 
Masterblaster
Member
Username: Masterblaster
Post Number: 20
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 11:21 pm: |    |
Why does everyone want the proposed new hockey arena to be located downtown???
Why not put the arena in a neighborhood? It could be the catalyst for reinvestment in the particular neighborhood in which it is located.
Why does every new major entertainment devolopment/destination in the City of Detroit have to be located downtown??
In a metropolitan area where so many suburbanites only know "downtown", putting a major entertainment hotspot in a neighborhood may expose suburbanites to other areas of the city that have history and potential. (Also placing the stadium along one of the spokes -Woodward, Grand River, Michigan, et - would further encourage the development of rapid mass transit along those major thoroughfares.)
Here are a list of neighborhoods or areas where land is available, and where a new stadium would help bring in people and businesses to the neighborhood.
1. New Center Area (northeast corner of Woodward and Grand Blvd).
At this location sits a vacant office building designed by Albert Kahn that has been completely redesigned beyond recognition. This building is HIDEOUS. Demolish it, as well as the small 2-story buildings adjacent to it, and put the stadium right at that corner, along with 1 or 2 tall parking structures. I do not know if there is enough land there though.
But what a boon it would be to that area! It might spur the opening of bars, restaurants, and clubs, and residential renovation, and would make the New Center Area a sort of a mini-downtown.
2. Oakman Boulevard/Grand River Avenue Shopping District
This commercial district is completely abandoned sans a church, but most of the buildings are still there. There is a gigantic plot of vacant land behind the shops along Grand River east of Oakman. I think that there is enough room there for a stadium and parking structures.
Again, what a major boon it would be for that shopping district. The building infrastructure is already there for restaurants and bars, with the arena being the anchor of a new revitalized commercial district! Plus since a lot of that area is commercial and industrial, there would be few cries from residents complaining about the increased traffic and noise.
3. Jefferson Avenue - west of the MacArthur Bridge
This is vacant land south of Jefferson whereabouts the Joe Mueller (sp) restaurant used to stand. Again, I don't know if there is enough land there. But currently it is vacant land with 1 or 2 old, dilapidated industrial buildings. Locating the stadium here would revitalize that dead commercial strip on the north side of Jefferson, and would make living in West Village, Indian Village, and the Joseph Berry Subdivision even more desirable. In addition, locating the stadium near Belle Isle would bring more visibility to the Island, and might spur increased interest and renovation of that beautiful place.
4. Michigan and Trumbull
If Tiger Stadium cannot be re-used, demolish it and put the hockey arena there. The infrastructures - bars, restaurants, and parking lots, are already there. Putting the arena there, might even lead to new residential and commercial development in Corktown, and North Corktown.
5. Hermann Gardens (southeast corner of Joy and Southfield)
I know its too late because it looks like there is going to be a residential development at this location.
This would have been an excellent location for the arena. There is plenty of land and it is located next to a freeway exit. It would have spurred the redevelopment of the strip of commercial buildings along the north side of Joy Road east and west of Southfield Fr. and might have stemmed the slow decline of the Warrendale Neighborhood to the south.
Does anybody have any other thoughts or suggestions?? |
Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 5270
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 11:33 pm: | |
Two words: Tiger Stadium.
Bad idea. |
Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog
Post Number: 947
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 11:35 pm: | |
Yeah, it'll create a reinvestment in gravel parking lots. |
Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 11:42 pm: | |
Putting sports stadiums in the middle of neighborhoods (usually near streetcar/bus lines) was de rigeur in the first half of the 20th century in every city in the US. (See Tiger Stadium, Olympia, Fenway Park, Yankee Stadium, Cleveland's League Park, Philly's Shibe Park, Pittsburgh's Forbes Field, etc.). The practice fell out of favor. Meanwhile, cities have hit upon building stadiums in or near CBDs as a way to bring tourist dollars downtown. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 1889
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 11:48 pm: | |
besides, that's where Illitch already owns land |
Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 5272
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 11:48 pm: | |
Stadiums in neighborhoods only work when you have effective rapids transit lines to and from them. Since this does not exist in Detroit, it's a horrible idea, because you have to give SO much land to parking.
