|
|
Post by jhendrix70 on Jan 14, 2009 20:37:38 GMT -5
Just to put some talk to rest; The MTSC Can expand! Hopefully these Diagrams will help explain a possible and very real scenario: GM PLACE vs MTS CENTRETake a look at the following two pictures. If you were to "cut out" the Sky suites at GM Place, you'd be left with the MTS Centre. ( Almost exactly ) Now, in order to add more seating; I've mentioned before that Sky Suites would be the best option. This way you wouldn't have to build OUTWARD, just upward.... GM PLACE:1: Currently, the MTS Centre has 3 "Zambonie Entrances" which really are un-needed. Two of those could have a retractable seating area installed so they can still bring equipment in through all 3 openings when games are not being played. 2: Openings behind the walls used for bars, restaurant, etc..In constuction pictures of the MTSC, there are area's which could be converted to an open area immediatley. 3: GM Press Box sits at same height MTS Centre One Does with Sky suites ABOVE ( not below ) as previously mentioned. 4:Just shows how Sky Suites are in comparison to MTS Centre's Roof line. Raise the Roof 10-15 Feet, Sky Suites built....  MTS CENTRE:1: Openings which could be used for seating 2: Area's of MTS Centre's wall which could be opened for Restaurant / Bar 3: Where MTSC Roofline is SET to be dismatled, and raised.  |
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 15, 2009 0:01:59 GMT -5
Some interesting work there, Hendrix...
i think they could squeeze 16K in the arena without removing the entire roof, with some of the ideas presented in this thread...any significant expansion into the 17K plus level and in terms of amenities will require a new roof and some increase in the width of the build, at least in the areas around the seating bowl...
can I ask you, what program did you use to "mark-up" photos as you did above??
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Jan 15, 2009 0:45:36 GMT -5
GM PLace has far less obstructed view seats because i's entrance tunnels are at very top of section, this being possible because of a much larger footprint for the building. MTSC had to "tuck" its concourse as snug as possible under the stands, therefore making the entrance tunnels in more of the mid-point of the section, necessitating the railings and glass panels that meet safety code. Unfortunate but again, its all due to the site that MTSC sits on. It's a tad too small. But like I've always said, the architects did a great job of making a building with the space they were given. I'm sure when first tendered the contract they looked at it with their eyes bulged out.
|
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 17, 2009 22:05:22 GMT -5
if the MTS Centre ever gets retro-fitted to include sky suites, similar to Vancouver's, or significantly more upper bowl seating, I would assume a new roof and new support would be need to be built outside of the existing structure...i.e., the width of the building would be increased on one or both sides, a few traffic lanes would be shut down or buried and new vertical columns would be created, along with additional exits/stairways, concourse space, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Jan 28, 2009 11:02:13 GMT -5
MTSC was crammed onto a site that is 90% of the size it needed to be. That much is true. The site selection process has its sketchy spots too. No denying that. But remember that a good case could have been made to build a extremely spacious 10,000 seat building with a slightly larger lower bowl, huge private suites and ample pedestrian space around the footprint. Would we, the public, have gone bonkers if that happened? Of course we would have. But the point is, at the time, there was nothing stopping TN from building that deluxe AHL arena that could still cram 12,000 for concerts if need be.
Instead they shaved and crunched and manipulated the plans to house as many seats as possible on the site (which again, is a cool site in theory with all its skywalks and being on Portage etc, just 10% too small.)
Yes, having a 15,000 seat building is better for concert draws and concert revenues...but make no mistake, the NHL was consulted to make sure that if they went ahead with 15,000 seats that it would meet their requirements. By the way, the NHL has no official capacity requirements, but rather only business requirements. That meaning revenues. A team needs to prove they can sustain themselves. Now, is 15,000 seats at the bottom edge of attaining that? Absolutely. MTSC just makes the cut. But in is in.
I do wish MTSC was built for 16,500. That is ideal to me. 19,000 is too big.
We can attain more seating in various ways. But that has been discussed to death. And to get back to the point, MTSC is built and it is what we have. In 2001 when the deal was being made, there wasn't exactly competition to come up with multiple arena proposals. That's because the NHL wasn't on the radar. At all.
That is why we only had one group, True North, pulling for a new building. Not just for the hopes of the NHL returning, but because Winnipeg as a city, needed a new facility. We were about to get one in 1995. That wasn't the issue. Those funds were in place. It's that nobody wanted to OWN the Winnipeg Jets in Winnipeg. By the time the ducks were in a row, there was too much in-fighting and uncertainty, and it was simply too late. We didn't step up. But had we stepped up in 1995, right now we'd be one of the teams looking to relocate anyway. The losses from 1996-2004 would have been astronomical and we would have iced a horrendous team with B-class stars on it.
