[pongeystrhjst]

The U.S. Open opened Arthur Ashe Stadium to great fanfare in 1997, a state-of-the-art facility that seemed to represent everything great about big-time tennis in New York.
In truth, it was never that great. It was too big, almost comically so, giving upper-level fans the idea they were watching a pair of ants. It didn't carry the hint of intimacy, the hallmark of any great arena. And right now, it's little more than an embarrassment.
If you don't agree, you haven't been paying attention to developments around the world. The Australian Open has had a roof over Rod Laver Arena for more than 20 years, plus an additional show-court ceiling. Wimbledon's Centre Court enjoyed the blessing of its retractable roof (now three years old) throughout the first week of this year's tournament and has discussed plans to cover Court One. The French Open is planning a roof at Roland Garros in time for the 2014 event.
The U.S. Open? On a losing streak, stuck without the new technology, and seeing no way out.
In a bitter blow to last year's event, the men's final was postponed until Monday for the third straight year, compounded by a preposterous television setup that saw CBS rudely sign off the air (at the onset of a rain delay) and turn things over to ESPN2. The whole operation was strictly minor league, leaving one to think, this is the U.S. Open? That's the best we can do?
Several years ago, then-USTA president Arlen Kantarian would call the occasional press conference to reveal behind-the-scenes discussion of progress. It sounded reassuring, but there seems to be no feasible way to cover Ashe Stadium. It would be like trying to cover Nebraska.
There has been talk of putting a roof over Louis Armstrong Stadium, which once served as the tournament's centerpiece, but there are two problems: (a) It wouldn't be appropriate to shift final-weekend action away from the main stadium, to say nothing of potential ticket hassles, and (2) Armstrong was built on marshland and is due to be condemned, in essence, within the next six to eight years.
"I have to think there have been quiet talks about this," said a source close to the USTA. "There have to be. Because they have to do something."
Right now, the most powerful people in American tennis can do little more than pray for sunshine. Sensible answers are not forthcoming.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1RFmUDgl1

[Intockatt]

While this is a little harsh, and the journalism is pretty yellow, there is a kernel of truth in this. Unless you're down in front, it is impossible to see the tennis in Ashe.

[bWn4h8QD]

I've been bitching about Ashe for years. It's the absolute worst for tennis fans and as the article says it's an embarrassment for the US.

Armstrong is much more fan friendly but if it's due to be condemned then there is nothing else to do but build a new, more fan friendly stadium for tennis fans. I mean all fans not just the suits that show up for the US Open and have no clue about what they're watching or what it means.

If Armstrong goes what happens to the Grandstand Court, every tennis fans favorite?

[eocavrWM]

No, no, no. Don't waste another penny on Ashe. If they want a roof, build one on Armstrong--or better yet on both Armstrong and Grandstand.

[Relsenlilky]

I remain unclear on why they couldn't use some sort of tarp contraption on the roof of Ashe (kinda like what's over the main court at Hamburg). Why does it have to be concrete/glass/whatever?

Sell the naming rights to Nike or such (hmm, did I just hear the USTA's ears prick up?), and I bet they'll come up with some contraption of flywire (that lightweight, rigid stuff they use in shoes) and fabric that wouldn't weigh 3 tons, could still let in light, and could prevent all the humidity from being trapped in the stadium. They could probably even do it in multiple tiers or layers, and add an interesting 'roofline' to Ashe when it gets deployed.

[WhileKelf]

The one technical solution that I have heard that seems feasible is an inflatable cover, sort of a flat zeppelin on top. I don't know how they would position it, and how long it would take to move it on top. But imagine Goodyear or Michelin or some tire company doing the engineering. That would be a good PR.
Make it transparent and you have an even more unique "thing" on top.
(The thought just popped in my mind that the sponsor and developer of this thing should be Trojan/Durex. Possible slogan: "We are there whenever things get wet")
Sorry. Been too long in the wild by now.

[Romobencience]

(2) Armstrong was built on marshland and is due to be condemned, in essence, within the next six to eight years.

This made me laugh out loud. Wow.

[Relsenlilky]

The one technical solution that I have heard that seems feasible is an inflatable cover, sort of a flat zeppelin on top. I don't know how they would position it, and how long it would take to move it on top. But imagine Goodyear or Michelin or some tire company doing the engineering. That would be a good PR.
Make it transparent and you have an even more unique "thing" on top.
(The thought just popped in my mind that the sponsor and developer of this thing should be Trojan/Durex. Possible slogan: "We are there whenever things get wet")
Sorry. Been too long in the wild by now.