Tiger Stadium wasn't such a bad idea with the Michigan Avenue streetcar, but when it was taken out in the 1940's, or so, Corktown was doomed. |
Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr
Post Number: 451
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:12 am: | |
bad idea. the only revitilization you'll see, is that any abandoned buildings will be quickly torn down for gravel lots.
most suburbanites would just as soon get out as quick as they can, unless there is a significant amount of other things to do. the locations you mention don't have that, and an arena alone won't create it. 41 games, mostly in the middle of winter, just isn't enough for that.
downtown is a different story - you already have numerous bars and other entertainment options nearby. the nhl season dovetails nicely with the baseball season, so you lower the risk of losing a popular hangout cause it can't make it through the off-season. instead of trying to create something out of nothing, failing and leaving other businesses to struggle, you strengthen that which is already there.
neither will a hockey arena alone spur mass transit. it just isn't enough people on a regular basis.
in the end, it would hurt the city and whatever neighborhood it's in, not help it. |
Downtown_remix
Member
Username: Downtown_remix
Post Number: 40
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:20 am: | |
Moved back home to the D last spring from LA after 10 wild years, an take it from me, coming back an experiencing the energy downtown before and after any game, before and after the opera or the wiz along with live music everywhere,detroit is creating it's theme from industrial GIANT to transforming the former structures these industries were housed in into entertainment central. Look at how FORD FIELD took the Hundsons wherehouse an recreated it to house thousands of PAYING FOLK,,factories all around sorrounding downtown areas are transforming into big loft developments. The stadium needs to go behind Park avenue between 2nd an grand river.PERIOD..soon all these venues downtown will be able to connect wit each-other even more as more retail an restaurants fill in the missing pieces. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 328
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:28 am: | |
How about Novi? |
Jonnyfive
Member
Username: Jonnyfive
Post Number: 2
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:32 am: | |
It's a great idea for another era, either past or future. Maybe if the Palace ever grows too old they can build a new pistons home further from downtown... and hopefully when that time comes there wont be any available land anywhere near downtown anyway.
(Message edited by jonnyfive on March 22, 2007) |
Smogboy
Member
Username: Smogboy
Post Number: 4857
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:44 am: | |
I don't know if I'd be willing to greet a new stadium if it were to be proposed in my neighborhood. And especially if I had lived there for awhile- and it wouldn't matter if my neighborhood was well kept or run down, it's still my neighborhood! I look back to the days of Tiger Stadium and the Olympia thinking of what kind of headaches the neighborhood residents must've had on game days. How many beer cans, pop bottles and other forms of trash were left on their lawns? The simple convenience of being able to come home and pulling into their own driveways must've been compromised.
I understand the original thought of trying to revitalize certain parts of the city but having a stadium be a part of a residential neighborhood now would not be prudent. I think there has to be some other solutions to revitalizing those areas. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 2607
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:49 am: | |
Good idea. Lmich cited Tiger Stadium, valid enough. But Detroit has so many horrendously empty neighborhoods; you could build a stadium in a neighborhood and probably displace nobody, even including parking.
Having said this, who is daring enough to build a stadium on urban prairie? |
Smogboy
Member
Username: Smogboy
Post Number: 4861
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:57 am: | |
It doesn't make smart business sense to build out in the middle of nowhere and it's just as equally important not to build it in a residential neighborhood either.
Just because a building is a huge draw of people from time to time doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing for the people all around. I think about going out to the Palace for Pistons games- what else is really around there to go to? One gets into the stadium there, watches the game and departs. And then compare that to Comerica Park and Ford Field and people want to show up early, have a meal, toss back a few adult beverages and hang out prior to. In urban areas like that- the people are liable to show up a little earlier and liable to stay a little longer. It's a boon to those areas. Somehow I don't think Auburn Hills is exactly booming with pre and post game revenues the way it's happening downtown. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 2608
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 2:12 am: | |
Exactly right. Wrigley Field is in a neighborhood, though.
