OK so I was skimming through some sites and come across the words Akron Arena. So I had to check it out.

It comes direct from the Osborn Architects and engineers website www.osborn-eng.com According to the drawings on the website, it will be built right next to the Mayflower building across from Canal Park. The arena part will be where there is now a surface level parking lot. I hope this project does come to fruition. It would be a major plus for northeastern Ohio as a whole.  :-D

 

 

The City of Akron has a unique opportunity to build a combined arena and retail complex. The nature of this complex would allow it be built in separate phases (retail mall and arena) or together creating an immediate synergy between the two.

 

The arena would seat roughly 10,000 (±) patrons and feature approximately 26 private suites situated below the main concourse level. The retail mall would have the flexibility to provide storefronts on both Main and High Streets while remaining inwardly open to the arcade/atrium space. This scheme provides for a flexible number of office and/or residential levels above the two level mall/atrium.

 

The aesthetics would be sympathetic to Canal Park, in that red brick would be the predominant material, thereby reinforcing the extension of the Sports/Entertainment district.

 

The large expanses of glass in the form of storefronts and arena curtainwall, allows the color, activity, and energy of each space to extend to the street. The curved upper roof and clerestory of the arena provides a dynamic signature element and allows natural light to enter the main seating area. At night this structure will glow and act as a beacon for evening events.

 

Lastly, the combined facility will present an impressive and dynamic landmark. By infilling the two city blocks that this project encompasses, a link is created between the lower South Main Street and the emerging retail district. This complex becomes a “partner” to Canal Park and completes this Sports/Entertainment district.

 

 

I would think this COULD gain some momentum after the football stadium is complete and used for a year or two.

Very interesting find.  I don't think its likely to happen in that spot though.  There are several buildings that would have to be torn down.  One is almost renovated and another has been in various stages of renovation.  I can't see an arena going on a prominent corner of Main and Exchange.  Another factor with that spot is Main St is about 3-4 stories lower than High St.  I would think that would require a lot of excavation and then a lot of support to prevent the rest of downtown Akron from collapsing on the structure.

 

Across from that location, the South Main Square block is about to be flattened except where House of Hunan is for new apartments and retail. 

 

A rumor I had heard is there was some interest in looking at perhaps retrofitting the convention center as a potential arena.

Though I am a student at UofA I would still like to see this Arena (If it ever goes through) built downtown. I love both the University and the city of Akron, and right now I think the university is doing well enough. If you were to add this arena downtown it would create an atmosphere that most people want to see downtown. I dont think it matters whether or not its on the campus or not. Students walk down that way anyways to go to class at the Polsky building and to go to the bars. I see it no problem to walk down there for a game or concert. During the winter people who dont like the cold might now want to walk there, but the University has a transportation service called the "Roo Express" that runs downtown.

 

It would be nice to see this go in next to the mayflower. They could build more restaurants/shops next to the kaiser building where Pita Pit is going in. It would be nice to have something like Cleveland's East Fourth in Akron. More shops, restaurants, and apartments.

There will be more apartments going up in DT Akron. I do agree there needs to be more retail added to the area. Chain retail stores in DT Akron would be nice to see. There will be offical news about a new arena in the picture within 5-10 years. Bank on it. UA is experiencing too much growth to keep the JAR. A new arena would generate funding through National acts and concerts of which wont go to the JAR due to seating compacity issues.

I was walking by the old Wonder Bread factory today. I heard something about UA might be purchasing the property. If they do I really hope the Arena doesn't go in there.

I think UA is going to buy anything near campus they can get their hands on considering how landlocked they are and the eminent domain battle for the new stadium.  There is so much speculation for the arena out there that I wouldn't worry about each land purchase.  I've had pretty good luck when looking for details on the new football stadium when going to www3.uakron.edu  As UA is publicly funded, they have to post some information and if you keep your eyes open, you can get a jump on things.

Yes UA will purchase as much landnear campus as possible. A new arena will be added and a few other buildings as well. Look for expansion south down Grant st towards I-76.

Do you know this for sure? Where are you getting the info?

Common sense is my source.  If you look at the current campus map, there isn't much land to develop.  The buildings I would tear down to replace are in the heart of campus (Zook, Leigh, Ayer, Crouse) and with the push for more green space, I doubt they would be replaced in the same footprint. So, that indicates to me additional land is needed.  I'm sure UofA has talked with every land owner near campus and stated that if they want to sell, UA is willing to purchase. 

 

I for one think that a new arena is a luxury and not a necessity right now.  ICS was a necessity.  As Dr. P put it, UA was at a point where if they were going to participate in FB, they were going to need to put at least $50 Million in a stadium.  It could be a new on-campus stadium or the Rubber Bowl.  For the Soccer team, you had a National Power playing in a stadium that some High School players in the area would laugh at.

 

I wonder which direction UA will expand?  Rt-8 seems to be a barrier, I don't see them expanding past Rt 8.  Expanding into Downtown is an option, but DT has lots of people opposing this.  A downtown arena would compliment the Baseball stadium nicely and the recent development (22 exchange) has been a private endeavor. Personally I think expanding into downtown more would really bring it to life.  The easy way to expand at this point, however, appears to be expansion towards market and across Exchange.

Do you know this for sure? Where are you getting the info?

I second that! JamesM, this had better not be mere speculation! How dare you get us so pumped! ;)

Do you know this for sure? Where are you getting the info?