ROTFL.

Or Magnum: "if we can cover Ashe Stadium, we can cover your monstrosity."

[hapasaparaz]

This was from January, but still seems relevant JANUARY 24, 2011

U.S. Open Left in the Rain as Competitors Look for Cover

By TOM PERROTTA

As another tennis season gets under way in Melbourne, Australia, the U.S. Open finds itself in a once unimaginable position: It's losing ground to its rivals on the Grand Slam circuit and might request financial assistance from the city to improve its facilities.

The National Tennis Center in Flushing sits on an unstable ash landfill that makes the construction of new stadiums, and especially a stadium with a retractable roof, difficult and expensive to execute. Arthur Ashe Stadium, the venue's largest stadium, can't support a roof because of the soft ground beneath it, and the U.S. Tennis Association is reluctant to build a roof over a smaller stadium, which wouldn't seat enough fans if rain interfered with the singles finals, as it has done the last three years.

Those finals have produced the tournament's three worst television ratings since 1992, when Nielsen Co. began tracking such data.

The combination of poor land quality and ambitious remodeling plans by the other Grand Slams in Melbourne, Paris and London has forced the USTA to consider asking New York City, which owns Flushing Meadows Park, for aid. In dire circumstances, the organization said, it would contemplate moving to another venue, including outside New York.

"We have a great relationship with the City of New York," Jon Vegosen, the USTA's chairman of the board and president, said in a statement given to The Wall Street Journal. "New York provides a one-of-a-kind locale for the U.S. Open, and our preference is to remain in New York. However, we are in a hyper-competitive marketplace, and to remain the No. 1 tennis event in the world, we will need significant investments in the tournament's infrastructure. The National Tennis Center is an aging facility, significant upgrades are needed, and we'll have to consider all options to maintain our position."

The USTA hasn't approached the city with any plans. It signed a 99-year lease with the city in 1993 and all work on the property must be approved by the Parks Department and the city's Public Design Commission.

"Once we determine what it is that we want to do, we will work with the city on all fronts, including any necessary approvals and, if needed, creative funding solutions," said Chris Widmaier, a spokesman for the organization.

Andrew Brent, a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg's office, said in a statement: "The Billie Jean King National Tennis Center and the U.S. Open are great New York City traditions. The City's budget issues are well-known, but we'll work with the USTA to help it continue to thrive in New York."

Sports fans all over the country have grown accustomed to teams hinting at a move as a way of bargaining for municipal support. The U.S. Open could use the city's own estimates to bolster its case. The tournament brings in $420 million a year in direct revenue to the city, according to a 2001 report from the Comptroller's Office. Current USTA estimates peg the number at $450 million. Mr. Vegosen called the tournament an "unparalleled economic engine" and said nearly half of the Open's visitors come from outside the New York metro area.

However, the relationship is symbiotic. If the Open were located elsewhere, chances are not as many outside travelers, who are lured by everything else the city has to offer, would attend the tournament. Corporate sponsorships likely wouldn't be as readily available or as lucrative, and luxury boxes could be a tougher sell. The Open has revenue of $200 million and is the highest-attended annual sporting event in the world. The USTA financed Arthur Ashe Stadium, which was opened in 1997, by selling tax-exempt bonds.

The stadium, which seats nearly 23,000 people, is the largest in tennis. It also has proven to be a headache. Fans have never taken to it, as it offers mountaintop views from its most affordable seats. And it can't withstand modification. To build the stadium, contractors had to drive pylons 200 feet into the ground to reach bedrock. To cover it, the USTA would have to build a canopy that would rise up from the ground.

"That site is the equivalent of Jell-O," said Matthew Rossetti, president of Rossetti, the architecture firm that designed the stadium and remains the USTA's chief architect.

"We've analyzed it dozens of times. Because of the soil's condition, [a roof] requires its own structure—it wouldn't touch the stadium at all. Once you get into that, you're talking huge dollars."

Estimates put the cost of a canopy roof at $175 million to $225 million.

Last fall, the USTA revealed a more modest plan that could cost $300 million. It would demolish the nearly obsolete Louis Armstrong Stadium and the Grandstand, the second- and third-largest stadiums in the facility, and replace them with a 15,000-seat stadium. Though the stadium would not have a retractable roof, it would be sturdy enough to support one. But the stadium wouldn't be ready for at least eight years and would be too small to host a final.

