UConn planning upgrades at Gampel Pavilion, but likely passing on $300 million overhaul (Mike Anthony) | Page 2 | The Boneyard

UConn planning upgrades at Gampel Pavilion, but likely passing on $300 million overhaul (Mike Anthony)

Gampel is like twice the size, so double that $60 million. Plus 20% inflation, you are looking at close to $150 million.
If this were the case then $150 million for a fully rebuilt arena makes a lot more sense than a $50 million bandaid.

Don't know about Fertitta but I'm pretty sure Gampel is entirely poured concrete. You can't tear something down to the studs if there are no studs.
 
AD Dave confirmed on Twitter today that an entirely new building is cheaper than $300, so makes no sense to undertake whatever that $300M covered.
Thank goodness. Only in CT are things so difficult and expensive.
 
Thank goodness. Only in CT are things so difficult and expensive.
The whole northeast is that way, but yes, it would be less elsewhere.
 
.-.
Is it really that expensive to rip Gampel down to the studs and just rebuild it? Feel like they could just do that for $100M at most.

Houston ripped the Feritta Center down to the studs and replaced everything in 2017 for $60M
It would be around $100m now most likely after inflation in the building industry. My town held a school referendum to rebuild 2 elementary schools from the ground up and significantly modernize 2 other elementary schools. Cost was like $260M, with the state kicking in like $140M. Let’s get the state to pay half for this.

In all seriousness, I can see then ruining Gampel. I love it the way it is except for lines. Just alleviate some concession and bathroom lines and we’re good. Do not mess with the thunderdome.
 
Have not seen this mentioned in discussions re: Big-12 speculation(s).. If it was to happen.. How does the Rent stack up as a FB venue?? Is it scalable/expandable or do you start from scratch?? Smallish by Big-12 standards..

All part of the equation re: the expense/math of upgrading venues in UConn's portfolio and how it might work/or not..Benedict has to factor that in to his calculus.. As an aside.. Ned L is trying to get a meeting with Bettman re: exploring the Arizona Coyotes coming to Hartford.. Long shot but still interesting re: XL availability/expansion..
 
And will soon have a nicer volleyball venue too ;)
I know! We should totally make Freitas into the new basketball arena and give old concourse deprived Gampel to the volleyball team.
 
.-.
But hey, with the increase in revenue we will get from this renegotiated Big East media deal we should be able to cover it, and Hurley new contract and pay increases for assistant..
 
Factually untrue and irrelevent to the discussion. And just wait until the Sportsbook opens up!
No, no, it's true, Gampel for all its shortcomings is still a better location to play games than the XL, and we're not paying above market lease rates to play there.
 
I'm curious as to how Gampel, in its current state measures up to Cameron in its current state (never been to Cameron).

Yes, there are inconveniences associated with Gampel but in other venues, inconveniences can be spun as part of its charm. I fully believe in standard maintenance on all facilities (something that has been seriously lacking on many things throughout the state) but I would like to know a few details about exactly what the $50 million will cover as that is quite a bit of money (not far from what it cost to build recently completed Toscano). Obviously, it was a different world when Gampel was built but even if we were to translate the then cost (IIRC it was publicized as $21 million to the school/state) to today's dollars, that facility has paid for itself ten to fifteen times over. If we were to retire it today it wouldn't owe anyone a penny. I cannot think of a better investment that the school and/or state has made, not only in my lifetime but in the existence of Connecticut as a state.

If we were to find the $300 million (high end of the recommendations) to spend, I am very confident (assuming correct project management) that we could have used that money to build both a new Basketball facility (I would love if it seated ~12k) and the hockey facility that was just completed, at a more reasonable capacity (say ~5k). The largest issue would be finding a suitable piece of land (that would not need any extraordinary site work) but beyond that it would have been feasible. Ice rinks normally have additional costs as there is the need for a very expensive refrigeration unit and delivery infrastructure to keep the ice frozen. My guess is if Toscano was built exactly as it was, without this feature, it would have cost $8-$10 million less. Estimating $80-$85 million for a larger capacity Toscano, $150-$170 million for the new basketball facility (considerably larger structure than the ice rink, therefore considerably more concrete) taking into account the economies of scale of two concurrent projects (Q did benefit from their facilities being built as they were) and anywhere between $10-$15 million for sitework, we could have come in under the $300 million with considerable overruns before the sale of naming rights (assuming we could use university owned land). I'm not sure we need a new basketball facility (there is quite a bit of history and (previously mentioned) charm to Gampel and, if Duke and Kansas can play in facilities that are four and three decades older than Gampel, I don't see it's age as an issue. If the school wants to make improvements as a means to squeeze more revenue from the facility, looking into building something new should be a better return on investment than a band aid that will need to be repeated every so often.