I second that! JamesM, this had better not be mere speculation! How dare you get us so pumped! ;)

 

I cannot list my source but I can say I trust the information He says to me in our conversations.

 

But yes an Arena is in the mix for the future (as in 5-10 yrs). UA wants it to hold more than just UA sports. Rather it become a venue for national acts that would draw people. I'm told they dont want a huge crowd of non-students in the middle of campus so they are looking for something on the edge of campus.

 

My opinoin is that it will be on Grant st due to the fact that it has direct access to a major throughway (I-76) and has plenty of older biuldings that I'm sure the current tenants wouldnt mind selling to get better facilities. There are already 2 office buildings on Grant with for sale signs up right next to each other.

 

I'd like to see a parking garage where the nasty looking ABJ docks are at with a walkbridge from it going over to grant st to an open air sculpture park across thest from the arena.

 

 

Zipsrifle I wasn't asking about your source. I just wasn't sure where JamesM was getting this information at. I clearly understand why the University would like to build this as close to campus as possible due to the lack of land. However, I agree with what JamesM  was told about the University not wanting a large crowd of non-students on campus. Wherever they put this there needs to be easy access to downtown as well as easy access to the arena from the University. Imagine a crowd of 10,000+ fans of a concert pouring out into downtown and spending money in the city. The city and university need this and I hope they can work together in finding a perfect location for this arena to benefit both.

Wherever it gets put I hope the city builds around it and creates an arena district.

Just looked at Google map to find an area big enough to put a 10k seat arena and there really aren't very many good spots available.  I would think a requirement would be a very easy walk from campus.  a.) Quaker Square parking lot across Mill St.

b.) Approximately the original poster's location going across Maiden Lane from Club Vertigo to Spring St. which saves the Kaiser building(pita pit)..  A walkway could be connected to the Polsky deck.

 

There was a comment in the Beacon on Saturday about the fact that EJ Thomas may be near the end of its useful life with potentially many upcoming crippling expenses.  In 5 years or so that might be the next best logical location.  Not sure if much of that could be re-used to create an arena..

 

  I guess the upside is that downtown Akron has passed the point where no large tracts of land exist or can easily be pieced together to be developed.  The only other area that would work, although I think its further from campus than they would like, is if they took out Spaghetti warehouse with their massive parking lot.  Sorry, no Arena districts in Akron's future although option b would be pretty close...

Leigh Hall is going nowhere. UA just renovated it and it is regarded as practically a brand new building. Crouse and Ayer are another story. I expect Ayer to be the next to go.

 

And the truth is that UA administrators want an on-campus arena because they want non-UA students to come to the vortex of the university. This is precisely why UA built an on-campus stadium. This is what is called marketing your product. The last thing UA wants to do is splatter its resources such as a premium facility as an arena all over downtown and discourage the general non-UA public from coming to the heart of its beautiful, park-like setting of a campus. The UA campus is "the place to be" as Dr Proenza so many times says. It is the perfect location for a multi-purpose arena where people can come to see not only sports but major concert attractions and performers. This is one reason why we have an obviouos on-campus stadium. UA officials know full well that non-UA students come to the stadium even more so than UA students. Non-UA students are potential UA students. UA will not put an arena downtown because it doesn't want to throw  away a major marketing strategy. Yes, currently the 30,000 seat stadium is not drawing the numbers that UA would like, but the fact that they want 30,000 people coming to campus proves that they want to encourage large numbers of non-students and their parents to come to the heart of the campus through a 10-12k arena...that and the fact that development and institutional marketing folks have told me so.

 

There is plenty of room for a 10 - 12K on-campus arena and a Greek Village (if the Greeks want one) just east of InfoCision Stadium/Summa Field where the SkyWay was supposed to be. The stadium location is great for downtown (even the ABJ dubbed it as a "downtown football stadium"). And county a city officials consider InfoCision a great asset to downtown. An arena just east of the stadium would be truly on-campus and a plus for downtown just like the stadium. It's a win/win.  Also, plans for putting an arena across from Canal Park have been scrapped.

 

Also, E.J. Thomas Hall is going nowhere. The quote in the paper was a childish and manipulative remark made by a game player known as Dan Dahl, a UA administrator and director of this campus sub-venue. Now, there is some truth to the rumor that Mr. Dahl is not long for our campus and I say good riddance.

That's great for the U of A, and they can use all of their own money to do it.  Why not do something collaborative that would bring out-of-towers into the downtown area of the city and help it grow with retail, housing and night life?  If you bring people from out of town to a college campus, that's all they will likely see.  Or you can work with the city to improve the overall quality of it, attracting people to the city who then will see the campus as they pass it from the highway.

"See the campus as they pass it from the highway"? You are kidding right? :drunk:

 

What's great for UA is great for downtown (the converse is not necessarily true) and all of the Akron/Summit County community and NE Ohio region. That is the point of my post. UA is just starting to have a campus with integrity and credibility. That alone ads integrity and credibility to the entire city and surrounding community. UA is no longer a community college with a sign on it stating, "For Akronites Only" We need to stay macro and think regional. UA is not just about downtown anymore.

 

UA is already bringing out-of-towners into downtown, building up its night life, etc by being true to itself. I hear what you are saying but the goals of which you speak are already being accomplished by UA making itself look like an actual college campus. As I said, city and county officials already have acknowleged that the on-campus stadium is building up downtown. So, by their logic and mine an on-campus arena will do so as well and intensify what you want to see happen.

