First, I want to say that I'm 90% in love with the new digs - the east stand looks great, the new signage is classy, the video replay board is huge and crisp, I like the LED sign boards, and I'm digging the chocolate covered bacon for sale. But all is not rosy in the City of Roses' new soccer cathedral. Going in to this season, I had two concerns about the new digs: the field turf and the size of the pitch. I am happy to say that the field turf they chose seems to play beautifully -- I can safely put my fears to rest there (at least until years 3-4 when it will deteriorate and play faster and slicker). But I am sad to see that the size of the pitch is affecting the game. The lack of space is noticeable and regrettable. I'm particularly disappointed because it looks like they could have wedged a bigger field into the space constraints they had, but chose not to make it a priority. The east and west sidelines look like they could be pushed a few yards in either direction. I'm sure they could get 5 more yards if they did away with that silly west-side beer garden and the east side field level seats. I looks like they could get a bit longer in the north end, and a lot longer in the south end. In fact, I hate what they've done with the south end. That Widmer Beer deck thingy? Blah. Rip that thing out, make the playing surface 10 yards longer, throw a steep terrace with a roof back there, and its game on! So those are my thoughts: Mostly good. Turf good. Pitch size bad.
I've been racking my brain trying to figure out how they could renovate the bathrooms and concourses such that they could remove the tarps and bring in another 3,000 people per game, but I can't come up with a solution. I guess that's why I never became an architect or a construction engineer. They could have made the pitch a little wider, but it would have been at the expense of the north goal not being as close to the Army as it currently is. Merritt decided that it was more important to have the Army breathing down the opposing goalkeeper's neck. At this point more of a coincidence than a trend: Jake hasn't given up any goals on the north end of the field. All 4 goals against him wound up in the south net.
Isn't that the space they will use for the stage for concerts and things? I'm sure that a certain amount of flexibility was designed into the renovations. For instance, if we were to get a Nats game there's nothing preventing them from erecting some temporary bleachers in order to squeeze more people in. But in the meantime, when they aren't really needed, there's lots of space to do other stuff with. Me, I hate the signboards. I imagine I'll get used to them but for now they're incredibly distracting.
I was wondering why they had all these seats covered.The demand was there,they would have filled all 2500-3000 seats easily.Any idea if and when they will open that section?
Even though recently renovated, it still is a 1926 stadium meeting 1926 standards. To make the visit pleasant, they're decreasing the crowd just enough to see how it goes. When it will be opened? No deadline or inkling when or if that will happen. Welcome to the Timbers! [saw your other post]
I can tell you as a season ticket holder, the restrooms and concession stands can BARELY handle the 18,600. I mean, the restrooms are the same from the last few years when the club was minor league. So to answer your question, I don't see any way they are able to open up those additional 3k of seats. Not as things currently are. And that's unfortunate, because they could fill those seats. Just think about it from the owners' perspective: they are missing out on a lot of revenue from that closed section, so things must be pretty bad. They don't want to face all of the complaints and claustrophobia ...
Not only does keeping the those sections closed ease demand on the stadium's infrastructure, but it also serves to keep demand high for tickets. Apparently. I've never understood how this works but people who are apparently more educated than I tell me that it's in the best interests of the owners and the league to make fewer seats available for sale. By not making the seats available to people who want them, it makes them really really want them and somehow that translates into profits. Perhaps there are gnomes involved. I don't get it. Maybe if they open more seats for special games, they can bring in some portapotties and more beer carts or something. I'd be surprised to learn that they have no plans in mind.
this is simple economics, supply vs demand. with a small supply of tickets there is going to be a higher demand. as long as that demand remains high (which it will as long as portland plays well at home and has a novelty entertainment purpose) than the team can charge more for tickets. since the demand is extremely high and there are a large number of people wanting tickets (which there are, far more than the stadium can hold) than there will always be people who are willing to shell out more bucks for tickets.
