Wintrust

[JournCat]

This story says a firm hired by McPier projected DePaul would draw 9,500 a game. The actual number is 3,142. The cost to taxpayers was $82.5 million.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/taxpayer-funded-wintrust-arena-falls-short-of-attendance-projections/

Say what you will about NU and the plans for the new W-R, but at least our donors paid for our own arena.

 

[Max_Power]

This story says a firm hired by McPier projected DePaul would draw 9,500 a game. The actual number is 3,142. The cost to taxpayers was $82.5 million.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/taxpayer-funded-wintrust-arena-falls-short-of-attendance-projections/

Say what you will about NU and the plans for the new W-R, but at least our donors paid for our own arena.

That is not going to get better soon.

 

[wildelk2]

Shysters will do anything, say anything to get those tax dollars.

 

[ubercat]

That would be like projecting us to average 9,500 at Allstate Arena.

 

[willycat]

That would be like projecting us to average 9,500 at Allstate Arena.

Or the new W-R.

 

[Fitz51]

Or the new W-R.

Exactly. And this is why the notion of increasing seating was ridiculous.

 

[willycat]

Exactly. And this is why the notion of increasing seating was ridiculous.

Well ok then your fine with DePaul building a 10,000 seat arena and NU building one about half that size. Why NU why?

 

[JournCat]

Well ok then your fine with DePaul building a 10,000 seat arena and NU building one about half that size. Why NU why?

7,000 is "half" of 10,000 ... that's some U of I math right there ...

 

[pschatz25]

Unfortunately, the firms that do attendance projections often have a vested interest in the project being done (or are being paid by firms that do) so you end up with ridiculous estimates like this one.

So I took my daughter to a Sky game at Wintrust a few weeks ago. My second impressions (was there for the NU game) were not good:

- The traffic and parking are a total cluster****. I can't imagine how bad it would be if 9k+ actually did attend an event there.
- The concession food is bad and there are few options beyond the typically stadium dreck. For shame in a great food city like Chicago.
- I had thought you could walk on the main level concourse all the way around the lower bowl, but that is not the case. You cannot walk through "club" above one sideline (unless you have a club ticket, of course).
- Sitting in the main level this time, I thought the balcony was higher from the base of the arena that I thought. It felt almost disconnected from the main level. This may be due to the ceiling being so high, especially over the court. I'd be curious the court to ceiling elevation of Wintrust versus Welsh-Ryan Arena.
- The concourses get very narrow and crowded in some places due to concession stand lines, similar to parts of Ryan Field.
- The lack of decoration in the concourses and elsewhere made the whole venue feel very generic.
- The audio and video boards were still great.

I'm pretty confident WRA will be a much better experience.

 

[rwhitney014]

Unfortunately, the firms that do attendance projections often have a vested interest in the project being done (or are being paid by firms that do) so you end up with ridiculous estimates like this one.

So I took my daughter to a Sky game at Wintrust a few weeks ago. My second impressions (was there for the NU game) were not good:


- I had thought you could walk on the main level concourse all the way around the lower bowl, but that is not the case. You cannot walk through "club" above one sideline (unless you have a club ticket, of course).

- The lack of decoration in the concourses and elsewhere made the whole venue feel very generic.

These two observations sum up my thoughts from our visit last December. The second is fixable, of course, but the first one made zero sense to me as a matter of design.

 

[Medill90]

I understood that basketball was part of, but not central to the rationale for Wintrust. Thought it added some convention component to the McCormick Place infrastructure.

If the City/State get some cut of ticket sales....or parking sales....that might be somewhat meaningful....but not to the extent if they were entirely reliant on bball to deliver revenue.

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

Well ok then your fine with DePaul building a 10,000 seat arena and NU building one about half that size. Why NU why?

Because, according to your math, they wouldn't draw 9,500.

 

[Fitz51]

Well ok then your fine with DePaul building a 10,000 seat arena and NU building one about half that size. Why NU why?