 

The city and its citizens are in no fiscal position to join in a collaberative venture for an arena. However, UA can and will be in a position to collaberate with many individuals and private companies in order to pay for a new on-campus arena. UA does it all the time as do all public universities.

 

An integrated campus with clear boundaries lends credence to itself as well as the community surrounding it. Our campus needs to look even more like a campus and less like an extension of downtown.  We're worth it and we desrve it.

I don't think they should build it on-campus. As much as I would love to see the university grow I am also an Akron citizen and think that downtown would benefit so much more from it if they built it downtown. Imagine 10,000 people walking out of a major concert at the arena and dispersing to nearby restaurants and shops. It would create a more vibrant downtown with more foot traffic, businesses would probably be more interested in coming downtown.

 

Are they still even planning on doing the Greek Village though? I remember looking at the University in high school and seeing plans for this and that was back in 05!

Imagine 10,000 people dispersing out of a major concert directly on the UA campus and seeing how inviting our campus is and then imagine the possibility of a fraction of that 10,000 deciding to enroll at UA. Then imagine those 10,000 people leaving the campus in order to enjoy drinks and food 1/4 quarter of a mile to the west in downtown just as a potential 30,000 people will do when visiting the already on-campus stadium.

 

There is no way that a UA administrator stated that the university doesn't want 10,000 non-UA people on its campus when UA has already invited as much as 30,000 people to its campus by building an on-campus stadium.

 

As always, someone is making up stories by pretending that they have been talking to "sources" at UA. Stating that UA doesn't want non-UA people on UA's campus is not only a lie. It doesn't even make sense. Please share with us the so called reason why UA doesn't want too many "non-UA people" on its campus.

 

I can't wait to hear the answer to this made up campus legend. As long as I can remember, we could always rely on Akron yokles making up fake positions about UA policy and philosophy. They get these positions from where the sun don't shine.

Tom what are your last two paragraphs about? Who is making up things and pretending to UA sources?

 

First off, if they build this "on campus" its not even going to be anywhere near the student union or commons, so unless people park downtown and walk through campus to get there I doubt many will venture off onto campus. You would have a greater percentage of people spending money at restaurants and shops downtown if you force them to be down there. A lot of people just want to see the show and go home especially if they're not parked near downtown. The University is already doing really well, so why not help out the city?

.

Plus the only time the stadium even got close to having 30,000 in attendance was the first couple games played there.

Tom what are your last two paragraphs about? Who is making up things and pretending to UA sources?

 

First off, if they build this "on campus" its not even going to be anywhere near the student union or commons, so unless people park downtown and walk through campus to get there I doubt many will venture off onto campus. You would have a greater percentage of people spending money at restaurants and shops downtown if you force them to be down there. A lot of people just want to see the show and go home especially if they're not parked near downtown. The University is already doing really well, so why not help out the city?

.

Plus the only time the stadium even got close to having 30,000 in attendance was the first couple games played there.

 

UA student - here are some words/terms for you on which to contemplate: "big picture", "potential capacity for the stadium to build its fan base", "small campus" "Roo Express", "planning ahead", "intentions of UA officials", "future mission related goals", "boundaries and not walls"

 

I talk with people in Buchtel Hall and more and they never said they don't want large crowds of non-UA people in the heart of the campus. The truth is that they do want large numbers of UA students and non-UA students in the heart of the UA campus. Quit making stuff up. Your logic is beyond flawed. You ask why shouldn't UA help out downtown? The answer is that's not UA's job. Yet, it is already helping downtown. You keep ignoring the fact that UA can refrain from compromising itself and at the same time continue to help downtown even more in collateral and residual ways.

 

UA has a very small campus and people will have no problem negotiating a true on-campus arena. The fact is, an on-campus arena would be very close to the student union.  You need to take a tour of some more authentic looking campuses like OSU, OU, UC KSU. Students there walk alot further to negotiate their entire campus than UA students do. Your position seems to be that now that we have an on-campus stadium, we should be satisfied with that. We are not worthy to have anymore. That the stadium doesn't succeed at being filled is missing the point. My point is that if UA officials expects or want people to fill a 30,000 seat stadium in the heart of campus, it doesn't makes sense to say that they wouldn't want an arena that has the potential of drawing less than 1/3 of that capacity to the heart of campus through an on-campus arena. The point is, the fact that a 30,000 seat stadium is in the heart of the campus (and not whether it is filled or not) debunks your cooked up desire by UA officials to not want large crowds of non-UA people on campus through a much smaller facility (arena) than the stadium.

 

The only way I would accept an off-campus downtown arena would be if the city of Akron takes total responsibility for the costs of building, operating and owning the structure while allowing UA to be its "favored tenant".

Actually, Tom, as a public university, UA does have some obligation to the broader public, from which it draws a substantial portion of its operating revenue and without which it would be a minor private college like the myriad other private colleges that dot the urban and rural landscape of Ohio.  In addition, I am guessing that UA does not have its own utilities, meaning that it relies on many municipal services of the City of Akron; it is within the city's right to ask for something in return, as they do for many major businesses.  UA is not a business, you might say?  That doesn't change the fact that it is an incredibly large user of those municipal services and is functionally very much like a major corporation in that regard.

