within that same space at say the MTS Centre you could include a second row of bar stools with a raised bar behind the initial row and possibly standing room...now imagine you could do that around the entire arena...see below... |
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 2, 2009 23:44:05 GMT -5
these two pics are interesting in terms of possibilities... notice the lane next to the east side of the arena is already a parking lane...i.e., it's not in use...  the west side of the arena looks almost unfinished, and that road is not very important...it could be sacrificed entirely...  |
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 5, 2009 2:40:04 GMT -5
For the amount of hostility that results from anybody even hinting that 15000 seats isn't enough, it's interesting to see how much discussion there is about expanding the MTS...especially from a bunch of armchair Engineers.   my first post on these boards regarded the limited capacity of the MTS Centre. I was "rebuffed" harshly by Blackthorn in a PM and told not to post here ever again. the figures do not lie, though: at 60USD x 15,000 you get $900,000 per game which is better than most teams (see the link in my sig). 15K is the bare minimum, though, in my view. If for nothing more than the "optics" of the NHL as a brand... as for the snide remark, i find it hard to believe that the MTS Centre is one of the few structure in the world incapable of any modification. your comment about "armchair engineers" takes the cake! |
|
|
|
Post by razorsedge on Jan 5, 2009 8:44:21 GMT -5
My post wasn't meant to be serious and I thought "armchair engineers" was pretty clever.  |
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 5, 2009 22:55:48 GMT -5
My post wasn't meant to be serious and I thought "armchair engineers" was pretty clever. well, the nuances are sometime hard to gauge on a message board...so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt...  |
|
|
|
Post by WpgJets2008 on Jan 7, 2009 11:38:53 GMT -5
Wagner's latest ideas on rink expansion are well taken.
And before I say anything else, I know the seating revenue available from the rink itself is more than adequate to house a successful NHL team.
However, playing devil's avocate for a moment, let's say that optics matters to the NHL and others. That a 15,003 rink seems too small for the say of those optics alone.
Using Phil's fact sheet that counted every seat in the MTSC section by section and row by row (thanks again Phil!) on the Manitoba Mythbusters Facts and Figures page, I added up the last row seating in the upper deck.
Now there will be less than the number I'm about to present since large columns holding the roof in place will now obstruct areas around them. Thus cutting the number of seats possible down some.
For all 30 upper deck sections, the last row contains only 652 seats.
So if you add 1 extra row, seating attendance "explodes" to only 15,655.
2 extra rows all the way around the top bowl has a total of 16,307.
3 extra rows has a total of 16,959.
And now for the un-official engineering report:
=================================
(btw, some of us are more than just "armchair" engineers)
Adding one row probably wouldn't cost a fortune to do since the weight of that row is close to the existing building. But as you add more and more rows which are further and further away from the existing building, the downforces involved become torqued due to the increased distances. Therefore, the cost may more than triple to add 3 rows compared to the cost of just adding 1 row.
But the trouble is with an increased number of rows added is that you lose more and more seats due to the growing obstruction from those columns. ie. sitting one row back from the column only loses maybe 3 seats total in a row. But sitting 3 rows back from the column obstructs a wider angle, thus losing even more seats. 3 seats lost for the first row 4 or 5 for the second row and maybe 5 to 7 on the third row.
The same story is true if you only added extra rows in between the blue lines on either side of the rink. (Each section there only has 21 seats on the last row. So this means there are roughly only 80 seats per row available there. Which isn't bigger enough to help really boost the seating capacity at all.)
And now for the un-official financial report:
==============================
And using our own seating chart on MBMB, the seating prices will be $25 to $39 for these upper deck seats so it's going to take a long time to break even. And that assumes that these seats actually sell each game. The breakeven point becomes even longer if these seats don't actually sell most nights.
In conclusion, these extra rows aren't probably cost effective, but maybe necessary to convince the NHL BOG that Winnipeg and its' rink isn't "too small" to get a team.
However, if mid-sized (not very deep - maybe 8' deep on the sides and 12' deep on the rink ends) sky boxes were to be installed there instead of these 3 rows of seating, the amount of revenue would be alot higher thereby increasing the odds of an acceptable payback. This would also avoid the whole issue of obstruction due to roof support columns.
In order to avoid the high cost of adding a mezzanine, there would be some services not provided to these boxes. These boxes would be stocked with food and drink ahead of the game with a small bar and fridge and wouldn't have traditional in-suite waiter services since there is no way to reach them other than at the top of the stands. Washrooms for these boxes would just be the same ones for the upper bowl. Adding a 360 mezzanine would approach the cost of raising the roof and building another level of suites at the top much like those shown earlier in GM Place. So it's either go big or this.
~~~
One idea I'd like to mention that does have some serious coin is filling one of the three "zamboni" entrances in with seats at the MTSC. While one can be for the zambonis and ambulance, the other could be filled in to increase lower bowl capacity by about 85 seats. Not bad when you consider that those seats would cost $55 to $99 depending on our MBMB seating pricing plan. ($4,675 to $8,415 revenue per game)
Chris
I can't believe I give this away for free. This should have cost True North about $10,000 to get.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Jan 7, 2009 15:02:15 GMT -5
IF MTSC is to expand, they will do so with as many premium seating additons as possible. I had crunched these numbers as well a while back and even with my model of $24-$44 for the upper deck, it doesn't add very much revenue. One row can be added with ease but would intermingle with cement pillars.