I think any urban area is an improvement over Auburn Hills. |
Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 5275
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 3:04 am: | |
Again, they only make good ideas in neighborhoods served by rapid transit. There are plenty of well integrated urban ballparks, but they are served by rapid transit lines, or are very closes to one. Tiger Stadium stopped working for the neighborhood the minute the streetcar was yanked.
Arenas in neighborhoods most definitely can work, but only when served by rapid transit lines that takes a way the need for huge surface lots. Detroit doesn't have any areas served by rapid transit, so it wouldn't make sense, at the moment. |
Emu_steve
Member
Username: Emu_steve
Post Number: 185
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 8:39 am: | |
One reason why arenas, stadia, etc. are going in the CBDs is that the national reputation of a city is largely based on media coverage of it through events such as sporting events. (this was especially true for the Super Bowl and World Series).
Whatever positive image folks have gotten of Detroit in the last 10 years have come from images of CoPa, Ford Field, RenCen, Campus Martius, Fox, etc. etc. - things happening in the CBD.
The national media don't go out to neighborhoods. They'll never see what will happen at the old Herman Gardens site.
The national media is now reporting what is happening with the Book Cadillac and casinos. Maybe next they will highlight the riverwalk.
This is part of the story line that Detroit is coming back.
When Detroit had a worse reputation was because the CBD was in very bad shape. |
Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob
Post Number: 297
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 8:55 am: | |
i don't think New Center is a bad idea...it could serve as a draw for extending development up woodward, which we all want to see happen. and it could force an improvement of transit along the woodward corridor. |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3676
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 10:09 am: | |
quote:Why not put the arena in a neighborhood? It could be the catalyst for reinvestment in the particular neighborhood in which it is located.
Did I miss something?
Did the name of this forum change to DumbfuckistanYEs.com? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2214
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 10:32 am: | |
quote:Did the name of this forum change to DumbfuckistanYEs.com?
Care to expound upon that? Glad to see you haven't lost a step during your absence.
I'm not sure I agree that stadia and whatnot are constructed in CBDs as part of a conscious PR campaign. I mean, you can't realistically discern anything about a city by watching a baseball game on television, just as you don't get the feel of a place by looking at the skyline shots from the Goodyear blimp.
Most posters make valid points, most notably that rapid transit would be needed to locate an arena away from Detroit's massive highway/parkingplex. To me, that seems like a problem *begging* for a solution. But that's just my opinion.
I really think, however, that right now, there is an overemphasis on entertainment in downtown Detroit. It's hard to take the urban experience very seriously when employment in the core is low, the majority of land is used for parking, the number of residents is low (albeit growing), and basic-needs kinds of things like drugstores and markets are only starting to sprout.
If you want to create a dynamic urban experience, it's going to take a whole lot more than entertainment to do it. And I firmly believe that engaging in pursuits for reasons other than improving the city (i.e. for "image") is off-base, at best. |
Detroitstar
Member
Username: Detroitstar
Post Number: 553
Registered: 01-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:18 am: | |
I've said it a dozen times and I'll say it again...
Illitch should incorporate a new arena into a completely redeveloped Packard Plant. The largest urban redevelopment project based on square footage ever attempted. A mega entertainment complex, office/residential center and 18,000 seat arena. |
Downtown_remix
Member
Username: Downtown_remix
Post Number: 42
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:23 am: | |
damn dats an awesome idea. packard is where exactly? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2219
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:23 am: | |
^I really like that idea! |
Detroitstar
Member
Username: Detroitstar
Post Number: 555
Registered: 01-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:34 am: | |
I did an illustration about it recently to identify the spacial realities, I'll try and dig it up. |
Dds
Member
Username: Dds
Post Number: 175
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:08 pm: | |
Skulker, how 'bout this idea?
