BC Place: Stadium Refurbishment | Completed

[jlousa]

Wouldn't they prefer to play here that way they can blame the crappy sound on the stadium and not themselves? :tup:

[jlousa]

Looks like Pavco waited until Friday after hours to post his one. ;) They had posted it earlier in the week but withdrew it immediately for unknown reasons. Will be interesting to see what kind of offers they will attract. My understanding is they will keep ownership of the land and will provide a 99yr leasehold. So they are looking at attracting more along the lines of a pension company or a union fund. Kind of surprised they are doing 10A seperate from 10C, guess they are testing the waters.

BC PAVILION CORPORATION (PAVCO)
REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST FOR REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ADJACENT TO B.C. PLACE
DEVELOPMENT SITE 10A

PavCo, the BC Pavilion Corporation, is a crown corporation of the Province of British Columbia that owns and operates BC Place Stadium.

B.C. Pavilion Corporation (PavCo), the Province of British Columbia (the Province) and the City of Vancouver (the City) have recently taken a number of actions and made a number of commitments in connection with a substantial refurbishment/improvement of B.C. Place Stadium (the Upgrade Project) and in connection with amendments to the existing community
plan for the North-East False Creek neighbourhood.

PavCo has identified some portions of the B.C. Place site that are currently vacant or used solely for surface parking and generally under-utilized, which could offer opportunities for significant additional development of benefit to the North-East False Creek area and to generate revenues to assist PavCo with payment of the costs of the Upgrade Project. One of the sites, identified as Development Site 10A, will be offered by PavCo to interested and
qualified developers/investors.

Developers potentially interested in acquiring rights to lease and develop (and to operate) commercial projects on Development Site 10A are invited to review the following information, included in the full RFEI document:
1. the Upgrade Commitment Agreement (UCA);
2. the City Staff Report;
3. the ODP Amendment; and
4. the terms of the RFEI,
to examine and consider development and investment opportunities offered by the Development Site.

Through the RFEI process, PavCo seeks to identify potential developers of Development Site 10A, who have the vision, imagination, experience and capacity to build on the Site to complement and capitalize on the unique setting offered by the refurbished B.C. Place facility, to create an exciting new precinct of the North-East False Creek neighbourhood in Vancouver.

Request for Expressions of Interest documents and instructions will be available to Proponents after 2:00 p.m., Monday, March 9, 2009, at the Administration Office reception desk at:
B.C. Place
777 Pacific Boulevard
Vancouver, BC V6B 4Y8

[Overground]

When is the final design for the roof supposed to be finished? I thought it was very soon.

[Canadian Mind]

Wouldn't they prefer to play here that way they can blame the crappy sound on the stadium and not themselves? :tup:

Not all bands sound like shit. What bands do you like?

[LeftCoaster]

wow, you missed that joke by a mile and a half...

[punkster1982]

If Pavco does the project on a 99yr lease, may this not leading to builders have difficulty finding financing, a la Olympic Village?

And how would it affect the mortgages of the individual units? They'd still legally own their units but the strata wouldn't actually own the land?

[jlousa]

99yr leases are quite common, practically everything at UBC and SFU is done on that principle. It doesn't affect the ability to get a mortgage until close to the end of the term. Not to mention most of this will be commercial space which for the most part is always leased anyways.

[djmk]

according to Lenarduzzi, BC place will be Soccer Specific Stadium

http://www.team1040.ca/news/story/?id=1852

or listen here (http://www.team1040.ca/contentfiles2/Lenny%20-%20BC%20Place%20IS%20soccer-specific.mp3)

[mrjauk]

according to Lenarduzzi, BC place will be Soccer Specific Stadium

http://www.team1040.ca/news/story/?id=1852

or listen here (http://www.team1040.ca/contentfiles2/Lenny%20-%20BC%20Place%20IS%20soccer-specific.mp3)

I agree that the stadium, in its renovated form, will be much more conducive to helping create a soccer-style atmosphere, but BC Place will always have one important drawback--the artificial surface. Soccer, like baseball and football, was meant to be played on grass.

[Pinion]

I agree that the stadium, in its renovated form, will be much more conducive to helping create a soccer-style atmosphere, but BC Place will always have one important drawback--the artificial surface. Soccer, like baseball and football, was meant to be played on grass.

At least they have FieldTurf now...

http://archives.starbulletin.com/2003/07/18/sports/art1b.jpg[

[Rusty Gull]

^Yes, and this is quite different than the old-school "astro-turf".