 

Do the university's civic obligations include "siting a new arena as close to the heart of downtown as possible?"  Of course not, at least not phrased like that.  However, when you say "You ask why shouldn't UA help out downtown? The answer is that's not UA's job."--that is just absurd, and I strongly doubt that many UA strategic planners agree with you.  You are correct that what is good for UA is good for the city; however, it is also true that what is good for the city is good for UA.

 

The arena might attract new students to enroll at UA?  Sure, it might, but it's a horribly ineffective marketing strategy in cost-per-prospect.  Most of the visitors will not be under 18 and considering where to go to college at the time.  How many prospective students do you think make up the average attendance at non-OSU events at the Schottenstein Center?  In addition, students who are swayed by first-class facilities are unlikely to be significantly more affected if it's at the heart of campus than if it's a quarter mile to the west.

 

As to what you would "accept": If you don't have a few million (or tens of millions) to contribute to the project, what you would "accept" is likely to matter very little, and because of the generally churlish and confrontational nature of your comments, I consider that a good thing.  This naked town-vs-gown hostility of yours is counterproductive.

 

I am not saying that any proposed arena should be built downtown.  I honestly don't know the prices of the available land and the feasibility of the infrastructure improvements at any given site that would be necessary to accommodate demand of that volume.  However, the notion that the university has no obligations beyond its own borders and just needs to be "true to itself," whatever that means (though it apparently includes being as parochial as possible, while continuing to demand all manner of public assistance), demands a forceful response.  That is not a legitimate ground for refusing to site the arena downtown.

 

If it is physically or financially infeasible to do so, then that's one thing.  If it becomes legally problematic and the city refuses to grant necessary permits or variances for some reason, that's likewise something that would be a dealbreaker, though I doubt the city would be so unaccommodating.  Simply writing it off the table in advance is pointless.

Actually, Tom, as a public university, UA does have some obligation to the broader public, from which it draws a substantial portion of its operating revenue and without which it would be a minor private college like the myriad other private colleges that dot the urban and rural landscape of Ohio.  In addition, I am guessing that UA does not have its own utilities, meaning that it relies on many municipal services of the City of Akron; it is within the city's right to ask for something in return, as they do for many major businesses.  UA is not a business, you might say?  That doesn't change the fact that it is an incredibly large user of those municipal services and is functionally very much like a major corporation in that regard.

 

Do the university's civic obligations include "siting a new arena as close to the heart of downtown as possible?"  Of course not, at least not phrased like that.  However, when you say "You ask why shouldn't UA help out downtown? The answer is that's not UA's job."--that is just absurd, and I strongly doubt that many UA strategic planners agree with you.  You are correct that what is good for UA is good for the city; however, it is also true that what is good for the city is good for UA.

 

The arena might attract new students to enroll at UA?  Sure, it might, but it's a horribly ineffective marketing strategy in cost-per-prospect.  Most of the visitors will not be under 18 and considering where to go to college at the time.  How many prospective students do you think make up the average attendance at non-OSU events at the Schottenstein Center?  In addition, students who are swayed by first-class facilities are unlikely to be significantly more affected if it's at the heart of campus than if it's a quarter mile to the west.

 

As to what you would "accept": If you don't have a few million (or tens of millions) to contribute to the project, what you would "accept" is likely to matter very little, and because of the generally churlish and confrontational nature of your comments, I consider that a good thing.  This naked town-vs-gown hostility of yours is counterproductive.

 

I am not saying that any proposed arena should be built downtown.  I honestly don't know the prices of the available land and the feasibility of the infrastructure improvements at any given site that would be necessary to accommodate demand of that volume.  However, the notion that the university has no obligations beyond its own borders and just needs to be "true to itself," whatever that means (though it apparently includes being as parochial as possible, while continuing to demand all manner of public assistance), demands a forceful response.  That is not a legitimate ground for refusing to site the arena downtown.

 

If it is physically or financially infeasible to do so, then that's one thing.  If it becomes legally problematic and the city refuses to grant necessary permits or variances for some reason, that's likewise something that would be a dealbreaker, though I doubt the city would be so unaccommodating.  Simply writing it off the table in advance is pointless.

The University admitedly built a 30,000 seat stadium in the heart of the campus in order to attract future students and they would do the same with a 10,000 seat arena. They don't consider the stadium a "horrible" recrutment tool so why would they see a multi-purpose arena any other way? The fact is they don't. Your assessment is based on misguided thinking or just a naked desire to be churlish and oppositional.

As far as UA having an obligation to the greater public. I never said otherwise. Please be aware that the greater public includes the region and state and not just parochial downtown Akron. We're bigger than that now. And the fact remains that some things are simply not UA's job. And engaging in ephemeral, joint capital improvement ventures with downtown politicians is certainly in the category of not being UA's job. It is not parochial to expect an organization to be true to its mission and live up to authentic ways to give back to the community. The fact that I may or may not have millions is irrelevant and one among a number of disingenuous if not haughty statements made by you as a way to discount legitimate expectations by everyday citizens of this city state and region.

 

And just like all of us, UA pays the city for use of its utilities. The city has no right to demand UA does anymore than that. Or, perhaps I should include a Christmas Card with an extra check in it to the water department this December.

Making stuff up?! hahaha if you would have read my last post Tom I never said anything about UA officials not wanting a large number of people directly on campus. Also...how is near the highway, by the stadium close to the Student Union? Look on a map and where the arena could potentially be downtown is almost the exact distance away from the union as it would be if it were built near the highway as you said.

