Talk:Climate Pledge Arena

Climate Pledge Arena is basically an entirely new building built under the old arena's roof structure. I think it would make sense to cover each incarnation in a separate article. This has some precedence on Wikipedia, with Centennial Olympic Stadium/Turner Field/Georgia State Stadium, and Gator Bowl Stadium/TIAA Bank Field, where portions of the old structures were reused for the new ones. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose: Same base structure. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 00:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I actually intended this to be an informal conversation, not an official split discussion, hence without a split tag on the article. And to be honest, your response is too vague to be very helpful. - ~ BilCat (talk)

I agree with BilCat here and the two examples he used were what came to mind for me as well. In both cases, portions of the original stadium remained, so definitely precedent in establishing separate articles even when there are connections with actual structural elements like we have with this arena. From a practical standpoint, it would make both articles more manageable, particularly the tenant lists. A non-stadium/arena example of a building using a previous building's structure is the Provo City Center Temple, which uses the outer wall of the Provo Tabernacle. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The histories for each "stage" of the structure would definitely be long enough to warrant separate articles. SounderBruce 07:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this. The building that was KeyArena no longer exists, even if the roof has been repurposed. A similar argument could've been made about the '94-'95 renovation from the Coliseum to KeyArena, but those feel of a piece. All of the KeyArena history doesn't really pertain to Climate Pledge Arena except for the site location. That can be referenced in the article and linked to a KeyArena page for further information. These should be separated. - Playhouse76 (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

• I would prefer to defer to what a majority of independent, third party reliable sources say (not the official web site). If these third party reliable sources say that this was just a "renovation" instead of a "reconfiguration", then we should keep this as a single article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  See also my comment on #Tenant list below. tldr: this 2017 Seattle Times article details when it was designated a Seattle historical landmark. The roof was the main feature on why it was designated a historical landmark. The Oak View Group, the current operators of Climate Pledge Arena, want to keep the landmark status because they could get tax credits. Thus this adds to the argument that this was a "renovation" instead of a "reconfiguration". Reliable sources could actually treat the core structure as the roof, not the things built underneath it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agree. The base structure is similar but not entirely the same basically the arena got expanded, upgraded and there is also an addition when you see the renderings Jared L 9999 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

To keep the tenant list manageable and easier to read, it's not necessary to break up tenancy years for a team that may have had to leave temporarily due to renovations, like the Sonics did in 1994-95, especially when their tenancy already includes an earlier break. They were still legal tenants, but did not play home games there for a season. Details can be mentioned in the text, which they are in this case. A break would be for teams that formally leave a facility (meaning they terminate a lease or don't renew) and then come back, such as the Sonics after they left the arena in 1978 and came back in 1985, the Oakland Raiders at the Oakland Coliseum, the Golden State Warriors at Oracle Arena, or the Cleveland Indians at Cleveland Stadium. This has actually been discussed in relation to the Toronto Blue Jays and Rogers Centre. The Blue Jays won't be playing games there at all during the 2020 season, but the tenant list shouldn't be "1989-2019, 2021-" since the change is clearly temporary and their legal status as tenants hasn't changed. "Tenant" usually means "plays all home games there" but it sometimes doesn't. Again, details about temporary moves can be explained in the text; the infobox isn't for those kinds of details.

Additionally, "Future" should also be avoided, such as "2021-future". The precedent for future years is just "2021–" and many times "planned" is placed after. Ultimately, my hope is that KeyArena is made into a separate article. Also, the Template:Infobox venue doesn't use parentheses in the explanation for the tenant list. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I disagree that Key Arena should be made into a seperate article from this one. A good example to look at is Madison Square Garden. Like Climate Pledge/Key Arena, MSG's interior has been completely renovated twice while keeping the outer structure intact, and yet this is all covered in one article. - Richiekim (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

True, but the MSG renovation didn't result in any disruptions for the Rangers or Knicks since it was done in phases during both teams' offseasons (did for the Liberty, but they have since moved anyway), plus it also didn't result in a change of name. In other words, there was no noted break like we have for KeyArena vs. Climate Pledge Arena. Another huge difference is the basic outer structure, roof, and much of the inner layout remains for MSG; KeyArena was demolished except for the roof above it, similar to the Gator Bowl and TIAA Bank Stadium. Climate Pledge Arena will only have the location and roof in common with KeyArena. Many stadiums and arenas are renovated, but in this case, it seems to be more of a total rebuild than a renovation. From an article perspective, having two separate articles for KeyArea and CPA would make both more manageable, especially the tenant lists. Really, the best example for a total rebuild like CPA that wasn't split into a separate article would be Soldier Field. I think the main reason that hasn't been broken into separate articles is the fact the facility wasn't renamed, but the "renovation" was essentially a total rebuild except for parts of the outer facade. It was extensive enough to get the building delisted from the National Register of Historic Places. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

As I stated in #KeyArena on a separate page above, I would prefer to defer to what a majority of independent, third party reliable sources say. If these third party reliable sources say that this was just a "renovation" instead of a "reconfiguration", then we should keep this as a single article. Unlike Soldier Field, the site here in Seattle is also a local historic landmark designated by the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board.

Could reliable sources actually treat the core structure as the roof, and not the things built underneath it? I found a 2017 Seattle Times article detailing when KeyArena was designated a Seattle Landmark, and the article's headline emphasizes the "iconic sloped roof". And the first couple of paragraphs state:

KeyArena and its iconic roof have officially been designated for local historical landmark status, meaning any renovation of it must take specific steps to leave certain elements intact ... The board, consisting of architects, historians, a structural engineer and representatives from the fields of urban planning, real estate and finance, granted the designation for both the arena's Paul Thiry-designed roof and its exterior walls and support trusses. (emphasis added)

In other words, it appears that the roof is one of the primary reasons why it was designated as a historic landmark. And who wants to keep the landmark status? The Oak View Group -- the same group that is in charge of Climate Pledge Arena. As the last paragraph in that article notes, the landmark status could give the Oak View Group "up to $70 million in federal tax credits should the building be declared a federal historical landmark". So as long as the roof and its support trusses are intact, and the Oak View Group wants to keep the landmark designation, I doubt there will be a push to delist the arena. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply