Sorry if this has been posted already.

Article

In addition to the $86M Nippert project, Cincy is studying a $70M renovation of Fifth Third that would commence in April 2016 and be completed by November 2017.

The Board of Trustees has not approved the project yet. According to documents submitted to the state facilities planning commission, the project is being driven by "the need for fewer, but better seating options" and a desire to make the exterior more attractive.

Sounds like Cincy, which has averaged 7300 to 9300 per game (since 2006) in a 13,000 seat arena, wants to replace some of the unused seats with suites, etc.

It also sounds like Cincy is trying to gussy up for the next Realignment Ball.

It has almost nothing to do with what conf Cini is in, it's all about trying to increase revenue as the 25 year old box needs upgrades badly.

Back in the 80's, it was all about capacity and/or flexibility in college arena designs but not anymore.

If Cini has room, the should build a 9,200 seat high amenity, revenue generating arena like Auburn built recently.

yep - you cant make the revenue schools want/need on just seats. suites and shrimp are what move the needle these days.

That will look insane... USF spent around $40 million on their Bball upgrade and its gorgeous. Add in an extra $30 million and that is going to be ridiculous. Very nice Cinci!

I would be very interested to see the design.

UC's AD commented on this -

Media reports that the University of Cincinnati has filed a proposal with the state facilities commission regarded a possible renovation of Fifth Third Arena do not mean the project has been approved by the Board of Trustees, UC athletic director Mike Bohn said Friday.

"We are excited about the impressive concepts and progress surrounding Fifth Third Arena, but no approvals have been granted by the Board of Trustees about a potential renovation," Bohn said in a statement released by the school. "Our extensive process includes identifying resources from our passionate supporters and partners. We look forward to working with our colleagues on campus to provide a first-class, privately-funded facility that all Bearcats can be proud of. We will share additional project details as we know more."

UC coach Mick Cronin said Friday it's premature to declare the project a done deal.

"It would be great if and when that happens," Cronin said. "But something like that is a long way from home. I've been around long enough to know that."

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/c.../18265565/

The arena was built with crappy bleachers and as a multipurpose facility. Therefore it wasn't built to be a great place for the people in the arena. Most of the seat loss will be due to removal of bleachers while also completing the lower bowl as a true bowl.

(11-03-2014 10:10 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I would be very interested to see the design.

Look at ulthe University of Toledo's Savage Arena. Myself and another poster on the board are 100% sure that's what it will turn into only on a larger scale (Savage only has around 7,000 seats).

I always thought US Bank Arena would make for a better arena to renovate due to initial size and location. Though I have no idea the cost or rental arrangements compared to 5/3.

(11-03-2014 01:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I always thought US Bank Arena would make for a better arena to renovate due to initial size and location. Though I have no idea the cost or rental arrangements compared to 5/3.

I think most UC fans thought the same and thought it would be a great idea for the city. Unfortuantely, not only is the City of Cincinnati dragging their feet on the downtown arena issue, but renovating US Bank would have cost $120 million+ from what I heard.

UC got tired of having the city screw around and took matters into their own hands. I think it was the smart move. Certainly helps UC continue to stand out.

It is just one of those.... To see what KFC Yum Center has done with our downtown. Seems like a good way to continue economic spending that dies down when baseball season is over (I don't count football season since games are on Sunday, and only eight of them).

Now what I don't know is where Fifth Third Arena is located in relation to the city. I've only been to US Bank Arena (during my short stint working at WWE, we did a show there). I.e. if it's downtown also, then this may be a moot point. But US Bank... Being right "there" in downtown, right on the river, has the location that can be a major boon for basketball.

To be honest... granted it's easy to say when it's not my money, but $120 million doesn't seem like much for a city project. I call it a city project, because unlike the Nippert Renovation, this one would greatly help the city as well by giving it a modern arena to use for other uses.

5/3 is about 3 miles north of downtown (in the middle of UC's campus, next to Nippert).

I would think you could do a REALLY nice renovation of 5/3 for around 45-50 million...make it ~10,000 seats.

Not sure why it would cost so much.

Why would you want to renovate US Bank when 5/3 is on campus? Fixing up 5/3 sounds like the right thing to do. Give me more info about why it might not be....

Renovating Fifth Third is the right move. The city and the owners of US Bank have done nothing to assure me they will do what is necessary to make it a viable arena. It's embarrassing that a metro area the size of Cincinnati has US Bank as its flagship arena. Only way I would move downtown if I'm UC is if they tear US Bank down and build a brand new arena with Cincinnati basketball as its primary tenant -- banners, memorabilia, color scheme, the whole nine yards.

(11-03-2014 01:35 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  Why would you want to renovate US Bank when 5/3 is on campus? Fixing up 5/3 sounds like the right thing to do. Give me more info about why it might not be....

I can't speak for others, but to me "on campus" is entirely overrated. Especially in urban campuses. Being easy to get to is better. In this case, and I am speaking as an outside who is more familiar with arenas in general than UC's actual situation, is that basketball arenas are the one sports complex that can make money for a city, when combined with properly executed tax districts and urban planning, due to the nature of the building, and how often you can use it. I tend to look at things on scales of economy, and how they can best help everyone (due to my past work experience), so to me, A vibrant UC basketball program, can help fund a proper renovation of that arena, which can help the city itself draw other major events they cannot get now, due to lack of a proper venue. This is the method many NBA/NHL teams and cities use to finance arenas. Doing so takes some of the cost away from the school, since it would help both sides and thus both could contribute, and adds to the bottom line of the city as a whole.

But this negates certain elements. For example, if Cincinnati never sees themselves drawing 15k crowds again, then it may be wasted money. If they think they can get back to that point, then dropping $50MM on a limited seat venue may be short sighted.