It's actually the same surface used by Toronto FC at BMO Stadium...

[mrjauk]

^Yes, and this is quite different than the old-school "astro-turf".

It's actually the same surface used by Toronto FC at BMO Stadium...

I know; and it's FIFA-sanctioned, but it still sucks. The ball plays and bounces differently on all non-grass surfaces.

[jlousa]

I play soccer and prefer fieldturf over regular grass. At least you know the ground is level and the play is more consistent, try playing on grass in the winter when it's frozen it's not fun nor when it's muddy and the field gets torn to shit. Look around the goals on a grass field during soccer season there is no grass. While most pros prefer grass it's because that's what they've been used to and no one likes change. The new stuff is worlds better then the astroturf of the 80's and 90's. While fieldturf isn't prefect it's getting better every generation and I wouldn't be surprised if it displaces real grass within a decade.

[mr.x]

http://www.vancouvermls2011.com/images/bg_sub_header.jpg

[Jonovision]

So any updates on the progress of this? Shouldn't we be seeing exterior changes?

[LeftCoaster]

There aren't many exterior changes to my knowledge until after the Olympics. I think what is happening right now is an interior renovation and structural upgrades in anticipation of the work to commence post Olympics.

[Vancity]

so isn't there any pictures on the progress inside BC Place? even though it's probably a mess, I'd be interseted in that "mess". It's be nice to see progress, kind of like the Canada Line construction, and look at where we at with the updates on those (well, it has slowed down, but still...)!

[KPELLY]

I dont know if anyone has mentioned this but a lot of the old seating is outside the stadium right now. How much of the seating is getting replaced? All? lower bowl?

[Pinion]

http://www.vancouvermls2011.com/images/bg_sub_header.jpg

That rendering looks way better than the one with the neon crap all over the sides. Especially the top.

[Vancity]

I dont know if anyone has mentioned this but a lot of the old seating is outside the stadium right now. How much of the seating is getting replaced? All? lower bowl?

i'd be interested to know how much of the seating is going to be replaced with news ones, as well. if they're going to replace the seating, they might as well replace all of them.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Looks pretty lifeless to me, if that is one thing Vancouver does not need is more plain grey massive concrete walls.

[Vancity]

That rendering looks way better than the one with the neon crap all over the sides. Especially the top.

i agree. i like this rendering better. can't wait to see the interior progress that's being made.

[mr.x]

i'd be interested to know how much of the seating is going to be replaced with news ones, as well. if they're going to replace the seating, they might as well replace all of them.

It's possible that those seats being replaced are for the VIP section......or for the media section, where you actually have massive blue booths rather than seats.

[johnjimbc]

I know I've mentioned this before, but I couldn't resist.

Please, oh please, let them at least CLEAN (as in power-scrub to the max) the outside of the existing structure. It really is crappy looking, particularly the bird-decorated brown glass (gotta love that 80's brown glass). I know folks defend it, but I've seen a lot of stadiums in my time and the condition of the outside of BC Place is pretty shabby by any measure.

At minimum, they should at least cover it tastefully with silk screened, full-size banners or something.

The idea of having the exterior of BC Place as the opening shot as the world tunes in to launch the Olympics "in modern Vancouver" is really a downer. Here's hoping for great weather - at least for opening day - so they can show sweeping views of the skyline. Otherwise, here's hoping a lot of the coverage is on all the other venues before they start the ceremonies with the cameras on the inside ;).

[mr.x]

^ i'm quite sure it'll be cleaned thoroughly....and the networks have been rolling film over the past few months on the days with good weather, having a stock of clips to show to the world in Vancouver's pristine condition.

A banner, similar to London's stadium, going around the entire exterior would be nice.
http://fillthemezz.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/2012_olympicstadium_london.jpg

[officedweller]

http://www.vancouvermls2011.com/images/bg_sub_header.jpg

Agreed - this render looks much more realistic. The ring supporting the masts is a lot more prominent (seems to sit farther from the old walls) than in the previous renders.

[Vancity]

i have to admit, though, that the masts on top of bc place looks huge! while the rendering does look more realistic, i have to agree that the exterior looks too grey. and in this city, we need less of that. we already have a lot of grey clouds during the year, having more concrete, grey buildings do not help "liven" up the city. i hope they do something nice with the outside of bc place that'll brighten things up. too bad we don't have a nice structure like london's stadium that mr. x posted above. nevertheless, i'm still excited about the renovations. here's hoping that we have a nice looking stadium (both inside and out).

