(04-18-2018 10:52 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 09:11 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  It's not about averging 32k, it's about making sure you have more than enough seats for the biggest games. Even 37k seems significantly bigger than 32k.

If you can charge more per-ticket for 32,000 seats because of higher demand, then you might make more money than you would with 37,000 seats.

Because the in-home experience is so good now, it's nuts for anyone to build a new stadium, ballpark, or arena with 1970s or 1980s capacity. Better to have fewer seats and create demand or envy among people who couldn't get in and might pay more next time to get in.

IMO, they are building too many seats into the new LA football stadium because they are stuck in old-stadium thinking. 60,000 would be better than 70,000.

They just approved funding for a new stadium in downtown Birmingham a few weeks ago.

The original plan for a dome many years ago would have been a standard sized stadium, however, the most recent plan was an open air design that only has about 50K seats I believe. Thankfully, the leaders have given up on their NFL pipe dream.

It will also be configured for soccer which is probably the wave of the future. That and Birmingham is getting a USL team so it's good timing.