The only solution to regular seating augmentation is the entire roof being lifted which would in turn:
- add a significant number of seats to the upper bowl, say five rows making the entire capacity 18,500. This would involve a major overhaul on the footprint of the building, something they could have done in the first place but a) didn't have the capital to do, b) didn't have the need to do and c) didn't want to disrupt traffic flow etc just yet if it wasn't necessary yet (ie: no NHL)
- increase the size of the footprint. as Chris mentioned, the engineering of it would not allow to merely mushroom the rows outward up top, as there are no support beams to allow such weight re-distribution, both outward or downward. Therefore new support would have to be added all the way around the building to hoist such an expansion. This would however also allow for more width all the way around both the upper and lower concourses. But it would also leave Hargrave and Donald to virtually only pedestrian and transit route traffic. One bus lane on either side of MTSC and some walkways, but no more vechile traffic.
- only add about $5 million of extra revenue for the team per year, if sold out every game. This is NOT significant enough ROI (return on investment) for such a large construction project that would cost in the neighbourhood of $40-$50 million, at least. It's also not necessary. The hockey team would be better off increasing ticket prices $5-$10 in the current upper bowl over time. This keeps the supply and demand solid.
If they were to undertake this scale of construction job, they would be much better off using the extra footprint adding two strips of smaller, secondary and slightly less luxurious suites between the goal lines atop of the upper bowl and then five rows of seats on either endzone. This would take up as much space as adding 5 rows all the way around would. Just smaller square footage in the suites, with less depth and thiner hallway access. Now the revenue becomes an extra $3 million from 2000 seats and over $3 million in 24 suites...say $6.5 million. Still a large undertaking for the return.
There are many owners in the NHL now that wish their seating "inventory", as they call it, was lower. What MTSC needs is more premium options or luxury space to fetch top dollar for the high paying customers. Give them reason to renew every year. As those two dudes from Buffalo said, MTSC lacks luxury areas like all the fancy lounges and VIP areas in other arenas. Now I don't know where this can be added (although I kinda liked the luxury-suite-access-only-skywalk to the old Met idea).
Add a row in the upper deck to add 650 seats. Add 12 sky suites adjacent to the doubled up press box. Throw some nice paint and redo the ceilings and floors (maybe carpet?) of the concourses. Then you have a close-to 16,000 seating building in the hottest hockey market in North America...of which every seat can still fetch top dollar.
|
|
|
|
Post by kj79 on Jan 7, 2009 17:36:10 GMT -5
I like the idea of filling in one/two or three of the corner entrances. All four corners of the MTSC has an entrance. While all other arenas have one maybe two.
|
|
|
|
Post by WpgJets2008 on Jan 8, 2009 10:28:33 GMT -5
I can't believe I give this away for free. This should have cost True North about $10,000 to get.
I forgot another couple of points.
1) Adding additional premium, executive clubs could be done fairly easily. While walking along the main concourse of the MTSC, the sides with the large windows facing the streets could be used to this advantage at least on Donald (east side, Bobby Hull - The Golden Jet Club) if not on Hargrave (west side, Dale Hawerchuk - Ducky's Lounge). What I would propose is that the concourse footprint be expanded to take the entire width of the outside sidewalk and re-routing foot traffic to the other side of the street(s). By also taking a bite out of some of the rather under-utilized "hot dog dressing areas" near the windows, we could have a large enough footprint to be used as this premium club which could run as long as you wanted.
One thought I had was that any paying member, regardless of whether or not they hold a suite or not, could access each of these 2 clubs. The other thought is that one club on Donald side could have an extra escalator/stairway and elevator reach from the ground level to the suite level(s). See #2 below for discussion about the second level of suites. This way anyone with a paid membership could use the Hargrave side and suite owners would have exclusive access to the Donald side club, thereby negating the need for security at the exclusive club entrance. With either thought, the spaces involved would be large enough to hold whatever executive club they wish.
This opens up another exciting revenue possibility for the team and great new marketing options for businesses that don't have the cash for a luxury box but still want to treat their guests to more than just game tickets and long lines for concessions. Consider a small business buys 2 season tickets and buys 2 lounge passes also. In effect they get premium services charged to their tab without having to buy a box. Once the labatt lounge premium area is sold out, this is the next best thing to a luxury box. This is how the team can "transform" regular lower bowl seats into premium seating. If this takes off in popularity, I can see the team adding seat licence fees in the future.
My only worry with this idea for 2 clubs is that contracts with at least Moxie's and John Labatt Lounge may have to be re-worked so as to allow another 1 or 2 liquor serving establishments on the same premises. If you are either of these two lease holders, you won't be happy to have additional competition on game nights. But this can be done as the landlord controls the building.