 

Listen, I'm not going to keep speculating where or where not this is going to be built. I have my opinion where they should build it, and you have yours. What makes my opinion flawed and your's right? 

Moderator Note

 

You won't be seeing Tom around here for a while, so let's get back on topic, shall we?

Making stuff up?! hahaha if you would have read my last post Tom I never said anything about UA officials not wanting a large number of people directly on campus. Also...how is near the highway, by the stadium close to the Student Union? Look on a map and where the arena could potentially be downtown is almost the exact distance away from the union as it would be if it were built near the highway as you said.

 

Listen, I'm not going to keep speculating where or where not this is going to be built. I have my opinion where they should build it, and you have yours. What makes my opinion flawed and your's right?

 

It's not merely about distance. It's about being on campus as opposed to being off campus. Even if your estimation of distance is correct, and it is not. There is a big difference between locating a brand new $80,000,000 state-of-the-art-university facility in a conspicuously off-campus downtown location and one that is clearly on campus right next to the on-campus stadium dorms and fraternity houses. Locating a new multipurpose arena a stone's throw away from and to the east of the stadium will not only actually be on campus, it will look and feel on campus. It's one thing for the university to purchase obsolete department stores and hotels to repurpose them in or near downtown and quite another for UA to build brand new, multi-million dollar facilities meant for the campus in an obvious off-campus location. Again, UA needs to be true to itself in order to benefit its main mission of serving its students and the region. As long as UA keeps its focus on that, downtown will always be the richer. The town-and-gown experience is alive and well at UA and is based on the institution's academic, intellectual and research relationship with the entire community as well as serving as a major economic engine for the region, state and nation. Too many Akronites have gotten away from what town-and-gown truly means and have turned the concept into some type of fiscal/one dimensional free-for-all.

memories of memorial hall on the UA campus...gone

 

future site of the new college of education building

 

 

Thanks, the structure on that is pretty sweet.  It was an old bball gym, so there were no interior columns.

 

BTW, there's a U of A thread:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,8063.0.html

Living in Gin:

 

I must take issue with you. You are a moderator and judging by your postings, you really should not have such a position. Your need to post juvenile pictures mocking me and calling me a jerk makes you guilty of the very things of which you accuse me. Someone needs to hold you accountable for your irresponsible handling of this site. You take things much too personally and basically retaliate against posters with whom you disagree. Please refrain from calling me a jerk and labeling my dissension as disrespect of a moderator. You are entitled to no more respect than the rest of us. I suggest you take a look at your own lack of respect for others. Having assigned authority does not entitle you to show disrespect towards others or acting juvenile.

 

 

Folks, "Tom" started out by posting some rather abrasive and insulting posts toward other forumers. Then he decides to blatantly disrespect a Moderator because said Mod called him out on his behavior. Then, instead of sending a PM or posting something in the "Forum Issues" thread, he takes *this* thread off topic to vent his grievances. He's been given two weeks off - we hate making an example out of someone, but sometimes there's no clearer way to convey "what not to do".

Folks, "Tom" started out by posting some rather abrasive and insulting posts toward other forumers. Then he decides to blatantly disrespect a Moderator because said Mod called him out on his behavior. Then, instead of sending a PM or posting something in the "Forum Issues" thread, he takes *this* thread off topic to vent his grievances. He's been given two weeks off - we hate making an example out of someone, but sometimes there's no clearer way to convey "what not to do".

 

Bottom line : you just disagree.

Tom, apparently you can't distinguish my screen name from Living in Gin - he's the Moderator who initially called you out on your behavior. Upon reviewing your comments toward him, I (fyi - I'm an Administrator, not a Moderator) suspended your account for two weeks, and posted the explanation so that others wouldn't follow your example. If you want to continue to be combative, you'll have yourself more time off - it's your choice.

Tom, you should hook up with another forum poster named Blake. And another guy on the Akron Zips forums named Jake.

 

Amazingly, all three of you have eerily similar positions on the arena proposal, and you seem to have some real trouble with respecting differences of opinion....just like Blake/Jake!

 

Strange.

 

 

 

 

Tom, apparently you can't distinguish my screen name from Living in Gin - he's the Moderator who initially called you out on your behavior. Upon reviewing your comments toward him, I (fyi - I'm an Administrator, not a Moderator) suspended your account for two weeks, and posted the explanation so that others wouldn't follow your example. If you want to continue to be combative, you'll have yourself more time off - it's your choice.

 

I know full well who you are and I maintain that whether you are an administrator or a moderator, you are out of line with your own insults and disrespect. You have a hostile and condescending tone that implies that the only people deserving of respect are those who agree with you. Again, you confuse respect with agreement. It was you or your moderator who labeled me a "jerk" and a "tool". That is in no way an appropriate manner in which to operate a blog.

Well folks, Tom has decided that he's not able to agree to disagree so he now has a substantial amount of time off. For the record, we welcome contrarian opinions from any perspective, but not if they're presented with abrasive insults from the get-go. Tom has demonstrated he has no problem dishing out insults but whines when he gets called out on it.

 

Please feel free to continue the discussion of the downtown Akron arena.

^Thank you.

from the ABJ, 6/20/2011. "...Curtis said there has been some talk of ''using [the JAR] as a practice gym and building a new arena on campus or as a joint effort with the city of Akron and Summit County.''

 

However, with projected costs at $60 million to $70 million for a new arena and money tight for all potential partners, the current facility instead might be renovated, Curtis said."