Part of it is building codes and permits. Once you start doing a renovation that is past a certain percent of the value of the building, new codes kick in. They would have to bring the earthquake, concourse size, access, and all other kinds of requirements up to the current standards. The last time I ran into this, it was 20% of the value of the building. It might be different now. in partial remodels, only the new work must meet the current standards (some fire regulations excepted) There really isn't room to make the concourse larger to meet the newer person density standards, for instance. You will never get the width to what the Rose Quarter is in a building about the same size. The bathrooms might have been able to be expanded, but then the value of the project might have put the remodel over that threshold. the seats might be being held back to keep the traffic density within regulations. when they get actual data on how the building is used, they might have a case for increasing the number of seats filled. (a little) The rule is there to prevent developers from ignoring modern codes, while still allowing for older buildings to have value. It is possible that a few years down the road, when the current renovations are depreciated, they could do another upgrade. I think that's why they did a partial in 2001 (38 million) and this latest one (31 million) Had they tried a 69 million remodel, they most likely would have had to start from scratch and then the cost would have doubled. I kind of like the quirky old place. It seems right to me. Better than a sterile ring of seats. baseball discovered that a decade ago.
They had 19,000 in the old stadium as recently as 2003 (Mariners vs. Padres spring training exhibition), I believe the cap on attendance came in when Paulson bought the team, and has more to do with how many fans he thinks the stadium can handle rather than it being a permit issues. FWIW the stadium seemed to me to handle the crowd better on Sunday than on Thursday, it makes sense that things will get better as the team identifies and corrects problems in their gameday operations. Hopefully given enough time they'll be able to start opening up seats. Barbara: One way ticket scarcity helps a team is by driving season ticket sales. If tickets are hard to come by you'll be more likely to buy either season tickets or a mini plan because a) you'll guarantee yourself tickets to all the games you want to see and b) that same ticket buyer will feel confident that they'll be able to sell tickets for games they don't want to see for at least face value (if not more).
Yeah, and that was about what they had this weekend. There are 5,000 more seats now, and a bunch of the old ones are obstructed view or just bad seats for soccer (go tell Merit you want your season ticket next to the skyboxes and you don't mind not seeing the whole field.) the rest of the facility is the same. They didn't expand capacity hardly at all, just put seats where people would pay good money for season tickets. There are the same number of bathroom stalls as back then, and the concourse is too narrow, especially in the concession areas, where they need a better way to get food to folks. A big part of making money is good concession sales. Halls and concourses need to be sized to crowd size, and those requirements have gotten stricter than even when the last remodel was done in 2003(?) Wheelchairs take room. They even had this issue when the Rose Quarter opened, and that was a brand new facility. They will over the season open up some more more seats if they learn to handle the crowd, but the Mariners game was a one time thing, not the stuff season tickets are built on. People won't come back if it becomes a pain. I was at that baseball game. It was a really too big a crowd for the facility. Men aren't 5-6 and 130 anymore. The USMNT qualifiers in the 90's is another example. If every game was like that day, I sure wouldn't buy season tickets.
Much of the Oregon Building codes are available online. just Google those three words and a site pops up. the breadth of the issues covered is astounding and goes on for THOUSANDS of pages. here's just a couple of paragraphs that i picked just because it is one of many sections that deals with how you judge when rules kick in to decide if work has to come up to compliance with modern codes. even this little bit will probably make your eyes cross. its a screenshot. you can't copy the actual files. ORS 477.241 To really use this section, you have to check to see if there are city addenda to the state code.
Then you will understand the navigational issues in the code. The primary code that governs the stadium construction would be the Oregon Structural Specialty code, and this was referenced under the accessibility section just for informational purposes. The OSSC just states you must comply with this. http://ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/free_resources/oregon/10_structural/10_orstructural_main.html chapter 11 - Accessibility - Section 1113, Alterations (but i think the link you provided has been renumbered)
That's not true. The west side stands have their own newly-built bathrooms and concession areas. Ultimately I think the Timbers will be able to figure out a way to squeeze 20,000 into the stadium, if only for select games. There's something of a prestige factor with getting to 20,000, and once operations get smoothed out I think the stadium can handle it. I guess we'll see.