[metroXpress]

^ We do need some colourful banners going around like MrX2 and VanCity's suggestion. It is indeed a bit grey during dark days and some colours would definately go well with all the blue windows of the buildings surrounding it.
Too bad I can't combine the two renderings together....

[Overground]

^ I worked the two renderings but darkened the 'wrap' on the larger pic.


http://i44.tinypic.com/vnktaq.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/24ph0rc.jpg

[metroXpress]

^ Way more realistic...thanks a lot!

[officedweller]

Just noticed the Science World banners in the bigger pic. Maybe cut and paste from those and change the colours...

[Vancity]

i still like the way london does it. looks nicer. is the bc place exterior going to receive some sort of lighting, so it's not just a big black structure at night?

i hope they do something nice with the bc place exterior - but hoping that it's not anything tacky.

[dtrain]

Does anyone know if they're planning on replacing all the glass on the concourse areas? That alone would make a huge improvement, it looks very dated.

[mr.x]

^ i believe the exterior is getting a new glass facade that would cover much of the sides of the stadium.

[dtrain]

how about the Terry Fox Plaza?
Is that getting redone in any way?
Apparently the large video ad screens outside are not being updated.

[djmk]

where is ravman?

he is our inside guy at bc place.

[Stingray2004]

Maybe BC Place won't be getting a new roof afterall:

Six Weeks To Go: The Fate of B.C. Place

By Vaughn Palmer 03-31-2009 View from the Ledge

The B.C. Liberals started the year by proposing a $365 milion renovation for B.C. Place, the aging sports stadium near False Creek in Vancouver. The upgrade would be financed by developing property around the publicly owned facility.

But self-financing or not, the proposal has created a handy pot of money for New Democrats to raid, any time they need a few million - or a few hundred million -- to underwrite one of their priorities.

Ask a New Democrat how they would pay for this, that or the other promise and sooner or later they'll cite the $365 million set aside for the new roof on B.C. Place.

The clear implication being that if New Democrats took office, they would cancel the roof and free up the $365 million for other purposes.

But would they cancel the project? I put that question to New Democrats Adrian Dix and John Horgan on Voice of B.C. on Shaw Cable last Thursday. Here's what they said.

Dix: "I think it shows a lack of priority. I think you can spend $365 million in a better way. It's a dishonest debate. The Premier's put forward the idea suggesting that the sale of assets, which are essentially government assets, around the stadium — that because some of the money isn't cash, that it's not $365 million. I think we should have a discussion about it, especially since the other big project downtown — the other one, the convention centre — has gone dramatically over-budget; it's more than double the budget they said it was going to do. That's not our priority, and we've said it."

So they'd probably cancel the new roof?

Dix. "We're going to be explicit about that in the campaign — about what our capital priorities are. I think if you asked people in Vancouver what their priorities are, a retractable roof wouldn't be high on the priority list. Look, there's no bigger sports fan in the Legislature than I am.

Horgan: "The two of us, actually."

I'm not. Nor am I a fan of BC Place. But a lot of people are sports fans and will be wondering what's going to happen to the old mushroom in bondage if the New Democrats take office.

Dix: "I think it just shows what his (Campbell's) priorities are, and we're going to have very different priorities in the election.

Horgan: "For someone on the Island, Vaughn — just briefly — when we hear, over on Vancouver Island, that there's $365 million available for a retractable roof, and there's no money available for transportation infrastructure here, and there's no money available for homelessness projects here on the Island, it's pretty hard to take."

Dix: "And I suspect that's the same up-country."

So it does sound as if the NDP election platform (scheduled for release next week) will put paid to the proposal for a new retractable roof on BC Place.

Presumably they will go back to some more modest proposal, such as refurbishing the current inflatable dome with something similar.

Source: Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/viewfromtheledge/archive/2009/03/31/six-weeks-to-go-the-fate-of-b-c-place.aspx

And these were the same guys screaming a couple of years ago that the government was inept for not having a new roof on BC Place in time for the 2010 Olympics. :koko:

[Yume-sama]

Well there's another reason to not vote NDP.

The clear implication being that if New Democrats took office, they would cancel the roof and free up the $365 million for other purposes.

I'm guessing that would include more luxury waterfront condos for the homeless and drug addicts?

[WarrenC12]

Keep talking NDP, you are sealing your doom!