Yes, I am. Why have a 10,000 seat arena that can't be filled? To make you (and, apparently, only you, as no one here or anywhere else I have seen has complained about this) feel better because more seats = better school?

 

[Hungry Jack]

TIFs need to be abolished.

 

[Medill90]

TIFs need to be abolished.

I have a client who owns hotels in Chicago....hotels in Chicago were hit with a special tax to pay for New Comiskey Park (sure, sure, guaranteed rate) as part of the overall deal struck with the state. He claims his hotels, all but one in downtown, did not get one guest because of baseball during the time they paid the tax.

 

[IdahoAlum]

I have a client who owns hotels in Chicago....hotels in Chicago were hit with a special tax to pay for New Comiskey Park (sure, sure, guaranteed rate) as part of the overall deal struck with the state. He claims his hotels, all but one in downtown, did not get one guest because of baseball during the time they paid the tax.

Well the hotels weren’t hit with the tax, the people who stayed there were. But same point.

 

[hdhntr1]

Well ok then your fine with DePaul building a 10,000 seat arena and NU building one about half that size. Why NU why?

But DePaul really did not build it

 

[Sec_112]

A) Hasn't the theory of government-funded stadiums generating profitability for municipalties been absolutely beaten to death nationwide?

I thought study after study has killed that idea. Isn't that one of the reasons the Chargers couldn't get funding in San Diego?

And if you can't find the profitable business model in the NFL ...

B) Just for clarification, Fitz51, I dare to be on the island with Willy about a 10K seat arena. He's not the only one who thinks NU went way too small.

I agree they wouldn't be able to fill up 10K seats at these prices. That doesn't mean you can't change anything in that equation.

If NU gets in the ballpark of consistently good (let's say a tourney once every three years), I think they are absolutely killing themselves long-term by not having an inexpensive and easily-available ticket option for a casual fan.

I understand NU is not the only sports organization going in this direction, but I think this is going to be a 10-20-year problem across many sports.

With that said, I'd be interested to know which came first:

1) The decision to stay small;
2) A budget, or;
3) An architectural decision to keep the original WR steel frame/girders.

Once NU kept the frame of the roof, there was no chance of increasing the capacity.

Here ends my once-every-few-months sermon.

 

[pschatz25]

I have a client who owns hotels in Chicago....hotels in Chicago were hit with a special tax to pay for New Comiskey Park (sure, sure, guaranteed rate) as part of the overall deal struck with the state. He claims his hotels, all but one in downtown, did not get one guest because of baseball during the time they paid the tax.

I'm strongly opposed to publicly-funded stadiums, but it's disingenuous to claim that not a single person attended a Sox game and stayed in a Chicago hotel over the last 27 years (Or whenever the stadium was paid off. Was this tax then used to fund the Soldier Field renovation?). I mean where did the media stay during the 2005 World Series?

 

[pschatz25]

A) Hasn't the theory of government-funded stadiums generating profitability for municipalties been absolutely beaten to death nationwide?

I thought study after study has killed that idea. Isn't that one of the reasons the Chargers couldn't get funding in San Diego?

Yes, that theory has been repeatedly and thoroughly de-bunked. No, that hasn't stopped most cities from continuing to fall for it (Milwaukee and Las Vegas being recent examples).

 

[Sec_112]

... Milwaukee and Las Vegas being recent examples.

I agree with everthing you say. However, considering the Raiders brand as well as its Oakland and LA roots and the Vegas attraction, I'd bet the equation will work in Vegas for 5-10 years.

But another city better not fall for the public-funding concept when the next presentation includes the Vegas example. I think it's a unique mix.

 

[willycat]

A) Hasn't the theory of government-funded stadiums generating profitability for municipalties been absolutely beaten to death nationwide?

I thought study after study has killed that idea. Isn't that one of the reasons the Chargers couldn't get funding in San Diego?

And if you can't find the profitable business model in the NFL ...

B) Just for clarification, Fitz51, I dare to be on the island with Willy about a 10K seat arena. He's not the only one who thinks NU went way too small.

