OVG just could not let the AEG team have a moment in the sun, they had to jump in and deliver some renderings of their own on the KeyArena "renovation" front.
Chris Daniels, being the master that he is, got first access to the new renderings of what is being dubbed, "Seattle Arena" (shots fired!) by the OVG team.
Here are your images:
As our friend, Kevin Calabro, would say, "Flying chickens in the barnyard!"
Folks we have some action here for the first time in a long time and it’s exciting. The appropriate term would be...
We are incredibly close to getting this arena solution thing all figured out and soon will come the NBA and the NHL.
We could be in for a very busy summer.
Comments
This is really fun. Whatever works, get it approved by the end of this year.
By PyroKinesis on 04.12.17 11:38am
Hockey layout
This angle doesn’t show if it has horseshoe seating…
By Taylor Bartle on 04.12.17 11:44am
concerned about pitch in the ends
As someone who likes to sit behind the goal where the home team shoots twice and after listening to the uncut video the CD5 posted I’m not sure if I like the steep pitch. People who are not familiar with hockey arenas should know that there is a net behind the goals to prevent pucks from hitting fans and they can be somewhat obstructive. With steep seats it limits the amount of seats that avoid that net.
I understand I’m just nitpicking I mean all I want is a team here and though I have my location preference (SODO) I’ll take whatever I can get to get a team here for both leagues.
By Kodi on 04.12.17 12:51pm
I'm at 30/40 NHL games a year
I know this sounds crazy, but I don’t even notice the net anymore. If you’re low down in the corner can be much more distracted by weird glass angles.
It’s like the netting behind homeplate. When was the last time you noticed that?
By chrisblackstone on 04.12.17 10:24pm
Hype train has left AEG station, now arriving at OVG depot.
By Drunk Viking on 04.12.17 11:45am
I have a fondness for the Key, and I love how this maintains the integrity of its place at the Center.
It looks really, really good. But it still falls from SoDo.
By harkening on 04.12.17 11:51am
When your dealing with restrictions of keeping the orginal roof
your very very limited on what you can really do.
By gstommylee on 04.12.17 11:53am
Yes, I know that.
Compared to AEG’s proposal, which adds a weird sloping roofline and enlarges the footprint accordingly, this is superior. I like the roofline, and it fits in the Center; it’s a bit iconic. I know why the City and the Center so actively try to protect it; I sympathize with them.
But I’m also saying that restriction means it falls compared to SoDo.
By harkening on 04.12.17 11:58am
I'm surprised they were able to get something figured out with the orginal roof
But yea any brand new from group up arena will look better than a reno that has to keep the original roof line.
By gstommylee on 04.12.17 11:59am
Seattle center is ugly
I think if it weren’t for nostalgia, the Key is pretty stinking ugly as well. I think it would be better to just blow the whole thing up and rebuild.
By SlimSmitty on 04.12.17 5:33pm
Problem is the fact that the roof structure is basically at the point of it being declared historic landmark
Neither groups came out with a plan that involved tear down the entire building and rebuild and the historic landmark of the roof is the reason why they didn’t.
By gstommylee on 04.12.17 5:35pm
I understand that
my point is that it shouldn’t be a historic landmark. This city loves making ugly, worthless crap historic landmarks. Enough already.
By SlimSmitty on 04.12.17 8:47pm
The two plans proposed is basically trying to remove as much red tape as possible
So they are assuming it will be declared historic landmark. I rather they go under the assumption that it will be then having to end up in a lawsuit over it.
By gstommylee on 04.12.17 8:51pm
Well, think of it this way
If a completely new arena were built you would eventually grow to hate that, too. But a remodel saves you all that valuable time by you hating it already.
By Mike Baker on 04.12.17 10:49pm
Disagree
the 60’s were an objectively bad time in the history of mankind for architecture. Everything is ugly from that era. I like buildings from before and after the 60’s. Key is uglier than sin, tear it down.
By SlimSmitty on 04.12.17 10:58pm
And yet, it's still
HISTORY. That’s the point of the designation, not beauty. I personally don’t find the building ugly, I find it iconic based on 50+ years of attending events there, including in utero at the 1962 Worlds Fair.
The Space Needle is universally recognized, and copied. The Gateway Arch, Sydney Opera House (okay, constructed from 1959 to 1973), Habitat 67, the City of Brasilia. To name a few.
Maybe they are all ugly to you, but that would be subjective, not objective.
By cortone on 04.13.17 9:20am
I think...
Safeco still looks great…if you build something that looks good there is a good chance it will continue to look good.
By blykmyk44 on 04.13.17 12:19pm
I dunno, the exposed girders on both CenturyLink and Safeco look extremely dated as a design trend already.
By harkening on 04.13.17 1:35pm
Don't think so at all.
It fits with the Pioneer Square feel.
By Matt Tucker on 04.13.17 6:16pm
Of the few things in the city that truly deserve landmark status
The Coliseum/roof is one of them. You might think it’s ugly, but it’s a unique design that holds meaning and value in Seattle.
By Matt Tucker on 04.13.17 3:43am
Much of the Center is a wasteland, window-less and barren concrete quick-build forms for the Expo with an uncomfortable blend of Bauhaus and Brutalist.
Key Arena’s exterior isn’t in this category. The roof is a unique shape, not squared off, it’s metal, not concrete, it’s facade are glass, glass, and more glass.
The Armory building, PacSci, Cornish Playhouse (formerly Intiman), the Expo Hall, Ballet, and the plaza buildings around the Key (housing KEXP) are all scars on the land, but due to their grant-funded arts use, I don’t think the city or the institutions can afford hanging up those programs, tearing, and redeveloping, even if it would be prettier.
By harkening on 04.13.17 9:29am
Agree to disagree on the key, I find it hideous, crumbling, a blight etc, but I can appreciate that some may like it.
agree on the rest of the center, which to me is a further argument for SODO. Seattle center is never going to be a cool, nice entertainment hub, definitely not the "central park of the west." Half of it is crap and will remain crap. Sodo is easily redeveloped into a really cool new area of town, not only making sonics and hockey games more fun, but Hawks and Ms as well.
By SlimSmitty on 04.13.17 9:36am
It's really just the buildings, too.
The grounds are fine; the fountains through PacSci are a pretty cool common space (except they’re ticketed, not a public square), and there’s a walkable grounds with both green and paved areas.
The buildings are just hideous and cold and uninviting, and redeveloping the area could introduce some cool flexibility with the landscaping. But anyway, yeah, not happening.
By harkening on 04.13.17 9:39am
Someone should interview an architecture professor for their take on the roof's historical/landmark status
Someone who has no skin in this game, and may not even care about sports, but who can offer a scholarly analysis on just how aesthetic the roof is, and how valuable it is to the city’s views. I don’t know much about architecture except for the glaringly obvious (Safeco and the CLink are far more attractive than the Kingdome was, e.g.), so I’d like to hear from someone who makes their living in this field.
By Kirkland (Not Costco) on 04.13.17 12:15pm
I've got the impression that historical landmark designations are handed out somewhat freely once the age limit is reached
Since that became a factor in getting the Sonics back, I’ve become more aware that there’s a lot of nondescript buildings all over where I walk downtown that have a little plaque noting their historical landmark designation.
By Mr. Shea on 04.13.17 12:23pm