Put the damn thing out by City Airport. There's some neighborhoods that haven't been touched by Detroit's renaissance, and probably won't ever be. Nobody wants to live by an airport and a cemetery anyway. |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3680
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:19 pm: | |
quote:Care to expound upon that?
Sure, for all the reasons that other people posted, dropping a stadium in the middle of neighborhood would have a profoundly negative impact on most neighborhoods.
Kind of a no-brainer. Wondering what happened to the collective intelligence here that people would even consider and post such an idea.
I think the Packard Plant is a horrible idea. First off, there is no real way to reconfigure the existing plant in to such a development. Secondly the neighborhood around the PP is not strong and the vacant lots and unstable housing would be snapped up to create parking for the folks that want EZ in and out parking...just like Corktown.
There are no suitable places for bars / restaurants in the area to create the foot traffic and vibrancy that one gets around COPA and Ford Field and other highly valued "downtown" stadia like say, Fenway. Putting them internal to the development makes it little better than a Disneyland with no connection to the neighborhood, except for increased traffic and road expansions resulting more damage to what little neighborhood fabric is clinging to dear life in the area. |
Dabirch
Member
Username: Dabirch
Post Number: 2170
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:24 pm: | |
But besides that, what do you think of the idea? |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4264
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:27 pm: | |
How much acreage would a hockey arena require? Which is to say how much of a neighborhood would have to be "cleared" to accommodate a hockey arena. |
Dds
Member
Username: Dds
Post Number: 177
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:30 pm: | |
Couldn't they just play on one of the frozen lakes on Belle Isle? |
Dougw
Member
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 1630
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:31 pm: | |
 But seriously, this is an awful idea on many levels. Yet one more reason is that downtown is barely achieving critical mass as it is. Spreading this type of stuff around the city will make it that much harder to justify mass transit links to and from downtown. |
Emu_steve
Member
Username: Emu_steve
Post Number: 186
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 1:20 pm: | |
Agree with Dougw.
Downtown needs to continue achieving critical mass.
As a lot of posters suggest NOT putting the arena behind the Fox would mean a sea of parking lots would remain for decades.
I could see a new arena being part of a 4-block development with the arena taking two, a parking garage one, and some commercial development in an adjacent block.
This would help achieve 'critical mass' in the behind the Fox area. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2221
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 1:22 pm: | |
quote:I think the Packard Plant is a horrible idea. First off, there is no real way to reconfigure the existing plant in to such a development.
Architecturally, structurally, or otherwise?
quote:There are no suitable places for bars / restaurants in the area to create the foot traffic and vibrancy that one gets around COPA and Ford Field and other highly valued "downtown" stadia like say, Fenway.
And the irony here, as someone with superior intelligence like Skulker already knows, is that Fenway is far from downtown Boston. It's not even close. |
Dnvn522
Member
Username: Dnvn522
Post Number: 204
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 2:22 pm: | |
quote:Architecturally, structurally, or otherwise? Structurally. The roof is supported by columns that would have to be removed. If you remove the columns, you'd have to put a different roof on. The existing walls would have to be rebuilt to support the new roof. So to make it work, you'd be reconstructing 85% of the building. Granted, the 15% you could just rehab, would be put to better use than it currently does, but it definitely would not be cost effective. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 8620
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 2:32 pm: | |
quote:
And the irony here, as someone with superior intelligence like Skulker already knows, is that Fenway is far from downtown Boston. It's not even close.
And the Fenway neighborhood has never seen the likes of abandonment in areas like the Packard plant. Fenway has been in an established area for years and people that move their know what they are getting.
To drop a stadium in a desolate area will have no economic impact to the surrounding area. If anything it will hurt Detroit since people will leave the game and the city as opposed to supporting a downtown establishment.
To drop a stadium in an existing neighborhood is irresponsible to the people that live there. I live near downtown and knew what I would deal with by buying a home near the stadiums. Families in neighborhoods don't need to deal with drunk fool pissing on their lawn, knocking over garbage cans, etc.
People on this forum can be so frustrating because of their complete lack of respect or regard for families and neighborhoods in the city. Some people in the city may not want to deal with a bar district.
