NU vs DePaul Arenas: Is NU WASTING money?

FeliSilvestris

Redshirt
Oct 21, 2004
3,493
22
0
7600 was just an initial estimate when the renovation was first announced last summer. As the plans were finalized that number apparently went down a bit.
As far as renovation vs. rebuild, I'd guess time had a lot to do with that decision
A reduction from 7,600 to 6,800 is a lot greater than "a bit". That's 800 seats, which is about 11% of the initial estimate.
Building a brand new arena may very well take longer than renovating the old one, but the advantages of having a brand new state-of-the-art facility (for about the same money) surely outweighs the inconvenience of playing one extra season elsewhere in Chicagoland.

EDIT: BTW, in the release linked above, I cannot find the capacity of the renovated arena. Is it there?
 
Last edited:

PurpleHaze525

Redshirt
Mar 16, 2009
897
23
0
A reduction from 7,600 to 6,800 is a lot greater than "a bit". That's 800 seats, which is about 11% of the initial estimate.
Building a brand new arena may very well take longer than renovating the old one, but the advantages of having a brand new state-of-the-art facility (for about the same money) surely outweighs the inconvenience of playing one extra season elsewhere in Chicagoland.

EDIT: BTW, in the release linked above, I cannot find the capacity of the renovated arena. Is it there?

No, I think you're right that NU never officially released the capacity. As far as I can tell the 7600 number (actually 7500) came from this TG article.
 
Oct 27, 2001
4,153
559
0
You are probably right on rennos costs. Which strengthens the question in the OP: Why not spend a bit more and get a brand new (possibly larger) arena?

Yes, it may have taken longer (possibly affecting a second season). But that would be a relatively minor inconvenience considering the benefit of having a brand new arena, whose expected lifespan would be at least decades.

By the way, it seems DePaul got about $20MM from naming rights over 15 years. Potentially NU could have gotten a similar deal for its new arena.
Don't know about the naming rights parity. Having exposure in the McCormick Place area is a lot more valuable than east Central Street, Evanston. It's all about the eyeballs.
 

Gocatsgo2003

All-Conference
Mar 30, 2006
46,699
3,064
78
A reduction from 7,600 to 6,800 is a lot greater than "a bit". That's 800 seats, which is about 11% of the initial estimate.
Building a brand new arena may very well take longer than renovating the old one, but the advantages of having a brand new state-of-the-art facility (for about the same money) surely outweighs the inconvenience of playing one extra season elsewhere in Chicagoland.

EDIT: BTW, in the release linked above, I cannot find the capacity of the renovated arena. Is it there?

What about the plans is not "state of the art?"
 

NJCat

All-Conference
Mar 7, 2016
21,335
1,506
113
What about the plans is not "state of the art?"
"6,800 seats, 64 year old footprint."

Very predictable.

Look, we get the Felis schtick: posit a plausible hypothetical argument 180 degrees out of phase with the majority of sentiment, repeat the argument ad nauseam as click-bait to stimulate discussion and (hopefully) annoy/piss off the more gullible posters, use phrases like "AS STATED ELSEWHERE" to give the appearance of credibility to said argument, etc. etc. etc. It's really pretty funny to watch. I doubt he seriously believe much of what he writes but enjoys a good disagreement with many of the posters. For years it was "5, [PF] 2, 4, 5, 2, 3........", now he has found a great new straw man around the MISTAKE being made with the renovation of WRA. Go with the flow and don't let it bother you.......
 
Last edited:

Gocatsgo2003

All-Conference
Mar 30, 2006
46,699
3,064
78
6,800 seats, 54 year old footprint.



Edit in response to your edit... phew.
 
Last edited: