Crisler Renovations (expected) to be Approved Jan 21
I just saw this pop up on TheWolverine and thought it might be a good topic of discussion this afternoon. Some good news for our basketball program:
The U-M Board of Regents is expected to approve the first phase of renovations for Crisler at their Jan. 21 meeting, the same day they should give the green light to David Brandon's hiring as athletic director.More details on the renovations themselves can be found in an AnnArbor.com from yesterday:
If approved, the project will begin in 2011, cost almost $20 million and the first portion of the renovation would deal with plumbing, heating, the Crisler roof, the replacement of lower bowl seats and aisle realignment, according to the Free Press.I attended my first basketball game since 2005 Sunday and the recent improvements as well as the deficiencies were both apparent. I'm certainly confident and hopeful that these renovations will be approved.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
$20M still won't bring any character to a sterile arena
January 5th, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^
That's what John Beilein is for.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
It sounds like they're starting with the necessities, which is the right way to do it. My guess is they'll try to improve the atmosphere after getting the basics fixed.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
Architecturally, it has no uniqueness.
Compare it to my favorite college basketball arena, Minnesota's Barn (http://image.cdnl3.xosnetwork.com/pics21/640/CD/CDRIKHDKFLCWLCV.20090116211118.jpg) and attending a game at Crisler, at least right now, isn't great (Maize Rage excepted).
January 5th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^
Hinkle Fieldhouse, Butler. Very Yost-esque arena.
... gets me thinking. I know the cost to the AD would be massive, but for a special occasion or game I wonder if the AD would consider converting Yost to a basketball arena for a throwback game?
... gets me thinking. I know the cost to the AD would be massive, but for a special occasion or game I wonder if the AD would consider converting Yost to a basketball arena for a throwback game?January 5th, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^
Fieldhouses have a nice feel, I agree. I never made it to Jenison (MSU) or Cole (Maryland) before they were replaced, but I suspect they (among others) had more character than Crisler ever had.
But Yost would be too small. As you note, the cost to convert would be significant to prohibitive, and the drop in capacity from 13,751 to under 7,000 (depending on floor seating) would make it even less viable.
I wish they'd just replace Crisler with a more modern, spacious facility. But I guess decisions like this are why the AD and Regents get paid the big bucks. And God forbid we should end up with a sterile behemoth like Value City Arena.
January 5th, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^
I'm not saying they're going to make it the most memorable arena in college sports. There's a limitation to what they can do to an existing building. But there's plenty they can do to make it a better experience for players and fans.
Besides, the one thing that will improve Crisler the most is winning. Unique arenas are cool, but once you've been a couple times, there's no reason to go back unless you're watching a good team. Crisler doesn't need to be the Barn or Hinkle or Cameron or whatever; it just needs some solid upgrades (which it's getting) and a winning team (which is in progress).
January 5th, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^
I've been going to Crisler since it opened. I was at games in the final four season of 1976, in 1977 when we beat Al McGuire and Marquette (they ended up wining the National title) and 1989 and Fab 5 games.
I've been to a Final Four as well as several pro arenas and aesthetics don't matter much to me. Crisler was rocking when the games were great. The life got sucked out of that arena in the Amaker era, watching his teams caused me to cancel my season tickets.
I think it does need upgrades, but the basic shell is fine, as long as the team wins and plays great games. That game vs Marquette was the wildest I've seen any sporting event - including the 1971 and 1973 M/OSU Football games. I think a $20M renovation would be great.
January 5th, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
Most arenas have no uniqueness. Pretty much every one built in the last 20 years follows the same basic blueprint. It's the fans that create atmosphere, not the building.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:53 PM ^
And I admired the simplicity of its design. Anything called, "The House that Cazzie Built" was good by me.
I even used to like the fact that it was in direct proximity to the football stadium; in keeping with the old architectural tradtion seen in countless major college facilities built in the 1920's -- a large, open-ended football field with with a fieldhouse at one end. (The fieldhouse would serve as a workout facility for football, provide an indoor track and house a moveable basketball court, etc. See, Madison, Evanston, etc.) Modern stadiums had to divide everything up, of course.
I always thought the coolest idea would be to build a new Palace-like facility on North Campus (Pfizer area), with a state of the art varsity basketball building, additional athletic facilities and housing, etc.
There would be downsides (cost, division of the "athletic campus," transportation, remoteness from other student centers) but also benefits (demolish Crisler for more football parking, chiefly).
January 5th, 2010 at 1:18 PM ^
A shiny new basketball campus would be amazing (though probably not realistic), but I'd shy away from putting any major athletic facilities on north campus just because it's so far away from everything. The athletic campus isn't exactly on-campus, but it's still in the middle of the city. Football parking definitely isn't worth sacrificing that.
January 5th, 2010 at 1:45 PM ^
Fantastic news.
January 5th, 2010 at 4:29 PM ^
how they plan to "renovate" Crisler?
New seats in the lower bowl, I get. And reconfigured aisleways, I get.
And, they obviously need to do something with the horrible-looking and inconvenient jam-up behind the main televison camera position. They need better press facilities.
"The roof" just sounds like ordinary maintenance and upkeep. "Plumbing"? "Bathrooms"? How can they build more beyond what is there? "Concessions and merchandise"? Okay -- this all just sounds like re-decorating.
Not that I am complaining. For my tastes, Crisler functions entirley adequately, and I agree that the place needs a vast amount of modern redecorating. And for $20m, I think that all that you really get is maintenance and redecorating.