People claim that others move to the suburbs for peace and quiet which is accpetable. So why is it acceptable to drop a stadium near residential families.
Have some respect and compassion towards the people who see the city as more than a place to barhop.
If you disagree I will be happy to come piuss in your bushes. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2222
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 2:36 pm: | |
quote:Structurally. The roof is supported by columns that would have to be removed. If you remove the columns, you'd have to put a different roof on. The existing walls would have to be rebuilt to support the new roof. So to make it work, you'd be reconstructing 85% of the building. Granted, the 15% you could just rehab, would be put to better use than it currently does, but it definitely would not be cost effective.
This is why God invented built-up girders and trusses. We remove columns and resupport structures all the time. The walls would not necessarily have to be rebuilt. Locally reinforced, perhaps, but not completely rebuilt. |
Dnvn522
Member
Username: Dnvn522
Post Number: 206
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 3:17 pm: | |
"Locally reinforced" does not account for the inability of the foundation to support the "upgraded" walls to support the new roof.
It definitely could be done, and it'd probably look awesome, but we all know that cost effectiveness is more important than feasibility. |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3685
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 3:39 pm: | |
quote:Architecturally, structurally, or otherwise?
Yes, yes and most significantly, financially.
quote:And the irony here, as someone with superior intelligence like Skulker already knows, is that Fenway is far from downtown Boston. It's not even close.
But it does sit within a strong commercial corridor surrounded by historic building stock that provides space for bars, restaurants, souvenir shops etc that has grown up and around this site, which is very unlike plopping an arean in an existing, but very damaged neighborhood. The area surrounding Fenway is not a single family detached neighborhood as are the large majority of Detroit neighborhoods, including the space around the Packard Plant
There is no existing commercial building stock in the Packard Plant area. Most opens space suitable for development of new building stock for such uses would be snapped up for parking, seeing as the Packard Plant does not have a T station or other mass transit lines that would facilitate the heavy transit usage Fenway gets.
Downtown Boston also does not have large swaths of vacant land with little to no market value other than parking. Downtown Boston also has retained its work force and has grown it. Even if the CBD of Detroit were to grow its job based by 5% each year, it would take nearly 20 years for the CBD to recover to its 1950 level.
In the mean time, what to do with vacant land in the CBD?
Reconfiguring CBD usages to something other than office has been a prime driver of many downtown redevelopments and reflects the reality that office use has largely fled to edge cities.
Using stadiums to absorb vacant land that shows not much realistic chance of being reutilized as office space accomplishes a few things.
1. Removes excess land from the inventory making the remaining land more valuable.
2. Provides a use on land that has no likely use in the next 20-25 years.
3. Creates an amenity and attraction that draws new businesses into the area. Case in point: Shields Pizza at the Kales Building. The Kales has struggled to get viable leases on their retail space. The folks from Shields came down to a Tigers game, ate at Chelis and did a forehead slap when they saw families streaming past the Kales on their way to and from the game. Take away the stadia and the residents of the Kales do not provide sufficient business for Shields.
Ditto Angelinas and Proof.
quote:This is why God invented built-up girders and trusses. We remove columns and resupport structures all the time. The walls would not necessarily have to be rebuilt. Locally reinforced, perhaps, but not completely rebuilt.
You are talking about a factory that has 20 foot on center columns designed to hold extreme loadings on very thick cement slab floors.
Removing enough columns bays (oh say 15 or 20 column lines in on direction 12-15 in the other) to create clear spans large enough to accommodate a professional hockey arena, removing enough floor slabs to accomplish the same will require more than being "(l)ocally reinforced, perhaps". |
Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 3:40 pm: | |
Great post, Jt1. You articulated the important points perfectly. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2224
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 4:16 pm: | |
quote:You are talking about a factory that has 20 foot on center columns designed to hold extreme loadings on very thick cement slab floors.
