The Generic Arena Mistake

I don't know.

But in most modern NBA arenas, there really isn't a bad seat in the house, which is pretty awesome

quote:

---

Imagine that. Investors constructing buildings in such a way to maximize profits and not in such a way to make you go "ooooo look, pretty"

ETA: The great thing about capitalism, is that is gives you the chance to get off your arse and provide solutions to your own problems

---

I think investors have underestimated human taste.

We see a resurgence in 'the good and beautiful'.

People's tastes are exploding.

Food, beer, wine ect are all exploding.

People want to be in a place with character, with soul.

Old arenas were built uniquely. They had character. Each one was different.

Now they're all virtually the same.

As we consciously awake out of a slumber, we're moving away from this desire for standardization.

We desire soul in our food, beer, surroundings.

With hdtv, busier lives, and rising ticket prices -- I believe it's a dangerous time for the generic arena.

What was so different about basketball arenas of the past from each other?

I'll have what you're smoking

quote:

---

What was so different about basketball arenas of the past from each other?

---

Quite a lot.

There was unique qualities to each one, now most arena's look virtually the same.

Arena seating used to be more vertical, fans were on top of the action, now they're further back.

Note -- I'm not simply saying that we should have kept all old arena's and never built new ones. I'm saying when we build new, they could use more character and soul. I'm also noting the fact that the entertainment industry has had a major role in standardizing arena's nationwide, which is important when analyzing the impact of industry on products, we are proud to say capitalism is best for individual identity, but is it actually a killer of individualism, instead promoting soulless standardization.

quote:

---

You've yet to provide examples of wtf you're talking about

---

I guess I'm taken back by this question in the first place.

I figured it was general knowledge, a universal understanding that old arena's and old architecture in general was more detailed, with more character and uniqueness.

I'm not sure how this is something that isn't understood, have you not lived?

I really like this post and totally feel you. Restaurant are SO good now. People's tastes are getting much improved thanks to hotels (W inspiring Hilton and Marriott properties to improve their feng shui for example) and restaurants improving

Would you say that even if arenas have to be homogeneous on the inside that if they're unique on ooutside (nets pacers Lakers) that's good enough?

quote:

---

Would you say that even if arenas have to be homogeneous on the inside that if they're unique on ooutside (nets pacers Lakers) that's good enough?

---

Probably to a degree. A cool, unique outside is definitely better than something plain.

As far as the inside, I understand the need to have some type mathematical standardization, which limits what can be done in terms of physical uniqueness.

Getting back to more vertical seating and craftsmanship that's unique to that area ect can all be done to improve the inside.

But something non-physical that should be changed is the homogenous way the games are produced (music, intermission entertainment, concession offerings, shorts on the jumbo, ect).

It's the same old jock-jams and radio hits played in every arena, every night, usually for decades.

The shorts during game stoppage are all the same, used by all the teams.

It's an oppressively steralized experience, in my opinion.

My NHL team is named the 'Blues', in a town with a great blues history, you think we'd get hit with some really great blues during the game? No.