This is where I really miss having Pudge with us (may he rest in peace), as his would assuredly add in the missed opportunity of bonding a project like this when interest rates were considerably lower.

For the purpose of full disclosure have have a pretty good background in this. I've spent the past quarter century of a four decade career as an accounting/finance professional working for major commercial construction companies (first, just shy of a full decade for the largest firm in the field in Westchester county followed by the past near decade and a half for the largest in lower Fairfield county).
 
It’s just absurd that building a basketball arena in a rural town costs $300M. Like I’m not saying it’s not true but can we all agree a quarter billion dollars + is ridiculous?

Regardless, we do need a new on-campus home. Even the Ryan Center at URI has more amenities than Gampel. It’s a fun place to watch a game but it’s not suitable for a 16 time championship school with Power 5 athletic aspirations.
 
.-.
Here's the Wintrust story from Wikipedia. Financing from several sources, including naming rights, and locating it adjacent to McCormick Place justified city funding tied to the construction jobs and permanent jobs (always BS) and revenue to be gleaned from conventions using it for major events.

Note this part of the story illustrating how Chicago always lets the ends justify the means: "The decision for public participation in the funding of DePaul's athletic facility was controversial because it was announced six days prior to the Board of Education's decision to close 50 public schools due to a $1 billion deficit."

10,000-seat plan​

Upon announcement, ESPN reported the expected cost of the 10,000-seat arena, located on Cermak Road between Indiana and Prairie Avenue, across the street from McCormick Place was $173 million.[8] The funding came from three sources: $70 million from the university, $70 million from a McPier bond fund, and $33 million from public taxes (i.e., $103 million from public funds).[8] It was built to host concerts, conventions, and other events in addition to DePaul Basketball games.[12] As the building approached completion, its capacity was announced as 10,387 seats for basketball.[2]


Funding​

The decision for public participation in the funding of DePaul's athletic facility was controversial because it was announced six days prior to the Board of Education's decision to close 50 public schools due to a $1 billion deficit.[13] When the Chicago City Council approved funding on July 24, 2013, the Chicago Reader reported the vote as though money was taken from the schools and spent on the arena because the spending plan included $68 million in budget cuts for the Chicago Public Schools.[14][15] The Chicago Tribune revealed that the land for the project had not yet been acquired four days after the City Hall funding vote.[16]


Construction​



Wintrust Arena under construction in August 2016

On November 16, 2015, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, officials from DePaul University and McCormick Place attended the ceremonial groundbreaking for the center.[17][18] At the time of the groundbreaking, the construction was expected to result in a 10,000-seat venue at the corner of Cermak Road and Indiana Avenue and expected to be completed at some time in 2017.[19] At the time, the DePaul Athletics department expected the 2017–18 DePaul Blue Demons to be able to host their season opener at the venue,[20] but the venue was expected to double as an events center for McCormick Place.[18] The Center was expected to create 7,400 construction jobs and 2,500 permanent jobs.[18]

The city issued a "new construction" building permit to McPier on March 23, 2016,[21] for the full building. Previously issued permits allowed the construction of foundations and shear walls.
 
.-.
Gampel is definitely a dump. I love games there and prefer it to XL, but we're lying to ourselves if we say it's not a pit. One decent sized dump in those horribly designed bathrooms and that entire place is collapsing.
Yeah, right

You both must not go to alot of stadiums/arenas. It’s a bare basic arena. But it’s not a dump.
 
Rebuild a new one with new naming rights to help offset some of the expense
Sell the naming rights to Nardelli’s, then schedule a home-and-home with Rutty (Jersey Mike’s Arena) and turn it into the battle of the grinder/sub/hero/wedge.

In all seriousness, timing is everything when it comes to generating sponsorship revenue. If the men’s and women’s teams are killing it simultaneously, naming rights and other high-priced sponsorship assets will generate massive sums in long-term deals… as long as UConn has the right outside sales agency.
 
Food for thought. In Field of 68 this morning, there is an article linked,
Auburn is prioritizing NIL over hoops facility upgrades.

In the world of tradeoffs, should NIL ammunition factor into a Gampel decision? Would be pretty sad to end up with a great facility, but less outstanding teams by not competing for players, then less attendance because the probuct results tank.
 
Tear down the old field, build a new court there, then convert Gampel into something else, or make it into another parking garage or something.... Make the new arena something that could hold close to 20K...
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,243
Messages
4,559,663
Members
10,447
Latest member
Theuconnguy


Top Bottom