I agree they wouldn't be able to fill up 10K seats at these prices. That doesn't mean you can't change anything in that equation.

If NU gets in the ballpark of consistently good (let's say a tourney once every three years), I think they are absolutely killing themselves long-term by not having an inexpensive and easily-available ticket option for a casual fan.

I understand NU is not the only sports organization going in this direction, but I think this is going to be a 10-20-year problem across many sports.

With that said, I'd be interested to know which came first:

1) The decision to stay small;
2) A budget, or;
3) An architectural decision to keep the original WR steel frame/girders.

Once NU kept the frame of the roof, there was no chance of increasing the capacity.

Here ends my once-every-few-months sermon.

Let me congratulate you on your "intelligent" thinking. Oh some will say that I will be the only one doing so but I don't think that is true. I still believe that later NU administrations will regret the 7,000 seat "new w-r". If as you say NU becomes competitive and makes "the Dance" every 3 years and finishes in the top I/3 of the Big Ten on a regular basis their will be nowhere to put the new fans they claim to want. If it was the footprint that determined the smallness, then they should have bulldozed it and built brand new.

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

Let me congratulate you on your "intelligent" thinking. Oh some will say that I will be the only one doing so but I don't think that is true. I still believe that later NU administrations will regret the 7,000 seat "new w-r". If as you say NU becomes competitive and makes "the Dance" every 3 years and finishes in the top I/3 of the Big Ten on a regular basis their will be nowhere to put the new fans they claim to want. If it was the footprint that determined the smallness, then they should have bulldozed it and built brand new.

But you JUST said we can’t draw that anyway...

 

[ricko6543211]

A) Hasn't the theory of government-funded stadiums generating profitability for municipalties been absolutely beaten to death nationwide?

I thought study after study has killed that idea. Isn't that one of the reasons the Chargers couldn't get funding in San Diego?

And if you can't find the profitable business model in the NFL ...

B) Just for clarification, Fitz51, I dare to be on the island with Willy about a 10K seat arena. He's not the only one who thinks NU went way too small.

I agree they wouldn't be able to fill up 10K seats at these prices. That doesn't mean you can't change anything in that equation.

If NU gets in the ballpark of consistently good (let's say a tourney once every three years), I think they are absolutely killing themselves long-term by not having an inexpensive and easily-available ticket option for a casual fan.

I understand NU is not the only sports organization going in this direction, but I think this is going to be a 10-20-year problem across many sports.

With that said, I'd be interested to know which came first:

1) The decision to stay small;
2) A budget, or;
3) An architectural decision to keep the original WR steel frame/girders.

Once NU kept the frame of the roof, there was no chance of increasing the capacity.

Here ends my once-every-few-months sermon.

I lean toward the small option. However, I would have been in favor of a tear-down rather than a fully gutted renovation as they've done, if you were going to go that far, why not just blow it all up? Then I spoke with someone who supposedly had a line into the planning (so this is anecdotal, I know), who said that because of the way the infrastructure was originally laid and the nature of the land, taking out the existing support structure would have been exceedingly expensive - to the point where a full tear-down would have been very nearly 2x the cost of the gutted renovation they did. Which seems strange to me intuitively, as they took almost everything out, but I'm not in the architecture business. If true, that helps explain the decision.

 

[willycat]

But you JUST said we can’t draw that anyway...

No I didn't. Reading is a skill, I guess.

 

[Medill90]

I'm strongly opposed to publicly-funded stadiums, but it's disingenuous to claim that not a single person attended a Sox game and stayed in a Chicago hotel over the last 27 years (Or whenever the stadium was paid off. Was this tax then used to fund the Soldier Field renovation?). I mean where did the media stay during the 2005 World Series?

He was referring to his hotels, not all of the hotels indicated by the tax. And while his statement was likely hyperbolic, his point that the negative effects of a 2 percent tax on all his customers imposed for decades greatly outweighed whatever minuscule benefit accrued to his business.

His statement was not remotely disingenuous.