 

Looks to me like our new arena will be on the campus where it should be one way or the other.

 

It's also worthy to note that Ted Curtis expresses no concern about large crowds of non-UA students coming to the campus.

 

Also worthy of note:

 

Recently Released:

 

James A Rhodes Arena Feasibility Study

 

The A/E will provide recommendations to The University of Akron for improvements at James A Rhodes Arena. Modifications will include improved sight lines, revisions to seating configuration for enhanced fan experience, premium seating accommodations, improved concessions, novelty, & ticketing as well as team facilities, offices and operations support. Solutions may include renovation and expansion of the existing arena, or demolition and construction of a new arena if modification of the existing facility is not practicable. Relocation costs (interim or permanent) for affected departments will be included in the feasibility study. A comparative analysis of the site and related project costs will be included in the study.

 

This can be found on the U of A - Construction Public Bid Advertisements and Results webpage. Proposals are due in the middle of July.

 

 

Tom, you should hook up with another forum poster named Blake. And another guy on the Akron Zips forums named Jake.

 

Amazingly, all three of you have eerily similar positions on the arena proposal, and you seem to have some real trouble with respecting differences of opinion....just like Blake/Jake!

 

Strange.

 

 

 

 

 

Being steadfast is not the same as disrespecting difference of opinion and the fact that there are others who agree with me is indicative of the overwhelming majority of UA campus people who want the UA arena on campus proper.

Tom, do you still have an active link to that ABJ article?  Or to the UA Web page that you mentioned regarding the renovation bids?

 

I wonder why they would go for "demolition and construction of a new arena if modification of the existing facility is not practicable," rather than leaving the existing arena and then constructing a new arena in addition, like OSU did with St. John.  Does UA need that land?  Is the JAR too expensive to operate as a secondary venue?

Tom, do you still have an active link to that ABJ article?  Or to the UA Web page that you mentioned regarding the renovation bids?

 

I wonder why they would go for "demolition and construction of a new arena if modification of the existing facility is not practicable," rather than leaving the existing arena and then constructing a new arena in addition, like OSU did with St. John.  Does UA need that land?  Is the JAR too expensive to operate as a secondary venue?

http://www.ohio.com/news/boston-group-to-return-to-update-ua-plan-1.215381

here is the one ABJ link. I'll try to relocate the other. Frankly, I was wondering the same thing you are. I think UA will need two facilities one way or the other. I think Mr. Curtis is just trying to keep all options open until he and the AE can see the bids specifications. I imagine that in one of those specs your and my question will be answered.

 

And, to answer you further, UA definitely needs the land where Rhodes Gym currently is (it currently is not an arena). Whether they add to it or demolish it, UA still needs the footprint. Word is out that one of the other unspoken reasons why the footprint of Memorial Hall will not be used for the new College of Education Building is due to the possibility that it may be used for an addition to the existing JAR or for a JAR replacement entirely with a practice Gym attached.

 

The University of Akron has its eyes on a true multi-purpose arena in the middle of campus proper. A downtown arena is off the table and has been for some time. UA wants as many non-UA people as possible attracted to campus proper. This philosophy has contributed to the new 30,000 seat football stadium in the heart of the campus and enrollment figures increasing to almost 30,000 students.

The link to this is tricky. So i copied and pasted it. Hope it helps.

 

Project Name James A Rhodes Arena Feasibility Study

Response Deadline 07/11/2011

2:00

local time

Project Location The University of Akron

Project Number 110028

 

City / County Akron / Summit

Project Manager Frank J. Horn

 

Local Administration

 

Agency/Institution The University of Akron

Phone Number 330.972.6469

 

Inquiries to* Bill Jenkins

Fax Number 330.972.5564

 

Address 1 100 Lincoln Street #209

E-mail Address [email protected]

 

Address 2    

No. of Paper Copies (stapled, not bound) 4

 

City, State ZIP Akron, Ohio 44325-0405

No. of Electronic Copies on CD (PDF) 1

 

 

* Mail or deliver the requested number of Statements of Qualifications (SAO Form F110-330) directly to this contact. Do not send submittals to the State Architect’s Office. See Section H for additional submittal instructions.

 

Project Overview

 

A. Project Description

 

 

 

The A/E will provide recommendations to The University of Akron for improvements at James A Rhodes Arena.  Modifications will include improved sight lines, revisions to seating configuration for enhanced fan experience, premium seating accommodations, improved concessions, novelty, & ticketing as well as team facilities, offices and operations support. Solutions may include renovation and expansion of the existing arena, or demolition and construction of a new arena if modification of the existing facility is not practicable.  Relocation costs (interim or permanent) for affected departments will be included in the feasibility study. A comparative analysis of the site and related project costs will be included in the study.

 

The A/E will conduct interviews and formulate a program of requirements (POR) for arena modifications for review and approval by Capital Planning & Facilities Management. Design alternatives will be studied by the A/E for review and discussion with The University of Akron.  The Owner-approved solution will be developed as a schematic design to inform cost estimates, renderings, and related recommendations.

 

The study shall be presented in a final report (digital and hard copy) to include the POR, conceptual building and site plans, building sections and elevations, event set-up plans, circulation plans, proposed design & construction schedules, and an estimate of probable cost prepared by professionals experienced in the construction of arena improvements. 

