Goodbye Aluminum seats | Page 10 | Syracusefan.com

Goodbye Aluminum seats

Just so y'all know...that nonsense about baseball season not happening was a false alarm. There's probably a game on right now while you read this. 9 pages about seats?

See article in Syr.com about bleachers going away...
Me: Oh that's cool, wonder if they'll be like Chiefs seats(Mets/Chefs they will be chiefs to me for at least a couple more years until I adjust, Took about a decade to lose the men from orange but I digress).

Rest of sfan.com:
nn143sqirr871 (1).jpg
 
The original balcony seats, which survived until last year, were 17 inches wide. An inch less than we have in the dome now.

Yes, things were a lot different in 1928. It is good we aren’t going to have to wait 93 years for bigger seats in the dome.

I am not that patient.

The width wasn't the problem it was the length.

thats-what-she-said.gif
 
We know this was an early drawing and the roof changed in a major way, and the vision for windows for the eastern and presumably western walls has not been realized. This was probably a best case (most expensive solution) type approach.

That said, hopefully they are going to do something along these lines, where the new building is close to the same height as Barnes/Archbold. There is a big need for additional space and this is the first real opportunity to address it.
More space is vital for Syracuse to host more NCAA events in the future. The Dome is starting to get competitive with a whole bunch of cities again.
 
The width wasn't the problem it was the length.

thats-what-she-said.gif
They were both terrible. The articles on the theatre renovation say the new seats are bigger but I don't think they gave measurements. If the rows are just too close together, it almost doesn't matter what dimension the seats are, you are going to have issues with leg room.

I think that was the problem with the Landmark. Guessing the seats are wider and leg room is still a huge problem.

Has anyone been there recently? Especially in the balcony. How was the leg room? People less than 5'8 need not answer. You are wonderful and we love you but you are not relevant for this post. We still care about you and if syracusefan.com ever gets a shell, you will be first choice for coxswain.
 
The seats at the dome are narrower and the leg room more constrained than almost every venue I have been to.

The Landmark was similar until the original seats from 1928 were placed last year.

The Fleet Center in Boston was similar circa 2003. Might have been worse.

Kenan might even be worse.

The War Memorial, NBT Bank, MetLife, CitiField, Yankee Stadium. Rich Stadium/Ralph Wilson/whatever they are calling it now all have more leg room. And seats that are significantly wider.

No one is saying the dome should have an extra 12 inches of leg room, or whatever the distance is you think people are requesting. Speaking only for myself, I do not want to lose a couple inches of legroom to get a slightly wider seat.

If the rentals provide more comfort with a minimal impact on leg room (thry do), it should be possible to solve the comfort issue without giving up significant legroom. I like to see rental type seats installed throughout the dome that are 2 inches wider than the current ones. Everything else the same.

To me, that is the perfect solution.

This is a huge issue in the 300s. We have the worst legroom up there.
 
They were both terrible. The articles on the theatre renovation say the new seats are bigger but I don't think they gave measurements. If the rows are just too close together, it almost doesn't matter what dimension the seats are, you are going to have issues with leg room.

I think that was the problem with the Landmark. Guessing the seats are wider and leg room is still a huge problem.

Has anyone been there recently? Especially in the balcony. How was the leg room? People less than 5'8 need not answer. You are wonderful and we love you but you are not relevant for this post. We still care about you and if syracusefan.com ever gets a shell, you will be first choice for coxswain.

Leg room is still crappy in the orchestra. Upstairs, I don't know.
 
When Landmark was built, the assumption was that no one in Syracuse would be over 5 foot 8.

In all the venues I've ever been to, it was far and way that least amount of legroom I've ever seen.
I was in the balcony for the world premiere of "The Express"...pure torture
 
I was in the balcony for the world premiere of "The Express"...pure torture

I went in the early 90s to a comedy show, we sat down low, but it was terrible. Felt so bad for the people behind me. As if my head isn't bad enough, I usually at least try to slouch or lay down.

I vowed never to go back unless it was a concert where I could stand.
 
I've watched a few soccer games in Europe at old stadiums and the seats are brutally small.

I assume they are in the FRP process for the seat manufacturers?
 
Leg room is still crappy in the orchestra. Upstairs, I don't know.
I was afraid of that.