Ok, the fat cats have their own bathrooms. The rest of us have to share the old ones which were not adequate for the crowds. 15,422 was all they allowed for Seattle last year, a little over 16k the time before and they could certainly have sold more. They held back tickets even before the remodel. I don't remember the baseball game, but when the USMNT had a CONCACAF qualifier, there were portapotties in the back alley. Not a long term solution. If you wallow in a field for a weekend, they call it Woodstock and you remember it as fun. If you do it all the time it's called being homeless. It was a great venue for the crowd that was there. Maybe they could get a few more people in there before it gets too hard to get that second beer of hot dog, but there is a limit to The place, and they are pretty close to that limit now. 20,000? Maybe for that occasional really important game, but not on a regular basis. If they loose 10% of concession sales because you can't get to the counter, they haven't gained anything.
Yeah, Clive, the thing is I've never heard Paulson cite "city code compliance" as the reason for holding back those 3k of seats. That doesn't mean it's not true. But he has repeatedly said they're doing it for "quality of fan experience", etc, never any code compliance reasons. Because the issue has never been raised by Paulson or Mike Golub, I have to believe that the facility would be fully compliant even with the added 3k filled. If it wasn't, it wouldn't even be a topic of discussion. But it is, as Paulson frequently waxes lyrical about why they are voluntarily holding those seats back. Again, if it was a compliance issue this topic would have been dead months ago when the first journalist asked, "when are you opening up those tarped 3k seats?" and Paulson said, "we can't, it'd be a city code violation." End. I have to think that Paulson is at least considering trying to open that up for the Sounders game and the Whitecaps game. It'd take a bunch of port-a-potties and food/beverage carts .. and an understanding from the season ticket holders that this is a one (or two) time deal. Again, Paulson et al are going to get complaints if they do open it up, so they're gonna have to balance the gain with the pain (in the arse) factor. Not sure if it's worth the negative press (fans bitching about overcrowding, etc).
Why the heck would Merritt point out or even discuss potential code issues? It's never up to the person thats pushing the fringes to point out the violations or potential violations. Even if you "win" you just act normal. The worst form you can display is to embarrass the people you negotiated with. The next time, they will remember you are the guy that made them look bad. Long term relationships is what it is all about. I've been in these negotiations. Your position is always on the order of " it never occurred to me that it might be a violation. Let's talk." Then you get your influential people on board. That's exactly my point. If you do things on a temporary basis for really unique events, people will put up with it or even celebrate it. They might even celebrate that you pulled the event off at all. If it is the norm, people will think its a pain in the ass and think they are being taken advantage of.
I'm saying that if it was evident that opening up the extra 3k seats would be a clear violation of city building code, then this all would have been a moot point MONTHS ago. The fact that this is still being discussed and Merritt is still entertaining questions on it makes me think that it is not a clear violation. Because if opening up the 3k is illegal then we've all wasted a lot of time, oxygen and keystrokes on it. But no one to this point has come out and said it's illegal, they've just said things about 'fan experience', etc.