You guys always get me going on this!!
But to wrap it up...WHA do you think MTSC is the only sports facility to have its existance come from suspect motives? Not even close. But the fact is, we got a new arena that serves us well and serves TN well. Period.
There is nothing about MTSC that has put us behind anyone on any "list".
Double period.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Jan 28, 2009 19:47:46 GMT -5
I agree. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, whether negative or positive, and in this case there is nothing overly negative at all....just anger and concern. I understand. I felt the same way. What I nearly did back in 2003, and I'm totally serious here, ws start a campaign to hault MTSC construction until it was re-thought at a larger capacity and have more public say. I was pissed! Like I said, once I calmed down and looked at the true ability of the building to house the NHL I came around. That's not to say i still wouldn't have liked it to be 16,500. And I agree that we didn't have enough say in the process, but sometimes that can also hinder the project....endless debate and no digging and putting up I-beams. I know all about how MTSC went down. Heck I remember getting a call at my home during dinner with my in-laws and it was Al Golden of all people. He so deperately wanted to tell me the distugsting way in which MTSC went down. Now, some of his story was true, some was false or highly embelished. Nevertheless, it was a tad shady, mostly on the city's part. But their were certainly benfactors with regards to the site selection. But it also may never have happened otherwise. And then we'd just have JetsMemory.com instead. Or Curtis Walker  Annnnnyway... Nuff said. It's our arena. It will do. If it doesn't....WHA.....I will be right beside you blowing a gasket. You can count on that. |
|
|
|
Post by JETStender on Jun 15, 2009 22:37:52 GMT -5
The more I think about it the more I think they seriously need to expand the concourse. They should just tunnel Donald like they were supposed too. Then the main concourse could be expanded on the east side and it would also allow for an expansion of the upper bowl on the east side and more suites.
They also need to fix the concession lines, get them more like an amusement park ride waiting line. Like a snake, its getting ridiculous when its a sellout.
|
|
|
|
Post by WpgJets2008 on Jun 16, 2009 9:16:59 GMT -5
Agreed. Simply painting lines on the floor showing how the waiting lines are to be organized would improve the main concourse greatly. Quick and easy. ALso I would do the same with the washroom waiting lines too.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by bosshogg18 on Jan 31, 2011 17:38:47 GMT -5
Just to put some talk to rest; The MTSC Can expand! Hopefully these Diagrams will help explain a possible and very real scenario: GM PLACE vs MTS CENTRETake a look at the following two pictures. If you were to "cut out" the Sky suites at GM Place, you'd be left with the MTS Centre. ( Almost exactly ) Now, in order to add more seating; I've mentioned before that Sky Suites would be the best option. This way you wouldn't have to build OUTWARD, just upward.... GM PLACE:1: Currently, the MTS Centre has 3 "Zambonie Entrances" which really are un-needed. Two of those could have a retractable seating area installed so they can still bring equipment in through all 3 openings when games are not being played. I thought the same thing as well. Why does every corner have some sort of Zamboni type door? Each space can easily add another 50 seats. Not much in the grand scheme of things, but 100 seats is a 100 seats. |
|
|
|
Post by lilratzy on Jan 31, 2011 18:27:36 GMT -5
Just to add its only one suite in that Photo you found Wagner, just that wide. There is anoter on the oposite end. www.canucks.com/images/hosip/infopackage06.pdfI still like those sky suites. I'm wondering if the view would be similar in the 12 boxes they are speaking of in the MTSC. Compare 400 Level boxes  500 Level boxes  Much better view. Wow, if you only look at the seats in this arena it looks a lot like Jobing Arena at a Coyotes game on a Sat night.  Almost too many in the stands though |
|
|
|
Post by bullboy on Feb 1, 2011 5:57:35 GMT -5
here's a picture of the north end roof showing the large amount of unused space...i can see this made into a concession/washroom/bar area... scroll to fifth image down on the left side www.advance-pro.com/completeproj/mts_g.htmThis is the perfect pic to use here you go DBP work your magic.  Wow i think I see what u are talking about. Nice pic. |
|
|
|
Post by bosshogg18 on Feb 2, 2011 14:37:00 GMT -5
|
|
Annnnnyway...
Almost too many in the stands though