(11-03-2014 01:38 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Renovating Fifth Third is the right move. The city and the owners of US Bank have done nothing to assure me they will do what is necessary to make it a viable arena. It's embarrassing that a metro area the size of Cincinnati has US Bank as its flagship arena. Only way I would move downtown if I'm UC is if they tear US Bank down and build a brand new arena with Cincinnati basketball as its primary tenant -- banners, memorabilia, color scheme, the whole nine yards.

That's more or less what I was referring to, although it may or may not be necessary to completely remove the building (though that is sometimes cheaper). But essentially going with a similar set up as nearby cities Louisville, Memphis, and Lexington have, where you have a downtown arena to serve the city's basketball team (I realize Memphis is a bit different with the Grizzlies there, but they had a brand new downtown arena prior to that as well), which is probably better served to handle the large traffic demands at times that games are played, which often coincide with class.

I see nothing wrong with the Fifth Third option, other than A joint venture with the downtown arena could be bigger, and cost a lot less to the university (making it more likely to happen).

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/ne...rhaul.html


Some civic leaders have hoped that UC would consider playing in a renovated U.S. Bank Arena downtown. The loss of the Republican National Convention to Cleveland next year has underscored the region's need for a new arena amongst some of its power brokers.



The documents indicate the number of seats in the 25-year-old arena will be reduced, the roof replaced and the building brought up to at least silver status in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards.
"The need for fewer but better seating options has driven the university's decision to evaluate possible renovation options for the interior and exterior of this structure," the RFQ says. "As the building's major systems near their expected end of service life, the approach will be all-encompassing upgrades to not only the fan seating options but also to toilet rooms, HVAC, lighting A/V and fire protection systems, roofs, concessions, suites and specialty club spaces and improvements to basic circulation"

(11-03-2014 01:38 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Renovating Fifth Third is the right move. The city and the owners of US Bank have done nothing to assure me they will do what is necessary to make it a viable arena. It's embarrassing that a metro area the size of Cincinnati has US Bank as its flagship arena. Only way I would move downtown if I'm UC is if they tear US Bank down and build a brand new arena with Cincinnati basketball as its primary tenant -- banners, memorabilia, color scheme, the whole nine yards.

^^^^^
THIS!!!

The larger issue is that the City of Cincinnati (and Hamilton County) refuse to take any responsibility for UC. UC is a gem, it is now the single largest employer in the City of Cincinnati, it is a top-notch University with a world-class Conservatory of Music. Hell, Neil Armstrong went to teach there after his astronaut days were over. But you rarely hear the City or the County brag on, work with, or value the University of Cincinnati. In fact, the history has been one of acrimony and obstruction between the City and the University. Benign Neglect is actually an improvement in the climate.

When UL needed a new arena, the City of Louisville bent over backwards to get an amazing new arena built for UL. When the University of Pittsburgh decided that old Pitt stadium was a liability, the City went to bat and designed Heinz Field as a joint-use facility between the Panthers and Steelers. (Not saying I want to go this route, but...) You would NEVER see this happen in Cincinnati. You just wouldn't. This City and County worked out a sweetheart deal for the Bengals (the Brown family, really...) and the Reds, but the Bearcats were never given thought. Again, hell, the Brown family ends up using the UC bubble facility for THEIR playoff practices.

When the City was courting the Republican National Convention and was looking to suddenly revamp USBank Arena, suddenly they expected the University to jump on board with $$$ and a commitment to move all the BB games downtown. They looked at the University as a tool, a means to an end. How about this... Build the damn arena for us, and then we'll talk. But the way things work in the Queen City, they'd build a brand-new arena on the back of the University, and then evict the Bearcats at the first possible opportunity.

No thanks. I'd rather spend the money on-campus.

(11-03-2014 01:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:35 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  Why would you want to renovate US Bank when 5/3 is on campus? Fixing up 5/3 sounds like the right thing to do. Give me more info about why it might not be....

I can't speak for others, but to me "on campus" is entirely overrated. Especially in urban campuses. Being easy to get to is better. In this case, and I am speaking as an outside who is more familiar with arenas in general than UC's actual situation, is that basketball arenas are the one sports complex that can make money for a city, when combined with properly executed tax districts and urban planning, due to the nature of the building, and how often you can use it. I tend to look at things on scales of economy, and how they can best help everyone (due to my past work experience), so to me, A vibrant UC basketball program, can help fund a proper renovation of that arena, which can help the city itself draw other major events they cannot get now, due to lack of a proper venue. This is the method many NBA/NHL teams and cities use to finance arenas. Doing so takes some of the cost away from the school, since it would help both sides and thus both could contribute, and adds to the bottom line of the city as a whole.

But this negates certain elements. For example, if Cincinnati never sees themselves drawing 15k crowds again, then it may be wasted money. If they think they can get back to that point, then dropping $50MM on a limited seat venue may be short sighted.

Sure, but no matter what they did to USBank, that arena would be the 3rd most important one downtown. The city might prefer a great 3rd arena with the Bearcats downtown, but they hardly have the same incentive as they do in cities where they would be the main attraction. I honestly think the businesses could take or leave another sports team down there.

And to your other point, 15K is a LOT. The list of teams that are nowhere near that include UConn, Duke, Texas, Michigan, Georgetown, etc etc. I don't expect us to regularly hit that number. There are probably 10 schools in the country that do. On top of that, probably 1/3 of the attendance we do get is from students on campus.

I know I'm in the minority, but unless this has a serious impact on moving the program forward (realignment? recruiting?), I don't think it's necessary. I go to tons of games at 5/3 and I've never seen it as a problem.