Georgia State is in Atlanta not in a relatively rural NWI.
True, hence why I believe downsizing this venue would be needed to make this a viable fit, but this is just one of the newest arenas to open with multipurpose events being the focus. Atlanta also has a lot of venues that are used as concert spaces and for multiple events. This was one I saw as something "smaller scale" that could translate over to rural NWI with some modifications. IE converting the upper deck into a mezzanine and reducing the size to a slight wraparound. Leaving one side open as a media center aligned with what the plan was and adds for minimal seating needing to be retractable for a stage. Although Valpo itself is rural, the greater NWI area (Lake County) is relatively metropolitan thanks to Chicago. We don't have a convention center anymore as Gary's is still condemned as of last I heard. . I feel like accommodating a convention center would prove to be a decent venture for passive income.
In an attempt to lighten the mood, I thought I'd share something that is probably the "Most Likely" event to occur in the search for a new ARC. I came across Air Force's Cadet Field House and by proxy, Clune Arena. Clune has a single bowl style and seats just north of 5 thousand. I was shocked to see that it seats that little considering the photos of the arena make the arena out to be about as large as Hulman, but I digress. The x factor of this complex that makes it a likely candidate is the fact that cadet field house is 3 arenas in one. Hockey, indoor track, and basketball all share the building with Hockey and Basketball even sharing concourse space. This is where I think a design like Cadet is desirable to the institution. The plan so far is to have a building that would act as a shared space between football and basketball. Clune Arena and Cadet Hockey rink are a prime example of this model working on a small scale. In VU's case, both the football stands, and basketball arena share a concourse, with doors being employed too keep spectators from wandering too far from the action. This model also allows for shared media space to be employed as also was shared in the plans. I also think this footprint would fit the "Rural NWI footprint and allow for enough seating for concerts and other events to be hosted comfortably on site. All in all, I would not be surprised if a model such as cadet is revealed come the spring. The only thing I dont see, is who to sell the naming rights too for a hefty donation for the building's construction. I know Family Express Forum has a nice ring to it, but realistically, I am not sure what business would be on board.
I like that stadium design for a university like Valpo...others like Gonzaga's or Loyola's designs are good too.
I am very dubious on Valpo getting a naming rights deal for a new stadium. If we assume a new stadium/fieldhouse would cost $60M, the cost for naming rights will certainly be greater than $10M. What companies can justify that level of spending for naming rights? How would they justify the ROI?
Murray State just announced a renovation of their 25+ year old venue. Looking at the renderings, it seems like a really good move for an older venue like murray. For the renovation, the price tag is "expected to be in the 8 figure range". Looking at the renderings, it got me thinking. How likely is it that VU just renovates the ARC rather than build an entirely new complex? There is enough floor space for a sizable bowl and the building's original design was to accommodate for future expansion. The ARC already went through some minor renovations and with the real estate world being how it is, it could be more economical to completely overhaul the ARC and sell the naming rights to the building.
Recently William and Mary did something quite similar and simply built a lobby/improved sport performance center while completely redesigning their seating bowl. It might just be more beneficial for the school to do a complete overhaul of the ARC.
Is it cheaper to build a new Student Rec center and renovate the ARC, or is it cheaper to leave the ARC behind for a new building with new toys.
@rezynezy That is great upgrade that MSU is doing. Good luck to them on that. It’ll be a showcase.
[Full disclosure] For years I have supported an ARC upgrade to create a bowl atmosphere with retractable chair backs throughout the lower “bowl” and expansion of the ARC to add a second level behind and above the current chairbacks as well as additional support facilities below.
But to imply Valpo can do anything even close to what MSU is doing or to imply it would allow us to be comparable to current MVC venues just doesn’t compute anymore. First of all, the footprint is different - the MSU venue has a much larger footprint to do that sort of thing. Second, that arena is just that - an arena. They have other athletic facilities that support their other sports. Valpo’s ARC is all Valpo has, period. If creating a MVC-level BB arena out of the present ARC would be the goal, then what do you have for other sports, student intramurals and just general recreation? So, it means still having to build another separate facility anyway.
So IMO, bottom line is that the only alternative for Valpo staying competitive (facility-wise) in the MVC is to build a separate arena. The land is there. But right now the money just isn’t - certainly not for a Taj Mahal but even just for a no frills, basic 5,000 seat facility.
@vulb62 I don't think VU is on the same level as MSU. If I gave that impression I apologize. I was thinking something more along the lines of Kaplan Arena's renovation for W and M. They basically gutted the entire facility and added improved player development and NIL facilities, built a new lobby on the side of the building, and overhauled the entire arena design. However, I wonder how much of a cost difference there is between building a new building entirely vs giving the ARC some TLC. A new arena would likely mean new D1 training facilities, new practice facilities, new offices, and the list goes on and on. It is worth considering that it might be more cost effective to build a new Rec Center and turn the ARC into a full time arena. Granted there are some hiccups. Predominantly the support columns that hold the roof up near the southwest and southeast entrances.
Ultimately these conversations are just food for thought until there is more released on the project. It is the offseason for basketball still so talks like these are still in full swing Hopefully the CONHP project gets sorted out sometime this fall as per the master plan. All the Victory Village project is waiting on is the CONHP. Until renderings of the project are released for donors to buy in on, there is only speculation.
As has been discussed many times throughout the various iterations of this forum, the original ARC construction did allow for eventual expansion and/or renovation potential, in which the chairback side could also have a mezz-like look. A major renovation into a bowl feel would probably be tough with the current exterior construction.