 

[Medill '03]

All over sports we’re seeing a move toward fewer seats and higher-end, higher-cost in-person experiences. Competition for casual fans has forced teams to focus on their more passionate fans, of whom NU has precious few. Hopefully we’ll become a consistent winner and make more of them. For now it would be nice just to keep all the other teams’ casual fans out of our arena.

A) Hasn't the theory of government-funded stadiums generating profitability for municipalties been absolutely beaten to death nationwide?

I thought study after study has killed that idea. Isn't that one of the reasons the Chargers couldn't get funding in San Diego?

And if you can't find the profitable business model in the NFL ...

B) Just for clarification, Fitz51, I dare to be on the island with Willy about a 10K seat arena. He's not the only one who thinks NU went way too small.

I agree they wouldn't be able to fill up 10K seats at these prices. That doesn't mean you can't change anything in that equation.

If NU gets in the ballpark of consistently good (let's say a tourney once every three years), I think they are absolutely killing themselves long-term by not having an inexpensive and easily-available ticket option for a casual fan.

I understand NU is not the only sports organization going in this direction, but I think this is going to be a 10-20-year problem across many sports.

With that said, I'd be interested to know which came first:

1) The decision to stay small;
2) A budget, or;
3) An architectural decision to keep the original WR steel frame/girders.

Once NU kept the frame of the roof, there was no chance of increasing the capacity.

Here ends my once-every-few-months sermon.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Yeah, keep adding so seats so I can sit next to Michigan fans while they make a run to the final 4, but at least we can say we have a big league stadium.

 

[Medill90]

This might be a separate thread but the discussion has me wondering about college basketball revenue and the Duke example. And which is the best revenue model to chase.

Arena revenue, merchandise sales and television revenue. Which moves the revenue needle most, and most impacts the others?

Duke shares conference television revenue. But, outside of conference they do a bit of traveling to typically play one major opponent and a three game tournament on national television. So, four games where Duke gets a cut of the revenue in a much larger arena than is on campus at Durham. And, I have to believe, the network chips in to secure Duke for the advertising draw.

Air travel instead of bricks and mortar. And the national television exposure is self perpetuating help in making the school a top three draw for recruits.

Which generates gobs of merchandise sales which Duke does next to nothing to support. Millions each year dropping to the bottom line. Sold by national television exposure.

And then they play in a little arena which is always sold out. In this case, the arena is less about the direct revenue opportunity and much more about the brand. An environment in which recruits want to play and want to be seen on national television playing in.

All the above is stating the obvious, I know. NU is not Duke and probably will never be (or that kid from jersey would have signed). But which model is better in the near term and the long term.

Having been to more NU games than I can count which are so empty of fans that you can literally walk down to the scorer's table and ask, "how many rebounds does Shurna have...", I'm not clear what NU would be chasing with more seats. Provide more access to fans? NU fans don't have a big problem getting in or getting seats. The extra seats would be for Purdue and Illinois fans. Improve the brand, empty seats and opposing fan chants do not help signal to the world that NU basketball is a thing. Revenue? Not sure it makes that much of a difference.

For the near term, the small arena may be more than fine. If the team can trend up in terms of play and recruiting, the smallness can be a real asset. It's good for television which is good for recruiting. In time, that might drive more revenue.

 

[pschatz25]

He was referring to his hotels, not all of the hotels indicated by the tax. And while his statement was likely hyperbolic, his point that the negative effects of a 2 percent tax on all his customers imposed for decades greatly outweighed whatever minuscule benefit accrued to his business.

His statement was not remotely disingenuous.

Sorry, hyperbole doesn't always come through online.

For what it's worth, the 2% hotel tax also funded the Soldier Field renovation.

But as I said in another post, I'm opposed to publicly funded stadiums.

 

[Sec_112]

Medill, the TV vs. seats revenue/brand generation is a good discussion and the first mention of it out here I think. You make a good point that TV has the potential to make stronger impact.

However, the one major component I think you're leaving out of your equation is the fundraising generated by ticket buyers vs. only-TV viewers.