Great in theory. Completely out of touch with reality. Nothing is ever fixed in these sorts of negotiations. There are always gray areas. When the Rose quarter was built, an issue arose about the number of HC spots there were and their location in the arena. Vulcan took one position on what was required, the city another. A law suit arose from accessibility advocates. The result was a compromise between all parties. Happens all the time when codes are poorly written and run for thousands of pages. Merrit admits the concourse is too narrow. That's not just an aesthetic opinion. It does not meet any modern code. Anyone who has been in the business and walks into the stadium can tell that. But how you comply With the renovation clauses in the code is open to all sorts of interpretations and compromises. If anything Merritt is ingratiating himself to the plans examiners by admitting the issue an accepting that future work remains - exactly what the language demands. (remember, this is a building that is a revenue stream owned by the city. Shutting it down is in nobody's interest.) If you want, we can go down to the Portland building downtown ( Portlandia is out front, and it's where the code enforcement office was until a couple years ago) I'll show you a bunch of code violations ( mostly dealing with accessibility) in the old code enforcement office. The new codes building on 4th street isn't a lot better. Sometimes codes are written that are impossible to comply with, especially in renovations. Then the issue become what is reasonable to comply with without requiring an undue burden. That passage I quoted addresses just one of those compromises, and uses the undue burden language to allow for a negotiation. Part of those negotiation, as the clause I cited shows, is what the time span for eventual compliance might be. If you Win that negotiation, it is bad form in any society to rub the other parties nose in it. An example: in a brand new Rose quarter, most of the riser heights exceed 8 inches on the stairs to your seat (take a tape to your next Blazer game if you don't believe me). There is no modern code where that is acceptable and it hasn't been in 50 years ( some places a hundred years). Somebody made a negotiation, cited the undue burden clause (you wouldn't be able to put as many paying seats in the place) and got an exception. ( they might even offer to fly the plans examiner on business to examine the risers at, say, Boston Garden to see that it works there - maybe catch a Celtics game while he is there) Paul Allen is not going to put his hand to his face and go " neener, neener". He will say he met code.
Interesting info. Thank you for taking the time to write it out. So you're saying that every city building code is not even worth the paper it is written on, because every ordinance is a gray area and every building operator can simply lawyer his way to get whatever he wants? That is a sad commentary on our city government, if true. And I'm not doubting you, I'm just saying: what a pointless endeavor, to have pages and pages of these building codes yet no one has to adhere to any of them. So .. going by what you are saying, if we assume that the renovated Jeld-Wen Field is grossly non-compliant (which you seem to be intimating), if I'm Paulson I don't even make the effort to open up the extra 3k seats. I can't see why he'd want to go to the trouble and risk slightly taint all of the good things that have been going his way thus far. Too bad .. because I would like to see the place "full" for that Seattle game.
Welcome to the real world. One big step in emotional development is when it clicks in your head that the world isn't black and white, it just is. The hard fact is that Jeld-Wen doesn't meet modern codes and could never be made to. I think every party involved knows that. Nobody who has to deal with that fact, owner, tenant, or inspectors, thinks otherwise. Nobody wants an unsafe or inaccessible building, but everyone recognizes you can't make the place into something it is not. That involves compromises. By nature compromise means you don't alwayS get everything that supports your view. (our politicians could learn that. One of the reasons we don't have baseball is that no one compromised) But I think everyone's goal is always a safe and useful building. Every sentence in a code book is there because somebody got sick or died or couldn't use the space like any citizen is entitled. But it's not the Bible or Koran where every word is deemed infallible. It changes over time to deal with new issues and sometimes changes back when the new rules don't work. The only issue left is what it costs to make a reasonably safe and enjoyable experience for everybody involved and still not make it so prohibitive that the building can't be used. There are hundreds of decisions that go into how to do that. Some conflict with each other, and the art of renovation is all about solving that puzzle. The codes are guidelines on paper. The real world is hard stuff. And the codes recognize that as newer codes are written, there has to be a reasonable path to deal with older buildings. The concourse is too narrow, there aren't enough bathrooms, I'm willing to bet there aren't the 186+ or so handicap spots available( and another 186+ for a companion for each) that the code says you should have for 19k fans. There aren't the required elevators that any building over 3,000 sq ft requires( except maybe the new stands) There isn't handicap accessibility in all areas and at all price range seats. Having seen the pillars under the main stands, I'd be shocked if they met the latest earthquake codes. The list goes on. It's still a great place to watch a game. I said at the start that I prefer it to the modern sterile rings some clubs have. So you probably can't use all the seats comfortably... So what? It's just part of the character of the place. As long as Merritt and the city recognize the limitations, it will remain a great place to watch a game, and it will be safe, probably a lot safer than the day it was christened in 1926. It's certainly more accessible and comfortable. There just isn't much leeway in which to tax the capabilities of the building, that's all.