Bobby Dodd Renovation in the NE Stands

[apatriot1776]

 

[ThatGuy]

Attached is some additional information concerning the new Fanning center. This is part of the grounding announcement from GT-AT Fund. The total file is too large to attach due to photos.

This article gives some more info concerning the Construction and Design companies. It is interesting to note that Brian Oliver is the DPR Construction Project Executive. Hopefully,
GT will receive a cost efficient and a quality job with a Tech Man leading the project. There is some more info on Thomas Fanning also.

Just bringing this up to the top again, as I just rediscovered it when on the GT website looking for renderings of the Fanning Center.

1) I was interested to see the stands in front of the Fanning Center. I remembered some of the previous design renderings that seemed like it would simply be another hulking glass structure in the corner of the stadium - these renderings from earlier this year make it feel like an integral part of the stadium.

2) The lead architect is designing a building for his alma mater. As LT pointed out, the Project Executive is Brian Oliver:

”As the college athletics landscape evolves, we’re thrilled to start bringing Georgia Tech’s vision for student-athletes and its campus to life,” said Brian Oliver, DPR Construction project executive, Georgia Tech alumnus, men’s basketball letterwinner and famed member of “Lethal Weapon 3,” who along with Kenny Anderson and Dennis Scott, helped lead the Yellow Jackets to their first NCAA Final Four in 1990. “We’re also proud that this project will help support opportunities for local workers in the skilled trades, many of whom feel personal connections with the campus and its athletic program.”

This is how it should be. Tech men building a prominent Tech building. Love to see it.

(NOTE: Here are the original renderings of the Edge Center Renovation, if anyone's looking for them.)

 

[LT 1967]

Just bringing this up to the top again, as I just rediscovered it when on the GT website looking for renderings of the Fanning Center.

1) I was interested to see the stands in front of the Fanning Center. I remembered some of the previous design renderings that seemed like it would simply be another hulking glass structure in the corner of the stadium - these renderings from earlier this year make it feel like an integral part of the stadium.

2) The lead architect is designing a building for his alma mater. As LT pointed out, the Project Executive is Brian Oliver:


This is how it should be. Tech men building a prominent Tech building. Love to see it.

(NOTE: Here are the original renderings of the Edge Center Renovation, if anyone's looking for them.)

Agree. I really like the way the contour of the building follows the arc of the seats in the NE corner of the stands.

I remember the first designs presented for the Wardlaw Center were shown as a semi-circle following the pattern of the old south stands. This would have made the stadium look more like a bowl in the South. However, the final product was flat on the inside and had a contoured look on the outside near North Avenue.

I am one of those who wish the stadium could be modified to look more like a Bowl. However, space and cost will probably limit that result.

 

[roadkill]

Given the discussions in this thread about updates to BDS, reducing capacity, and related issues, I’m sharing this info about the renovations currently underway at FSU’s Doak Campbell:

FSU Stadium Updates

Bottom line – FSU acknowledges the facts of lower attendance trends and the need for more premium seating, so they are reducing stadium capacity from 80k to below 70k while improving the in-stadium experience. That a “factory” school is doing this is telling.

 

[Gold1]

Given the discussions in this thread about updates to BDS, reducing capacity, and related issues, I’m sharing this info about the renovations currently underway at FSU’s Doak Campbell:

FSU Stadium Updates

Bottom line – FSU acknowledges the facts of lower attendance trends and the need for more premium seating, so they are reducing stadium capacity from 80k to below 70k while improving the in-stadium experience. That a “factory” school is doing this is telling.

There are countless examples of programs selling more tickets than they ever have. Reducing our already small stadium is not a serious position to have

 

[stinger78]

We're already at only 50K seats, but we do appear to need more premium seating. I believe there are ways to do this w/o reducing capacity further. I suggested one such way wrt the UE stands.

Just my $.02 worth.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

Why they haven’t put seats with cup holders throughout the entire stadium baffles me.

 

[roadkill]

There are countless examples of programs selling more tickets than they ever have. Reducing our already small stadium is not a serious position to have

The simple fact is that college football is an entertainment business that desires to maximize revenue. There is a relationship between stadium capacity utilization and ticket prices (supply/demand). There is also a positive relationship between total ticket revenue and the supply of premium seating.

Last year’s published average attendance was 36,290. Bolstered by hosting the mutts and some positive momentum, this was up from 2022’s 34,408. Source: FBS attendance

An average attendance of only 66% of capacity is an indication of significant overcapacity. The “countless examples of programs selling more tickets than they ever have” is irrelevant to GT’s situation.

Also, the “just win and they will come” argument has been shown historically to be insignificant for GT. Perhaps sustained success over multiple seasons might get us a few more sellouts, but right now the AA needs to find the sweet spot for ticket revenue. Less capacity (reduced supply) and better in-stadium experience (higher value/seat) are the paths they appear to be taking. The goal is more utilization of a smaller capacity at a higher price/seat. Strictly from an average fan perspective this may seem like bad news, but it is a path to increased total revenue.

 

[Gold1]

 

[Buzztheirazz]

5 of the last 7 Heisman winners have been transfers. Let’s make that 6 of 8 HK!!!

 

[Steverc]

The UN would be better with escalators.

 

[Lil G]

Just heard they’re building a UNN. A third level north of the UN.
Batt said precisely one million tech fans is the new capacity and flicked everybody off

 

[roadkill]

As I said, growth in other program's ticket sales is irrelevant to GT.

 

[stinger78]

The simple fact is that college football is an entertainment business that desires to maximize revenue. There is a relationship between stadium capacity utilization and ticket prices (supply/demand). There is also a positive relationship between total ticket revenue and the supply of premium seating.