When the rows are too close, I think the options are 1) to leave the row spacing the way it has been and provide seats that are not very deep, or 2) spend a ton of money and change the spacing of the rows.

For the dome, that would have to be incredibly costly.

From what I have observed, the spacing of the rows on the lower level of the dome is a lot more generous than in the upper level. Extra space was needed to accommodate the seat backs all the seats have on that level.

Putting individual seats in on the lower level should not be a problem. The spacing of the rows was engineered with seatbacks in mind.

The rows on the upper level were designed to hold benches with no seat backs. They are a lot closer together. I am sure there was pressure to get the capacity of the facility as high as possible and to keep the costs down so they designed simple bench rows placed relatively close to each other.

That decision is a real problem now. You either skimp on the depth of the new seats and preserve the leg room we have now or install full depth seats and destroy leg room.

If the new seats are the same depth as the existing benches, and have limited low profile seatbacks, things shouldn't be too bad.

If you try and fit full size seats with full size seat backs in those cramped rows of the upper level and you are creating a leg room nightmare. I am sure the powers that be are aware of the situation. People are going to be mad no matter what decision is made.

If they go with seats without much depth (like the rental seats) and a low seatback (again like the rentals), some are going to complain the seats are too short, don't provide enough support, aren't comfortable, etc.

If they go with full sized seats comfy, people (at least the relatively tall ones) are going to be furious at the lack of leg room with the new setup.

I think a compromise is our best hope. Maybe no one will be really happy but hopefully a seat can be found that is comfortable, provides good support and does not intrude on leg room too much. Guessing this is a common problem for older sports facilities. There have to be standard solutions out there we can choose from.
 
I was afraid of that.

When the rows are too close, I think the options are 1) to leave the row spacing the way it has been and provide seats that are not very deep, or 2) spend a ton of money and change the spacing of the rows.

For the dome, that would have to be incredibly costly.

From what I have observed, the spacing of the rows on the lower level of the dome is a lot more generous than in the upper level. Extra space was needed to accommodate the seat backs all the seats have on that level.

Putting individual seats in on the lower level should not be a problem. The spacing of the rows was engineered with seatbacks in mind.

The rows on the upper level were designed to hold benches with no seat backs. They are a lot closer together. I am sure there was pressure to get the capacity of the facility as high as possible and to keep the costs down so they designed simple bench rows placed relatively close to each other.

That decision is a real problem now. You either skimp on the depth of the new seats and preserve the leg room we have now or install full depth seats and destroy leg room.

If the new seats are the same depth as the existing benches, and have limited low profile seatbacks, things shouldn't be too bad.

If you try and fit full size seats with full size seat backs in those cramped rows of the upper level and you are creating a leg room nightmare. I am sure the powers that be are aware of the situation. People are going to be mad no matter what decision is made.

If they go with seats without much depth (like the rental seats) and a low seatback (again like the rentals), some are going to complain the seats are too short, don't provide enough support, aren't comfortable, etc.

If they go with full sized seats comfy, people (at least the relatively tall ones) are going to be furious at the lack of leg room with the new setup.

I think a compromise is our best hope. Maybe no one will be really happy but hopefully a seat can be found that is comfortable, provides good support and does not intrude on leg room too much. Guessing this is a common problem for older sports facilities. There have to be standard solutions out there we can choose from.
I was chosen by the USAF one time to sit in a new aircraft in competition for purchase. I was very close to limits for height so I was a good test dummy.

I had to give my comments. I told them the cockpit was too tight for two larger guys sitting side by side. The project manager said thanks but my input was only to meet a requirement, the plane was going to be selected anyways.

BL: the plane was short-lived in the AF and scuttled. A tight cockpit was one of the reasons.
 
Last edited:
I’ve heard the seats will be European style and we won’t lose any capacity. This was done to encourage dieting and discourage beer consumption
You picked the wrong fanbase, bucko!
 
I was afraid of that.

When the rows are too close, I think the options are 1) to leave the row spacing the way it has been and provide seats that are not very deep, or 2) spend a ton of money and change the spacing of the rows.

For the dome, that would have to be incredibly costly.

From what I have observed, the spacing of the rows on the lower level of the dome is a lot more generous than in the upper level. Extra space was needed to accommodate the seat backs all the seats have on that level.

