Author Topic: TD Garden: Should it be replaced or upgraded? (merged)  (Read 30561 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: TD Garden: Should it be replaced or upgraded? (merged)
« Reply #105 on: March 11, 2015, 11:58:42 PM »

Offline Celtics#18

  • Luke Garza
  • Posts: 91
  • Tommy Points: 3
The one and only Boston GARDEN was an absolute rat-hole but it was the greatest arena in the world for watching a Celtics or Bruins game....even if you were sitting in a cramped seat behind a steel girder and with no air conditioning. Personally, I am not a fan of the TD North Fleetcenter.  Like Gillette, there was such a focus on suites for the rich that they totally screwed the blue collar fan. Balcony seats are expensive and a step below being on the moon.


I hear what your saying but their is no reason why upgrading options for everybody isn't possible

Re: TD Garden: Should it be replaced or upgraded? (merged)
« Reply #106 on: March 12, 2015, 12:43:10 AM »

Offline Kuberski33

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7417
  • Tommy Points: 572
Its not so much they built the Garden for the 'rich' as much as the corporations that can write off the cost of the suites.  To me what really sucks about the place is  that after the lower bowl loge seats, the next really good levels are occupied by suites.  The balcony seats in my opinion are too high.

At the same time, the place really has decent acoustics as it gets loud for big games. If I could change one thing about the place I'd try to figure out a way to the real fans closer to the action but I also get the economics.

A Celtics only arena wouldn't work though it was explored at one time, I believe during the Gaston era.  They looked at land off Route 1 in Revere and I believe at Suffolk Downs prior to all this casino stuff.  The big problem is the Garden's in the prime location both in terms of highway access as well as commuter rail and subway.   

And with that area really being built up right now, that will remain the place to be moving forward.