Last year’s published average attendance was 36,290. Bolstered by hosting the mutts and some positive momentum, this was up from 2022’s 34,408. Source: FBS attendance

An average attendance of only 66% of capacity is an indication of significant overcapacity. The “countless examples of programs selling more tickets than they ever have” is irrelevant to GT’s situation.

Also, the “just win and they will come” argument has been shown historically to be insignificant for GT. Perhaps sustained success over multiple seasons might get us a few more sellouts, but right now the AA needs to find the sweet spot for ticket revenue. Less capacity (reduced supply) and better in-stadium experience (higher value/seat) are the paths they appear to be taking. The goal is more utilization of a smaller capacity at a higher price/seat. Strictly from an average fan perspective this may seem like bad news, but it is a path to increased total revenue.

Or underperformance.

We were consistently between 45K-50K in average attendance between 2003 and 2019. For the first time since the late 1980's we averaged in the 30K's since 2021. Since 2003, when the UN opened, we averaged over 50K 6x - 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007 under CCG, and 2009 and 2015 under CPJ. Since 2003, we averaged over 45K 14x. The only years we missed that mark were 2012 and 2018 under CPJ, and 2019-2023 under TFG/CBK.

Our capacity is now about 51K. Averaging 45K, which should be easily attainable if CBK stays on track, would put us at 88% capacity. That is our recent historical average if we don't limit the time frame to TFG. Recent history also shows that we can exceed that mark in given years as well. Only in 2003 did we go over 51K, but that season we hosted Auburn, Clemson, and UGAg at BDS.

 

[roadkill]

Or underperformance.

We were consistently between 45K-50K in average attendance between 2003 and 2019. For the first time since the late 1980's we averaged in the 30K's since 2021. Since 2003, when the UN opened, we averaged over 50K 6x - 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007 under CCG, and 2009 and 2015 under CPJ. Since 2003, we averaged over 45K 14x. The only years we missed that mark were 2012 and 2018 under CPJ, and 2019-2023 under TFG/CBK.

Our capacity is now about 51K. Averaging 45K, which should be easily attainable if CBK stays on track, would put us at 88% capacity. That is our recent historical average if we don't limit the time frame to TFG. Recent history also shows that we can exceed that mark in given years as well. Only in 2003 did we go over 51K, but that season we hosted Auburn, Clemson, and UGAg at BDS.

 

[roadkill]

Or underperformance.

We were consistently between 45K-50K in average attendance between 2003 and 2019. For the first time since the late 1980's we averaged in the 30K's since 2021. Since 2003, when the UN opened, we averaged over 50K 6x - 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007 under CCG, and 2009 and 2015 under CPJ. Since 2003, we averaged over 45K 14x. The only years we missed that mark were 2012 and 2018 under CPJ, and 2019-2023 under TFG/CBK.

Our capacity is now about 51K. Averaging 45K, which should be easily attainable if CBK stays on track, would put us at 88% capacity. That is our recent historical average if we don't limit the time frame to TFG. Recent history also shows that we can exceed that mark in given years as well. Only in 2003 did we go over 51K, but that season we hosted Auburn, Clemson, and UGAg at BDS.

I'm not following your point about underperformance. Can you elaborate?

Also, can you share your data source?

I'm not an advocate of lowering our capacity below 51k, but it makes sense from a revenue standpoint to have the capacity better aligned with expected ticket sales.

 

[Gold1]

As I said, growth in other program's ticket sales is irrelevant to GT.

We already have a small stadium. No need to decrease it even further.

 

[Schlandy]

I don’t think we should reduce capacity. I see it being a positive if things get back on track. I think sustained success is for sure the key to this. Kansas is a great example of a program that had terrible attendance and just recently began to pick its fans back up. The stadium needs help though, it’s frankly and eye sore on the east side, would look a-lot better bowled out and trimmed up in the UN. A south end zone refresh wouldn’t hurt either

 

[AUFC]

We already have a small stadium. No need to decrease it even further.

We graduate 4,000 students a year though and many are OOS/international who go home after graduating. It’s nonsensical to expect us to pack 75-80k into Bobby Dodd.

 

[RonJohn]

The simple fact is that college football is an entertainment business that desires to maximize revenue. There is a relationship between stadium capacity utilization and ticket prices (supply/demand). There is also a positive relationship between total ticket revenue and the supply of premium seating.

Last year’s published average attendance was 36,290. Bolstered by hosting the mutts and some positive momentum, this was up from 2022’s 34,408. Source: FBS attendance

An average attendance of only 66% of capacity is an indication of significant overcapacity. The “countless examples of programs selling more tickets than they ever have” is irrelevant to GT’s situation.

Also, the “just win and they will come” argument has been shown historically to be insignificant for GT. Perhaps sustained success over multiple seasons might get us a few more sellouts, but right now the AA needs to find the sweet spot for ticket revenue. Less capacity (reduced supply) and better in-stadium experience (higher value/seat) are the paths they appear to be taking. The goal is more utilization of a smaller capacity at a higher price/seat. Strictly from an average fan perspective this may seem like bad news, but it is a path to increased total revenue.

I am not sure I follow your logic. I don't see how it would make financial sense to pay to reduce the capacity of the stadium. Do you think that reducing the capacity would cause the people who currently buy season tickets to willingly pay more for those same tickets? Supply/demand would indicate that if the price goes up, sales would drop. Even if there was an artificial reduction in supply. I could see an argument if it was a product that cost money to produce, but we are talking about capital costs to decrease the capacity.

If the suggestion is to add more premium seating, that could make sense if all of the premium seating is currently sold out and there is demand for more. I just don't understand the reasoning behind paying more money to simply force a reduction in capacity, nor where the return on that capital spending would come from.