Putting individual seats in on the lower level should not be a problem. The spacing of the rows was engineered with seatbacks in mind.

The rows on the upper level were designed to hold benches with no seat backs. They are a lot closer together. I am sure there was pressure to get the capacity of the facility as high as possible and to keep the costs down so they designed simple bench rows placed relatively close to each other.

That decision is a real problem now. You either skimp on the depth of the new seats and preserve the leg room we have now or install full depth seats and destroy leg room.

If the new seats are the same depth as the existing benches, and have limited low profile seatbacks, things shouldn't be too bad.

If you try and fit full size seats with full size seat backs in those cramped rows of the upper level and you are creating a leg room nightmare. I am sure the powers that be are aware of the situation. People are going to be mad no matter what decision is made.

If they go with seats without much depth (like the rental seats) and a low seatback (again like the rentals), some are going to complain the seats are too short, don't provide enough support, aren't comfortable, etc.

If they go with full sized seats comfy, people (at least the relatively tall ones) are going to be furious at the lack of leg room with the new setup.

I think a compromise is our best hope. Maybe no one will be really happy but hopefully a seat can be found that is comfortable, provides good support and does not intrude on leg room too much. Guessing this is a common problem for older sports facilities. There have to be standard solutions out there we can choose from.

Division 1AA was created in 1978 for the mid-majors but schools were refusing to move down into it. One proposed solution was to have a rule that to be in IA you had to have a 50,000 seat stadium. Thus the Carrier Dome was designed to seat 50,000 people. That didn't discourage the mid-majors who said they would build 50,000 seat stadiums if that's what it took to remain in D1A so the rule never was passed.
 
The dome upper level has the second worst legroom surpassed only by Fenway Park of any Stadium I’ve been in. Putting in seats will make it worse. The row widths aren’t meant for regular seats. I fear we’re are getting some subway car plastic molded seat.

Be careful what you wish for. I’d worry less about having actual seats and would remove 4 seats from each row giving everyone more room.
 
What about expanded concourses all around the Dome? I don’t see any mention of that. I thought that was originally supposed to be part of Phase 3?

And whatever happened to building a hotel and new main entrance and lobby attached to the Dome on the South side? I know that wasn’t part of the campus framework announced a few years ago but I always thought that was a good idea.
 
So for something like this seat change, would they do a POC and see how the seats would actually work “fit wise”? Sample in the lower bowl and upper? Could they conveivabl go with two seat styles accommodating the better spacing in the lower verse upper bowl?
 
So for something like this seat change, would they do a POC and see how the seats would actually work “fit wise”? Sample in the lower bowl and upper? Could they conveivabl go with two seat styles accommodating the better spacing in the lower verse upper bowl?

I would think a couple different seat choices would be installed in the upper deck to be analyzed. I'd install two rows of a couple seat choices to get a feel. Have some SU employees or volunteers be test subjects for butt and leg room trials.

Pretty sure whatever would work in 300 would work in 100. I'd understand if SU said no seat backs in 300...we'll see what they come up with. The seat back will have to be thin but still strong to have a chance in the 300.

Like airplanes: arm rests make good neighbors...but they should be able to raise in certain sections for comfortable hoops viewing.
 
Last edited:
What about expanded concourses all around the Dome? I don’t see any mention of that. I thought that was originally supposed to be part of Phase 3?

And whatever happened to building a hotel and new main entrance and lobby attached to the Dome on the South side? I know that wasn’t part of the campus framework announced a few years ago but I always thought that was a good idea.

That would surprise me, it's just not a desirable location to stay. The Dome is the only attraction within blocks over there. Even to the extent that maybe 10 or 15 annual Dome events do drive hotel traffic, I'd imagine that most of those people would be picking a hotel for proximity to bars and restaurants as much or more than being adjacent to the Dome.
 
So for something like this seat change, would they do a POC and see how the seats would actually work “fit wise”? Sample in the lower bowl and upper? Could they conveivabl go with two seat styles accommodating the better spacing in the lower verse upper bowl?
UNC did this. They just did one section, maybe even part of one section with the new seats.

I am not sure what our plans are.
 
I've thought about that too...a hotel attached on the western side (I-81). Would it work aesthetically? Enough space? They drove a bunch of pilings in the area to support the roof project would it even be feasible?