That would be a great study.

 

[wildelk2]

Villanova plays in a venue that holds 6500. Cameron Indoor 9100. Just win and if you want to move games to a bigger venue you can. Villanova plays in Wells Fargo Center regularly. W-R is fine with 7000. My .02.

 

[hdhntr1]

I'm strongly opposed to publicly-funded stadiums, but it's disingenuous to claim that not a single person attended a Sox game and stayed in a Chicago hotel over the last 27 years (Or whenever the stadium was paid off. Was this tax then used to fund the Soldier Field renovation?). I mean where did the media stay during the 2005 World Series?

 

[hdhntr1]

He is suggesting that they did not stay at his particular group of hotels (other than one that was in a reasonable location to get to the park). Might be because it was not in a location conducive to staying there for SOX games. And I thought SOX park was paid for by the state and not the city so not sure why the city was taxing to pay for it ther than they could). And the overall cost of that stadium was a relative bargain at $137 mill ($246 mill in 2017 dollars) compared to stadiums put in since. Soldier Field was all Chicago and a huge expense without the state pockets to pull from. That renovation in 2001-3 cost supposedly $632Mill ($841 mill in 2015 dollars so maybe closer to $900 mill is same2017 dollars) but from what I remember, I think it was actually quite a bit higher has many of the expenses were sort of hidden. I thought it had increased to $660Mill when they stopped counting.

 

[JournCat]

Having been to more NU games than I can count which are so empty of fans that you can literally walk down to the scorer's table and ask, "how many rebounds does Shurna have...", I'm not clear what NU would be chasing with more seats. Provide more access to fans? NU fans don't have a big problem getting in or getting seats. The extra seats would be for Purdue and Illinois fans. Improve the brand, empty seats and opposing fan chants do not help signal to the world that NU basketball is a thing. Revenue? Not sure it makes that much of a difference.

For the near term, the small arena may be more than fine. If the team can trend up in terms of play and recruiting, the smallness can be a real asset. It's good for television which is good for recruiting. In time, that might drive more revenue.

I'm not sure we'll ever get to a place where opposing fans can't take over our arena if their team is really good and ours is bad. Take last year's MSU game -- they were No. 4 in the country coming in. If you're an MSU alum living in Chicagoland, you're going to pay what you have to pay to see the game. It's still cheaper than gas, hotel, and seats in the Breslin Center. If you're an NU fan and you know Mac is going to be out, you're likely to at least think about taking opposing fans' money.

 

[hdhntr1]

Let me congratulate you on your "intelligent" thinking. Oh some will say that I will be the only one doing so but I don't think that is true. I still believe that later NU administrations will regret the 7,000 seat "new w-r". If as you say NU becomes competitive and makes "the Dance" every 3 years and finishes in the top I/3 of the Big Ten on a regular basis their will be nowhere to put the new fans they claim to want. If it was the footprint that determined the smallness, then they should have bulldozed it and built brand new.

The fact is that we could get the funding for rebuilding it in the present footprint. And who knows, much of the donations might have been tied to keeping the original structure (Ryan's name is on it) . We don't have the land to go elsewhere and getting funding if Ryan was not part of it stood no chance of getting anything done in the forseeable future. Now if you were willing to contribute several hundred million dollars for a new arena you might have gotten you wish. Otherwise...

 

[freewillie07]

I can’t believe we’re still having this debate.

 

[NJCat]

I can’t believe we’re still having this debate.

Which will fade away first, "BC was a crap recruiter" or "WRA is too small"?

 

[hdhntr1]

Which will fade away first, "BC was a crap recruiter" or "WRA is too small"?

Neither. They will both live on forever

 

[NUCat320]

- I had thought you could walk on the main level concourse all the way around the lower bowl, but that is not the case. You cannot walk through "club" above one sideline (unless you have a club ticket, of course).

Georgia Tech’s arena has this same “perk”. It’s a terrible decision for the population at large, but that extra square footage makes the lounge even sweeter for the donors.