2) The second point I forgot to mention is one that Darren and Alex brings up from time to time. Adding sky boxes on the other side of the rink across from the press box. I can't remember if it was 12 or 14 boxes that could be added this way. But looking at the rafters the grid of steel appears to be the same construction on either side. So if it can hold up a long press box and the in-game arena entertainment system that is at one end, certainly it can with a very similar structure be added to the other side.
This is important for two huge reasons. 12 to 14 sky boxes would add 224 (14 x 16) to seating capacity. Which is not an insignifcant addition compared to 652 for a complete top ring. But more importantly, these boxes bring in more premium revenue. I would say that the cost would be at least $50,000 to $75,000 per box per season. That's $875,000 per season or an extra $21,875 per game.
So in summary, adding one row around the top, filling in one zamboni entrance and adding the sky boxes brings seating capacity up to roughly 15,874 with 62 sky boxes and luxury suites. Adding another 130 seats elsewhere to eclipse the 16,000 psychological barrier would be most impressive though. But I have trouble conceiving where that might be, short of converting some (not all) wheelchair lower bowl spaces back to seating, which we agreed earlier has very poor optics.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by WHA on Jan 8, 2009 10:53:11 GMT -5
The easiest place to increase numbers is to increase the number of people allowed in suites. You can easily add another 10+ people per suite and still have comfort in the suite. 50 X10 = 500. All this with no additional cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by WpgJets2008 on Jan 8, 2009 11:31:01 GMT -5
The easiest place to increase numbers is to increase the number of people allowed in suites. You can easily add another 10+ people per suite and still have comfort in the suite. 50 X10 = 500. All this with no additional cost. I might be wrong, so please if anyone knows for sure please correct me. I think the number of people per box is based upon two things: the number of actual seats that happen to be in it and the number of square feet the space occupies. The number of seats probably couldn't change, unless another row is added behind and higher than those in front of it. But this extra seating consumes some space. So it might or might not add to the total number. The fire commissioner sets the number of people that can occupy any enclosed space. So there is some, but very little, wiggle room here to "up" the number. Maybe the number might have been set too low originally, although I doubt it. Chris |
|
|
|
Post by allthisgold on Jan 8, 2009 15:19:36 GMT -5
There are 16 seats per suite and this is the maximum number of tickets that they sell for each suite. I don't see how there could be a fire code issue with putting at least a few more people in each box. The seats are actually below the box and then you have the size of the box itself. There is a lot of room. If you look at the box itself there is a ledge on each side with chairs. This would allow at least 4 more seats per box. There is a lot of room. Adding 4 more seats only increases attendance by about 200 people but if most agree that there really is no requirement that attendance be increased at all then this may be enough. Also people in boxes tend to drink more beer and eat more food so that is some more revenue as well.
In addition, with the boxes adding more people would look better. You are going to have people standing inside the actual box no matter what so adding a few people will make all of the seats appear more full.
Also adding seating to the Zamboni entrance would be inexpensive. For this and the sky boxes I would suggest waiting a few years to determine if there is demand for these tickets given that they would be higher end tickets. Don't want to build something and not be able to fill it.
As an aside, has anyone ever seen or heard about the lease details for Moxies and Tavern? Is it based on a fixed amount or does True North take a % of sales or a combination of both?
|
|
|
|
Post by dbp1990 on Jan 8, 2009 17:07:57 GMT -5
Because the boxes are licensed by the MLCC under spectator activities licence they only allow a maximum number of people based on 12 square feet per person.
16 X 12 = 192 square feet, go ahead check it out, those boxes are no bigger than 200 sqaure feet, that's why you can't have more people in there, or they would be in breach...
|
|
|
|
Post by dbp1990 on Jan 8, 2009 18:30:01 GMT -5
Because the boxes are licesned by the MLCC under spectator activities licence they only allow a maximum numer of perople based on 12 square feet per person. Are you making this stuff up?!? ;D According to the Liquor Control Act Seating capacity 104(1) The commission shall set for each licensed premises the maximum number of people who may be in those premises at any one time.Licensee to respect maximum capacity 104(2) No licensee shall allow on the licensed premises more people than authorized by the commission for those premises.According to the Manitoba Regulations under the Liquor Control Act Maximum capacity of premises 2(1) The maximum capacity of all premises licensed under clauses 60(1)(a) to (g) of the Act, or used to host occasional permit functions, is fixed by dividing the total area (in square meters or square feet) of the premises in which liquor may be served by 1.1148 square meters (or 12 square feet).2(2) Where a stand-up game or a stage is installed in or removed from premises for which the maximum number of patrons permitted has been fixed under subsection (1), the commission, upon being informed by the licensee of the installation or removal, may adjust the maximum number so fixed if it deems it necessary. 2(3) A licensee of premises referred to in subsection (1) shall not permit more patrons in the premises at any one time than the maximum number fixed for those premises under that subsection.____________________________________________________ So having said that, the only way to increase capacity if it's licesned to sell alcohol is to increase the available space.... EXPANSION[/u], which is the whole point of this thread. New skyboxes, new rows of seating, outward, upward or however you have to do, it's the only way with the current available space to get more capacity..... And then lastly the City of Winnipeg has increase the maximum occupant load card for that facilty........ OR, they can just give up their liquor license and sell Kool-Aid |
|