So far, the USTA's board has approved only $30 million, which would fund a small stadium that would hold 3,000 people and wider walkways in Arthur Ashe Stadium. No work has begun on these projects.

The tournament recently renewed its broadcast contract with CBS through 2014. CBS declined to comment on the need for a roof, the tournament's remodeling plans or whether its new contract, for about $20 million to $25 million annually, includes a rain clause.

"One possibility is that the rights fees are adjusted depending on whether CBS is able televise the final," said Neal Pilson, the former president of CBS sports who now runs a television consulting company, Pilson Communications.

The U.S. Open is not accustomed to second-class status. From the time it was held at the West Side Tennis Club, a private club in Forest Hills, the tournament has been the most innovative in the sport. It was the first to offer equal prize money to men and women, in 1973. It was the first to use hard courts, play matches at night, host a final in prime time, use instant replay and paint its courts blue, a trend that has taken hold all over the world.

This has begun to change in the last few years. The All England Club, the private club that hosts Wimbledon, is about to finish a 17-year renovation that put a roof on Centre Court, built new courts and rearranged the layout of the tournament to ease traffic. It uses a personal seat license, called a debenture, to raise funds. The French Open, which next month will vote on whether to leave Paris, perhaps for a site in Versailles, could have a retractable roof by 2014 if it decides to stay, and by 2016 if it leaves. Paris recently agreed to give the French Tennis Federation 11 acres of land to expand the tournament, which suffers from overcrowding and outdated facilities.

"Paris did a good job under pressure when they realized we were serious about moving—they gave us a very good offer," said Gilbert Ysern, the general director of the federation. "If you want to remain in the highest standards of professional tennis, you have to have a roof now."

It's the Australian Open, though, that has left the rest of the Grand Slam circuit in awe. The tournament is in the midst of a state-funded, $363 million renovation that will put a roof on a third court, build a new indoor practice facility, add a parking garage, install a rain-capture system, and upgrade outdoor gathering spaces. In the next 10 years, the Victorian government could spend as much as $800 million on the facility, according to Steve Wood, Tennis Australia's CEO.

"We had some interest from other cities around Asia and Australia, primarily because of the economic impact that Grand Slams bring to their host cities," Mr. Wood said.

In exchange for the investments, the Australian Open renewed its lease until 2036 and promised to deliver more than $4 billion in economic impact to the state of Victoria.

"We've got to hit our numbers, we've got to get people from interstate and overseas to visit us and to stay longer than they've stayed in the past," Mr. Wood said.

Craig Tiley, the Australia Open tournament director and a former college coach in the United States, said the that the U.S. Open could get away with a lesser facility—for a while.

"When you are a top dog like the U.S. Open, there are a number of things that will be forgiven," Mr. Tiley said. "But if they don't do anything for 10 years, sure, they'll fall behind." http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...jEwNDYyWj.html

Medium term, I think Armstrong and Grandstand should be replaced. Long term, I think they should tear down Ashe as well.

From an architectural/engineering perspective, this doesn't seem to be an easy site for developing on though. And from those numbers above, it's going to be very expensive.

[HunterM]

Just to echo what a few of you have already said...

I've been lucky enough to be on Center Court at both Wimbledon and Roland Garros. In both stadiums I had seats that were in almost the last row, as far away from the court as you can get, and in both cases the seats were great. Of course it's not like being down in front, but it was still possible to be extremely engaged. You could see the ball, the players, the lines, etc. Fun stuff.

A few years ago I went to the US Open. I got on Ticketmaster the second that tickets went on sale. I was there during the middle weekend (Friday through Sunday). The only tickets I was able to get were in the 300's in Ashe. I'd heard that the view there wasn't very good, but man, that's an understatement. There was no point in trying to watch tennis. It was as if the players were playing ping pong a mile away. I'm a pretty die hard tennis fan and I found it very very hard to stay engaged. In fact, I ended up leaving after a match and a half.

By the way, I got tickets for center court for both Wimbledon and RG through the processes set up by the tournament and not through scalpers. I was really pissed when I couldn't get tickets in at least the 200's on Ashe for the US Open through the process set up by the tournament. It left a really sour taste in my mouth.

