Renovate or Replace? Examining the Future of UNC’s Dean Smith Center

Renovate or Replace? Examining the Future of UNC’s Dean Smith Center

The University of North Carolina is at a crossroads when it comes to one of its most iconic buildings: the Dean Smith Center, affectionately known as the “Dean Dome.” Built in 1986 to replace Carmichael Auditorium, the arena has long been the home of Tar Heel basketball. While its opening nearly four decades ago marked a huge step forward in terms of size, amenities, and prestige, the question now facing UNC’s administration and athletic department is simple yet complex: should the Dean Dome be renovated, or is it time to replace it altogether?

This conversation has picked up steam recently after comments made by UNC Athletics Director Bubba Cunningham. Speaking on the Carolina Insider podcast, Cunningham revealed that the school has yet to make a definitive decision on the facility’s future. His comments come at a time when pressure is mounting—not only from financial concerns but also from fan experiences, evolving expectations, and the competitive landscape of modern college athletics.

The Dean Dome’s Legacy and Limitations

When it opened, the Dean Smith Center was an imposing, state-of-the-art venue. With a seating capacity of more than 21,000, it dwarfed many other arenas in the ACC and around the country. At the time, its sheer size was intimidating for opponents. Yet, size does not necessarily guarantee atmosphere.

In fact, shortly after Florida State upset UNC in its first-ever ACC conference game in 1993, Seminoles guard Sam Cassell famously remarked that the Dean Dome crowd felt more like a “wine-and-cheese” audience than the raucous, intimidating environments found at places like Duke’s Cameron Indoor Stadium or NC State’s Reynolds Coliseum. His comment, while stinging, wasn’t entirely wrong. UNC has worked to improve the atmosphere over the years, but many observers argue that something intangible was lost when the program moved away from Carmichael’s claustrophobic, ear-splitting intensity.

Beyond atmosphere, the Dean Dome has aging infrastructure. Reports indicate that just replacing the roof could cost anywhere between $80 and $100 million. Concourses are narrow, donor seating is limited compared to modern arenas, and parking has always been a persistent issue. Its location—separated from the vibrant Chapel Hill downtown area—also limits the entertainment and dining options that fans might expect in today’s sports environment.

Lessons from Other Venues

Comparisons are often drawn between UNC’s Dean Dome and NC State’s PNC Arena (formerly the Lenovo Center). Unlike the Smith Center, PNC Arena was built with surrounding development in mind. Over the years, the Raleigh venue has become part of a thriving hub, complete with restaurants, shops, and entertainment options. For fans, this creates a complete game-day experience. By contrast, the Dean Dome’s relatively isolated location makes it difficult to replicate that sense of energy.

There is also the matter of scale. While the Dean Dome technically holds more fans than most college basketball arenas, the design of the building means that upper-level seating often feels distant from the court. Many venues, including Maryland’s Xfinity Center, have instead opted for slightly smaller capacities—around 17,000 to 19,000—but with steep seating angles and design elements that keep fans close to the action. In Chapel Hill, fans in the upper deck sometimes joke that they might as well watch the game on their phones.

Financial Realities and Donor Influence

One reason UNC may hesitate to pursue wholesale changes is financial. Major renovations or entirely new arenas are extraordinarily costly, and universities rely heavily on donors for funding. The Kenan family, for example, has contributed immense sums of money not only to athletics but to the broader university. Yet, even donor relationships can spark controversy.

Several years ago, critics pointed out that Kenan Stadium—UNC’s football home—was named after William Rand Kenan Sr., who was implicated in the violent 1898 Wilmington coup, in which dozens of Black citizens were killed. UNC attempted to address the issue by rededicating the stadium to William Rand Kenan Jr. instead, effectively changing a single letter. That move was widely criticized as inadequate, though the university cited both a moratorium on renaming buildings and the Kenan family’s significant financial contributions as reasons for restraint.

With donor relations so sensitive, any conversation about tearing down or renaming iconic athletic venues inevitably becomes political. Still, Cunningham’s comments suggest that UNC knows it must eventually take action, as the current state of the Dean Dome cannot hold up indefinitely.

What Could a New Arena Look Like?

If UNC were to seriously consider building a replacement arena, experts and fans have floated several ideas.

• Location matters. Building closer to central campus, within walking distance for students, could restore the student-driven intensity that defined Carmichael Auditorium. Students would pack the building, creating a lively, intimidating home-court advantage.

• Size and acoustics. Instead of pursuing the biggest possible arena, capping capacity at around 18,000 to 18,500 seats would strike a balance between crowd size and noise levels. A lower roof and careful attention to acoustics could make the venue one of the loudest in the nation, boosting both fan experience and the intimidation factor for visiting teams.

• Student sections and suites. Many believe the Dean Dome’s current design underutilizes students by keeping them away from the action. Placing students courtside while moving luxury boxes higher could energize the arena and still keep revenue flowing. Modern suites with high-definition screens, flexible layouts, and cutting-edge technology would appeal to major donors and corporate sponsors.

• Modern features. Incorporating a steep “blue wall” design like Maryland’s Xfinity Center could give the Tar Heels a unique advantage while also allowing additional premium seating near the floor. Attention to detail in sound systems and concert acoustics could make the new venue a popular stop for touring artists, providing additional revenue streams.

Balancing Tradition and Progress

Ultimately, the decision to renovate or replace the Dean Dome will be one of the most significant in UNC athletics history. The arena carries decades of memories, from Michael Jordan tributes to national championship celebrations, and fans are understandably attached to its legacy. But nostalgia cannot cover up structural issues, fan dissatisfaction, or the realities of a changing sports landscape.

For UNC, the challenge will be to preserve tradition while embracing modernity. Whether that means an extensive renovation or a brand-new facility, one thing is clear: the Tar Heels cannot afford to stand still. If they want to maintain their status as one of the premier programs in college basketball, they must provide a home arena worthy of their stature—an arena that intimidates opponents, energizes fans, and serves as a revenue generator for years to come.

The Dean Dome’s future remains uncertain, but the conversation is only beginning.