 

All facilities will incorporate the latest available technology for connectivity including broadcast and alternative media. Building design will enable a comfortable environment year round with systems performance at least 20% more efficient than ASHRAE 90.1 (2004). All facilities will meet or exceed the requirements for ADA.  .

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Scope of Services

 

 

The selected Architect/Engineer (A/E), as a portion of its required Scope of Services will participate in the Encouraging Growth, Diversity and Equity (EDGE) Program as required by statute and the Agreement.

 

As required by the Agreement, and as properly authorized, provide the following categories of services: Program Verification and Schematic Design,. Refer to The SAO Manual for additional information about the type and extent of services required for each.

 

Programming Phase:

Develop the program of requirements as outlined above. Establish relationships between primary elements, and provide diagrams which illustrate the relationship of all components to one another. Verify relationships of the arena to external entities (i.e. broadcast production, media, vendors, and the like).

Inspect and analyze pedestrian and vehicular traffic to and around the site, including parking.  Provide diagrams which illustrate recommended relationships, to site circulation.

 

Preliminary Design Phase:

Create preliminary drawings (site plan, floor plans, sections, elevations, etc.), renderings, and cost estimates which reflect all program requirements. Review alternative design solutions with University of Akron designees to select an approved design solution.  Compile approved design recommendations in a final report as described above and provide digital copies of the report elements suitable for University use in communicating the recommendations via websites and other electronic media.

 

 

Tom, do you still have an active link to that ABJ article?  Or to the UA Web page that you mentioned regarding the renovation bids?

 

I wonder why they would go for "demolition and construction of a new arena if modification of the existing facility is not practicable," rather than leaving the existing arena and then constructing a new arena in addition, like OSU did with St. John.  Does UA need that land?  Is the JAR too expensive to operate as a secondary venue?

http://www.ohio.com/news/boston-group-to-return-to-update-ua-plan-1.215381

here is the one ABJ link. I'll try to relocate the other. Frankly, I was wondering the same thing you are. I think UA will need two facilities one way or the other. I think Mr. Curtis is just trying to keep all options open until he and the AE can see the bids specifications. I imagine that in one of those specs your and my question will be answered.

 

And, to answer you further, UA definitely needs the land where Rhodes Gym currently is (it currently is not an arena). Whether they add to it or demolish it, UA still needs the footprint. Word is out that one of the other unspoken reasons why the footprint of Memorial Hall will not be used for the new College of Education Building is due to the possibility that it may be used for an addition to the existing JAR or for a JAR replacement entirely with a practice Gym attached.

 

The University of Akron has its eyes on a true multi-purpose arena in the middle of campus proper. A downtown arena is off the table and has been for some time. UA wants as many non-UA people as possible attracted to campus proper. This philosophy has contributed to the new 30,000 seat football stadium in the heart of the campus and enrollment figures increasing to almost 30,000 students.

 

I don't whole heartdly disagree with anything you said. The College of Ed has been struggling with footprint and budget because a lot of unanticipated programs want to be included into the facility as well.

Basically the way that ABJ article read was that the U of A wants to build a new arena, but they don't have the money to, yet. They have to do their "due diligence" in a feasibility study of the existing arena. They also did a feasibility study for the existing law school building and determined that it would be too expensive to renovate it to what they needed, so they were going to build a new one. Funding for it has been short, so it is on hold.

Agreed. I think we will see a new law school, a new college of education building and a new arena sooner or later somewhere on campus proper. Also, recall that a feasability study was done on the rubber bowl before UA had the justification for building a new on-campus football stadium. I think the money for all three will come eventually. UA has a good track record of partnering with donors who have come through with other on-campus projects such as the soccer stadium, football stadium and performing arts hall.

What exactly is "the campus proper?" 

Infocision stadium was not completely built on existing campus land. It was built on the SE edge of campus. Had to buy land to do so. I believe they will do the same with an arena. Strategic planning was in place for that exchange St parking deck. Half way between the football stadium and the common known area of where many entities want an arena. UA does own land where the arena has been proposed. It's used as a surface lot.

What exactly is "the campus proper?" 

Infocision stadium was not completely built on existing campus land. It was built on the SE edge of campus. Had to buy land to do so. I believe they will do the same with an arena. Strategic planning was in place for that exchange St parking deck. Half way between the football stadium and the common known area of where many entities want an arena. UA does own land where the arena has been proposed. It's used as a surface lot.

 

To me campus proper is something that is contiguous with the rest of the campus. Beyond that response, I'm not going to navel gaze. In my opnion, campus proper is obvious. If it isn't in your opinion then so be it. Campus proper doesn't include non-contiguous campus property which excludes a so-called "downtown arena"

 

Campus proper includes everything that Dr. Proenza and Ted Curtis envisions it to be and not what the mayor envisions it to be.

I was curious so I went to the university of Akron website to find out what the campus proper (contiguous) is to Dr. Proenza and Ted Curtis as represented by the official campus map. The shaded areas are UA campus areas. According to said map, UA campus has a Main St presence, from University ave to E Exchange St. From the Main/Exchange intersection east to the Exchange/Spicer intersection. Therefore, that is all contiguous UA campus proper.

 

The area where the arena has been proposed is therefore, according to UA documentation, on campus proper. FYI, that section of Main St was not indicated as UA campus a few years back. UA must have plans for that area. Wonder what it shall be.