To compound the problem, at Wimbledon and Roland Garros they usually only schedule three matches per day on Center Court, which means that if you have seats for the 2nd or 3rd largest court, you'll still see at least one marquee player (and usually more). However, because of the night matches at the US Open, 5 matches a day are usually scheduled on Ashe, so you have a much smaller chance of seeing marquee players on any other court.

To me, it's just another example of money being the be all and end all of all decisions made and in the end, it's going to be a huge problem. Shorten the season? No, too much revenue lost. OK, then instead you'll have the marquee players (who play the most because they win the most and are hence the most beloved by fans and the biggest money makers) getting injured a lot, meaning that tournaments end up losing revenue anyway when those players pull out of tournaments and fans don't show up.

Another example is when good seats are given to corporate sponsors. This rant is nothing new, but it's really galling when a true tennis fan has to sit far away but corporate big wigs, who "watch" the match while texting, eating in a restaurant somewhere away from the tennis court, and talking incessantly to whomever they brought to the match with them and who leave the match before it even finishes, get to sit right close to the action. It's basically a big slap in the face to fans. I for one will probably never go back to the US Open. Wimbledon resells tickets when fans leave. Gosh, if they can do it, why can't the US Open do it?

Anyway, back to seating in Ashe. Did they realize when they built it how bad the view would be from the 300's? If they didn't, they should have planned it better, and if they did, then it just shows that they really don't care about the tennis fans' experience. Either way, to be very juvenile, the USTA sucks.

Sorry to be so negative, but to not be able to enjoy the Slam that's in my native country really ticks me off

Kevin

[eocavrWM]

I've said it before but I'll say it again... There is NOTHING worse than a night match in Ashe. If the angle of your seat to the view of the court isn't lucky (unobstructed by people going up and down the steps), you can easily go through a whole match having seen only a handful of points in their entirety.

[bWn4h8QD]

Just to echo what a few of you have already said...

I've been lucky enough to be on Center Court at both Wimbledon and Roland Garros. In both stadiums I had seats that were in almost the last row, as far away from the court as you can get, and in both cases the seats were great. Of course it's not like being down in front, but it was still possible to be extremely engaged. You could see the ball, the players, the lines, etc. Fun stuff.

A few years ago I went to the US Open. I got on Ticketmaster the second that tickets went on sale. I was there during the middle weekend (Friday through Sunday). The only tickets I was able to get were in the 300's in Ashe. I'd heard that the view there wasn't very good, but man, that's an understatement. There was no point in trying to watch tennis. It was as if the players were playing ping pong a mile away. I'm a pretty die hard tennis fan and I found it very very hard to stay engaged. In fact, I ended up leaving after a match and a half.

By the way, I got tickets for center court for both Wimbledon and RG through the processes set up by the tournament and not through scalpers. I was really pissed when I couldn't get tickets in at least the 200's on Ashe for the US Open through the process set up by the tournament. It left a really sour taste in my mouth.

To compound the problem, at Wimbledon and Roland Garros they usually only schedule matches per day on Center Court, which means that if you have seats for the 2nd or 3rd largest court, you'll still see at least one marquee player (and usually more). However, because of the night matches at the US Open, 5 matches a day are usually scheduled on Ashe, so you have a much smaller chance of seeing marquee players on any other court.

To me, it's just another example of money being the be all and end all of all decisions made and in the end, it's going to be a huge problem. Shorten the season? No, too much revenue lost. OK, then instead you'll have the marquee players (who play the most because they win the most and are hence the most beloved by fans and the biggest money makers) getting injured a lot, meaning that tournaments end up losing revenue anyway when those players pull out of tournaments and fans don't show up.

Another example is when good seats are given to corporate sponsors. This rant is nothing new, but it's really galling when a true tennis fan has to sit far away but corporate big wigs, who "watch" the match while texting, eating in a restaurant somewhere away from the tennis court, and talking incessantly to whomever they brought to the match with them and who leave the match before it even finishes. It's basically a big slap in the face to fans. I for one will probably never go back to the US Open. Wimbledon resells tickets when fans leave. Gosh, if they can do it, why can't the US Open do it?

Anyway, back to seating in Ashe. Did they realize when they built it how bad the view would be from the 300's? If they didn't, they should have planned it better, and if they did, then it just shows that they really don't care about the tennis fans' experience. Either way, to be very juvenile, the USTA sucks.

Sorry to be so negative, but to not be able to enjoy the Slam that's in my native country really ticks me off

Kevin

And that's a wrap.