Removing enough columns bays (oh say 15 or 20 column lines in on direction 12-15 in the other) to create clear spans large enough to accommodate a professional hockey arena, removing enough floor slabs to accomplish the same will require more than being "(l)ocally reinforced, perhaps".
Ooops. My bad. You're the licensed Professional Engineer here, aren't you? |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3691
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 4:42 pm: | |
Nice try Dan - - no scratch that - - weak try. Out of all that, all you can come up with a statement that implies "He's not an engineer, ignore him"
No, I am not a licensed engineer, but I do have enough practical experience to know that removing roughly 3/4s of the structural columns in a building such as the Packard Plant will result in more than "perhaps locally reinforcing some walls".
Please, O please enlighten us on how one would accomplish such wizardy without incurring exorbitant and outrageous costs. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 573
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 5:56 pm: | |
Danindc post 2214, 2nd last paragraph: Ever been to Vegas?
I wonder if Ilitch ever checks out threads like this. If so, he's got to be laughing his ass off.
I'm w/ Skulker on this all the way. |
Dnvn522
Member
Username: Dnvn522
Post Number: 209
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 3:17 pm: | |
quote:You're the licensed Professional Engineer here, aren't you? He might not be, but I agree with him 100%. And I am a licensed PE. |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3706
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 3:24 pm: | |
Aww thanks Dnvn522! |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 3888
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 3:27 pm: | |
The point is moot anyway... the whole idea of putting the arena in a neighborhood away from downtown will guarantee 2 things...
1) more empty lots (blight) around the neighborhood, since parking on empty lots can be quite lucrative.
2) people will get into their cars after the game and head... not to downtown restaurants... but head home. No spinoff.
If neighborhoods don't want an international bridge and its associated traffic, why in heavens would any neighborhood want an arena (besides the parking money)??
Keep the new arena in downtown, or at least at the southern end of Midtown (Motown site). |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2234
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 3:29 pm: | |
Vegas is a shithole, as far as cities go. If that's what you're aiming for, knock yourself out.
It reasons that if you're removing floor diaphragms, you wouldn't need columns to support them so much, would you? And as far as supporting the roof is concerned, most arenas have long-span trusses that span from exterior wall to exterior wall. |
Dnvn522
Member
Username: Dnvn522
Post Number: 210
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 3:44 pm: | |
Correct. But you need to properly support those new trusses.
$$$$$ |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2235
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 3:48 pm: | |
^And load-bearing walls can't do that? |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3707
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 3:55 pm: | |
Uhhhh engineering 101, floor diaphragms also provide lateral tension in a beam and column system like that...so less weight to bear, true, but less structural rigidity of the exterior wall as well.
Let me get this straight....you are seriously trying to make the argument this could work and is structurally feasible?
1 - Remove all five floors and the lateral tension they provide
2 - Remove more than 75% of the columns?
3 - Build a large clear span roof on trusses supported by the exterior walls
4 - Install circulation, seating, restrooms, concessions and systems for an NHL arena?
And do this all by 'perhaps' locally reinforcing the exterior walls?
Could you please provide a list of every building you have ever worked on so I know not to ever get with 100 yards of them? I prefer not to be crushed to death.
Thanks. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2236
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 4:04 pm: | |
What, exactly, is "lateral tension"?
Skulker, you are a narcissist pompous ass--at least on this forum. You might be a hell of a guy in person, but you are not the all-knowing ever-loving shit you pretend to be.
Your childish comments are insulting to me as a professional. If this is how people involved in redevelopment act in Detroit, then it's not surprising that you end up with slumlords like Mike Ilitch. I wouldn't want to work for someone like you, and frankly, I'm glad that I left so that I can put my talents to work, instead of kissing the asses of small-minded people with can't-do attitudes.
Instead of telling you which buildings I've worked on, how about I just send you the postcards? I'm tired of your crap. |
Dabirch
Member
Username: Dabirch
Post Number: 2184
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 4:12 pm: | |
quote:What, exactly, is "lateral tension"?
A pretty sweet industrial band out of Seattle.
Think 9 inch nails, but angry. |