 

I don't consider the area you mention as campus proper. It's not all that contiguous unless UA plans on purchasing St. Bernard Church and even in that unlikely event, the area is still not contiguous or campus proper. UA owns many areas near or in downtown like the Polsky Building. To me those areas are annexes to the actual campus (rubber bowl) and not campus proper. Also, there is no proposed site for the UA arena. The UPA architect was just admittedly pipe dreaming and UPA has already disclaimed his fantasy since UPA's mission is to develop the area around the campus and not the campus itself. I wonder about the Main Street presence like you. Perhaps the area you mention as being recently purchased by UA (if the Google map is accurate. Wikopedia has the same problem with accuracy and allowing just anybody to change facts on their sites) will be the site of additional parking for the students. Part of it is already UA parking currently.Who knows?

 

Also, like you I'm curious why said map indicates that UA owns St. Bernard Church and the land it is on, The Chapel on Fir Hill and its land, Central Hower High School and the land it is on, The National Inventors Hall of Fame School and its land, and the recently restored historical landmark between Maiden lane and Main Street. I'm pretty sure those parcels are currently owned by The Roman Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, The Chapel on Fir Hill and The Akron Public School System and a private developer respectively. Interesting! I'm fairly certain though that UA will take/purchase Central Hower and its footprint with the blessings of APS when APS is done using it as a swing school but that doesn't look like it will be soon.

 

Good observations on your part though, James.

 

Oh and the last I checked, Grismer's Catholic/Christian Gifts is still located at 272 South High Street with the land and building owned by the family. They do claim however that if UA wants to buy them, they'll cooperate only if UA opens and Irish pub :drunk: on their site. Said map indicates that UA currently owns Grismer's as well.

 

Also, if I may adjust my definition, campus proper refers to the area of any campus that is truly, clearly and visually conspicuous (such as InfoCision Stadium) as being on the actual visual campus as opposed to some marginal location that can only be defined as questionably and technically on campus (such as Main Street in downtown).

 

According to your map interpretation, UA owns St Bernard's, The Inventor's Hall of Fame School, The Chapel on Fir Hill, Akron Digital Academy, The Mayflower, Grismer's Catholic Store and the private retail establishment that is being restored by a private developer.

 

Again UA will build its arena on the actual campus  and not on any fabricated, smoke and mirrors location that local politicians may have disingenuously dubbed "on campus". Making an issue out of my personal if not fallible definition of "campus proper" is at best not germane and at the very least hair splitting for the sake of being combative. I won't go there with you my friend.

Putting on my Doc Brown hat: You're not thinking fourth-dimensionally.

 

Even using your newly-revised definition of "campus proper" as no longer including the official definition of your erstwhile heroes Proenza and Curtis but including only those areas that are visually conspicuously part of the University, that would include a downtown arena as soon as it was completed.  It would immediately create that impression in conjunction with the other structures visually (and genuinely) associated with the university there already.  Note that by your newly aesthetically-driven definition, 22 Exchange could be considered visibly part of campus even though it is not officially university property, because everyone knows it as a student apartment complex and it possesses an appearance that invites people to form that impression.

 

Picture that stretch with a major new university landmark added *and* a correspondingly large amount of other non-university structures subtracted (in some ways doubling the visual effect), and the downtown arena would fit your definition once it was completed, particularly if it were architecturally consistent with existing campus buildings within sight of it (including across the tracks) and featured the UA color scheme prominently.

Putting on my Doc Brown hat: You're not thinking fourth-dimensionally.

 

Even using your newly-revised definition of "campus proper" as no longer including the official definition of your erstwhile heroes Proenza and Curtis but including only those areas that are visually conspicuously part of the University, that would include a downtown arena as soon as it was completed.  It would immediately create that impression in conjunction with the other structures visually (and genuinely) associated with the university there already.  Note that by your newly aesthetically-driven definition, 22 Exchange could be considered visibly part of campus even though it is not officially university property, because everyone knows it as a student apartment complex and it possesses an appearance that invites people to form that impression.

 

Picture that stretch with a major new university landmark added *and* a correspondingly large amount of other non-university structures subtracted (in some ways doubling the visual effect), and the downtown arena would fit your definition once it was completed, particularly if it were architecturally consistent with existing campus buildings within sight of it (including across the tracks) and featured the UA color scheme prominently.

 

Nice stretch but no cigar. Your post comes off as  the mayor's smoke and mirrors. The 22 Exchange complex is perceived as no more on camppus than the same structure that exists in Kent. Both are clearly not a part of either campus. And UA officials and the general public know this already. The real key to a successful region is to  let The University of Akron be The University of Akron and Downtown Akron be Downtown Akron. Anything less than that is an obvious shell game by a desperate community.

 

As far as thinking in the so-called fourth dimension, is that your kitchie way of saying I should think outside the box? That dog don't hunt no more and there is no such thing as a fourth dimension. What Kool-Aide have you been drinking?

 

Bottom line: there is no way a downtown metropolitan arena can look like a university campus. It will always look like a downtown arena and UA's presence in that location will make it look like a third rate community college at best. In all reality a downtown UA arena will look like an Akron, Ohio municipal arena and I believe that is the goal of those who promote such an idiotic proposal. Downtown Akron and its leaders have been unfortunately all about smoke and mirrors and they want UA to build them an arena on UA's dime so that they can hijack it and lead people to believe that it has nothing to do with our university just like they have done with E.J. Thomas Hall. And this is why the mayor of Akron hates the location of UA's InfoCision Stadium. He can't trick people into thinking that it is about him.