It have to have parking and a restaurant. Maybe a hybrid with some hotel rooms but also condo units?

With the hospitals down the street I think it would be feasible for a high enough occupancy. But lots of questions unanswered.
 
I've thought about that too...a hotel attached on the western side (I-81). Would it work aesthetically? Enough space? They drove a bunch of pilings in the area to support the roof project would it even be feasible?

It have to have parking and a restaurant. Maybe a hybrid with some hotel rooms but also condo units?

With the hospitals down the street I think it would be feasible for a high enough occupancy. But lots of questions unanswered.
Personally, I would rather see that key area of real estate used to improve the fan experience, and make the sports venue better. Use it to address weaknesses and bring the facility to the latest level of comfort and technology.

We know more locker rooms are needed. We do a lot of men and women doubleheaders where this is a big deal. We host a lot of tournaments/playoffs where this is a constraint. How many football games are played in the dome late in the year? There is no room to do proper press conferences for both coaches. Opposing coaches appear to be using a hallway right now. I think JB uses a locker room for his.

At least at one point, the media needed a room (to develop pictures maybe?). That might not be needed but they probably need more space. This was one of the issues preventing us from bidding to host the Final Four.

But more than any of that, there is a urgent need for more space on the western side of the facility for fans. There are no bathrooms on the western end of the facility. Not a single one. And yet we have 20K concentrated on that end for men's hoops games every year (and a lesser amount for close to 20 women's hoops games) and anytime anyone has to go to the bathroom, they have really long walks to do their business. So you need to add bathrooms on the western end (like done on the eastern end). Except on the lower and upper levels.

There are very limited options for concessions on the western end of the dome. You have to walk a long way if you want anything except for a handful of things (candy, water, soda maybe beer). Like everything, it is worse on the upper concourse.

And there is an acute need for more space on the western concourses. That small room built in the middle of the lower concourse on the eastern side that has the high tables for people to put their food and drinks so they can eat like civilized people needs to be recreated on the western side. It is needed more urgently on that side because that is the end where basketball is played.

Imagine if there was a restaurant in the dome near your seats on the western end of the venue where you could order a decent meal an hour before the game, sit down and eat it from a comfortable chair on a comfortable table, and maybe watch the pregame show and hear a breakdown of the game. I still work. It is hard to find time to eat dinner at home and stay get to the dome in time for a 7 pm weekday tipoff. Even if the restaurant was a fast food place, it would be a huge improvement to me. If there were a couple of choices...wow, how awesome.

Given there is no building close by on the other side of the western wall, I would think it would be easier to build out to the west and really open up the western concourses. Imagine a wall of glass looking over Onondaga Valley (okay, you would mostly see the new law school and a parking garage). But still, it would be nice to be able to see outside, have some room to walk around and a place to eat and drink.

If you doubt this is needed, all you need to do is look at the western concourses just before a hoops game or at halftime of a big game. They are a sea of humanity. It is a real mess and more space is urgently needed.

The hell with a hotel. Give me some space. Make it easier for me to go to the bathroom and eat and drink. That would be awesome and I think it would be really well received by the fanbase. Might even help to make up for the anger people are going to feel when their basketball seasons get reassigned to significantly worse locations.
 
What about expanded concourses all around the Dome? I don’t see any mention of that. I thought that was originally supposed to be part of Phase 3?

And whatever happened to building a hotel and new main entrance and lobby attached to the Dome on the South side? I know that wasn’t part of the campus framework announced a few years ago but I always thought that was a good idea.
The clogged concourse needs to be fixed. NCAA not a fan of that either.
 
That would surprise me, it's just not a desirable location to stay. The Dome is the only attraction within blocks over there. Even to the extent that maybe 10 or 15 annual Dome events do drive hotel traffic, I'd imagine that most of those people would be picking a hotel for proximity to bars and restaurants as much or more than being adjacent to the Dome.
I'm not sure SU still wants the hotel they have on the hill. Agree that we do not need a second one at that location. We need a wider concourse.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,665
Messages
4,904,487
Members
6,005
Latest member
bajinga24

Online statistics

Members online
32
Guests online
1,092
Total visitors
1,124


...
Top Bottom