As has been discussed many times throughout the various iterations of this forum, the original ARC construction did allow for eventual expansion and/or renovation potential, in which the chairback side could also have a mezz-like look. A major renovation into a bowl feel would probably be tough with the current exterior construction.
I once was a ardent supporter of that renovation, however, I’ve had a change of heart. Such an expansion would have been super 12+ years ago, but when we joined the MVC (along with the passing of time and changing values), it upped everything. That type of upgrade would have been viewed, unfortunately, as lipstick on a pig through today’s lens - just a better version of the VU “HS gym” aka the ARC.
IMHO, IF Valpo wants to continue in the MVC long-term, it has no choice but to go with a new events facility/arena.
https://twitter.com/TVBOren/status/1851629027858997627/photo/1
Paul posted a beautiful pic on X of an empty ARC today shot from opposite the scorer’s table. My first reaction (besides how nice it looked) was: Why in heavens name haven’t the wood retractable bleachers behind the table and team benches been replaced with retractable chairbacks like the opposite side? If anything that could offset a little bit the reputation of the arena being “high schoolish,” it would be that simple renovation.
Chairback seats heavily reduce capacity. Also if there are still aspirations for a new facility. It makes no sense to put any more work into what will likely be a VB only facility.
As for why it hasn't been done in the last 20 years. I would probably have to point to the diminishment of capacity. Back when VU could pack the house. It made no sense to lower the capacity. And with the school being reluctant to use the original expansive design of the building. Just keeping the stands stock was probably all that was viable, Unfortunately my source from that time who could give me a better answer left this world a few months ago.
@rezynezy I disagree on two levels.
1) Two things on capacity loss: First, the ARC’s is listed as 5,000. In the last 7 years, if we hit 3k in more than 10 games, I’ll eat my hat. Second, we are not talking full chairback replacements, rather retractable seats with backrests (essentially installed on a bleacher infrastructure). If you count the backrest seats in any section and compare that to the assigned bleacher seats across the way in a corresponding section, you will find that the number of assigned seat numbers are the same. So on two levels, the need to have 5,000 seats rather than, say, 4,500 and the fact that there wouldn’t even be a meaningful difference, the capacity loss argument is moot.
2). Any new arena is maybe 5 years away if even that. During that period, why not improve the fan experience to attract higher attendance numbers. I just don’t buy the waste of money rationale.
Well they at least attempting to do exactly what you describe with lighting changes, adding AC(big whoop I know), and sound system improvements. The center hung video board was also overhauled as well as the scoring and buzzer systems. With the design of the building being, for a lack of a better term, "unfinished" there is only so much that can be improved upon for a building as old as the ARC. Just look at Cameron Indoor, a much older venue, with another distinct lack of amenities. The fan experience of Cameron indoor comes from the "Cameron Crazies". I wholeheartedly agree that the fan experience is quite underwhelming and such can be seen in the lack of attendance, but the building doesnt lend itself to much fan experience upgrades for the above and the fact that it must maintain its identity as a student REC center. TO my knowledge, rec sports still uses the portable scoreboards that are wedged into the top row of the chairback section for most of their leagues. We used them for PCSO Area 1 Basketball tournaments as well back when Special Olympics used the ARC.
Looking at the seating chart. The chairback section actually does have less seats than the bleacher section on the other side. There are as many a 2 seats missing per row from the chairback side compared to the bleacher side. Sure today that wouldn't matter, but thinking back to when the facility was regularly selling large quantities of tickets, it wouldn't be feasible to diminish to 4500. Now, its a money problem, and aspirations of a new structure problem. I dont have any similar projects to compare to as the usage of retractable chairbacks isnt too highly reported, but I would have to guess probably around 1m for a full replacement. Money is tight in a lot of areas and with NIL the situation is made worse.
I wont quibble about the one or two less seats (for example row A section C has 19 and the same row section H has 18). Overall, that’s negligible and still maintains a capacity of over 4500.
But I was concerned about eating my hat, so I did a rundown of home attendance since we joined the MVC to see exactly how many games surpassed the 3k mark. Here are the high water marks (over 2k) for the past 7 seasons.
2017-18 (Season one in the MVC) 2682, 2545, 2651, 2949, 2440, 2966, 2710, 4040, 2219, 2228, 3330, 3021, 2071 (3)
2018-19 2098, 2479, 3636, 3818, 2535, 3160, 4160, 5148, 3014 (6)
2019-20 2412, 2504, 3190, 2412, 2504, 2880, 4364, 2805, 3190, 3270, 3044, (5)
2020-21 (Covid season)
2021-22 2824, 2622, 2530
2022-23 3137, 2102 (1)
2023-24 2428
I stand corrected. 😔 There were 15 home games where there were >3k in attendance. And of those 15, we had 4 games over 4k with one of them that exceeded published capacity (Loyola). However, with the one game exception in 7 seasons, no attendance surpassed 4500. So while I am digesting my hat, I will still say that the addition of retractable chairbacks for sections A-E is still a good move both in the short-term as well as the long run. The permanent capital investment will be spread out over many, many years. That, of course, assumes Valpo will still be a DI program then.
FUN FACT: three of the four top home attendance marks over 4,000 while in the MVC were against Loyola (4040, 4364 and 5148). No doubt they were our rival (while it lasted). The same can be said for the school down south. While they were in the Horizon they attracted the biggest crowds. Our rivals keep running away from us is the only conclusion.
This is what I believe should happen to the ARC. I still think it just needs renovations and investment without building a separate building.
https://www.midmajormadness.com/2024/11/12/24292929/a-trip-through-la-salles-new-john-glaser-arena
There’s no cash. And there’s no capital fundraising going on for a new facility. You can do nothing without those two.
It’s a dream at this point.