I couldn't be happier. :D

[ravman]

during tough economic times, you need to be building the provinces infastructures and not pet projects. the fact of the matter is that this roof should have been nearing completion by now, but it was another botched project by the BC liberals...back then the economy was doing fine... today, we are in a recession. today we need to build the transit lines and the busses. We need to build schools and other capital projects

[djmk]

well, $365 million is a lot of money.... i think its almost twice the amount that BC Place first cost. besides, all political mumbo gumbo aside, you can really make the argument just to tear it all down (which i am sure they would of if we did not get the olympics). i hope the business plan is in order.

i question its validity.

[LeftCoaster]

during tough economic times, you need to be building the provinces infastructures and not pet projects. the fact of the matter is that this roof should have been nearing completion by now, but it was another botched project by the BC liberals...back then the economy was doing fine... today, we are in a recession. today we need to build the transit lines and the busses. We need to build schools and other capital projects

What does a recession have to do with transit lines and buses?

The new roof is an infrastructure project. It puts thousands of BC residents to work and injects capital into various levels of the social hierarchy... that is the whole point of defect spending during a recession.

As long as money is being injected at various income levels it doesn't really matter what it is being spent on... ie the make work programs of the new deal; some literally involved digging holes and filling them.

[Stingray2004]

The upgrade would be financed by developing property around the publicly owned facility.

BC Pavillion Corp., a crown corp., will be self-financing the roof upgrade through the development of adjacent lands several years down the road. Obviously we are not going to be in perpetual recession.

So what happens to the new MLS franchise, which was predicated upon completion of the retractible roof by 2011?

Heck, even the new Blue Bombers stadium in Winnipeg has the support of the governing New Democrats:

it would require about $80 million from the Manitoba government towards a proposed $120-million final cost. Manitoba Premier Gary Doer has said if his NDP government is re-elected in the May 22 election, the province will help build a new stadium.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/05/01/cfl-bombers.html

Considering that BC has well in excess of 4 times Manitoba's population, that would equate to a $320 million request from the BC government... without the BC Place lands for self-financing.

And yes, the current BC Place stadium roof is past its best before due date.

The question then becomes... Do we do it right this time or not?

[mrjauk]

What does a recession have to do with transit lines and buses?

The new roof is an infrastructure project. It puts thousands of BC residents to work and injects capital into various levels of the social hierarchy... that is the whole point of defect spending during a recession.

As long as money is being injected at various income levels it doesn't really matter what it is being spent on... ie the make work programs of the new deal; some literally involved digging holes and filling them.

I'm as big a supporter of the retractable roof proposal as there is, but the part of your quote that I bolded above is just ignorant. Yes, it does matter from an infrastructure/investment perspective what the money is spent on.

[LeftCoaster]

Well thought out argument, very convincing.

You're right, on second thought i reject years of economic principles based on your convincing argument.

brilliant...

[crazyjoeda]

Keep talking NDP, you are sealing your doom!

I couldn't be happier. :D

I was worried that the NDP might win this election, but now I don't think so. They are just all over the place; they say whatever they think is popular in hopes they will get more votes. The Liberals aren't perfect but the NDP will be harmful to BC. I'm not even sure what they stand for? They clearly have no regard for the environment, improving transportation or ensuring the success of the provinces multibillion dollar, decade long investment in the Olympics. :koko: Vote Liberal at least you wont regret it.

[djmk]

Well thought out argument, very convincing.

You're right, on second thought i reject years of economic principles based on your convincing argument.

brilliant...

hate to break it to ya leftcoaster, but mrjauk is right. what you spend the money on very much matters.

[Vancity]

The NDP is a joke. Ridiculous comments.

How are they just going to cancel a project like that, with so much riding on the improvements being made to the stadium for the 2010 Olympics, and the new MLS franchise that was awarded to the city?

It's retarded people like these that hold this awesome city backwards.

*sigh*....

[Yume-sama]

You do have to be cautious about what you spend money on, but this is not something that is a waste.

I don't think we have to worry, anyways. The NDP won't be winning, and the Liberals are unlikely to be spineless and come to the same conclusion. Hopefully :P

[LeftCoaster]

hate to break it to ya leftcoaster, but mrjauk is right. what you spend the money on very much matters.

It seems both you and Mrjauk completely missed the comment I was responding to. I was merely rejecting Ravman's contention that spending money on a roof is not an effective method to introduce capital to the economy through infrastructure spending. Spending money on a roof or spending money on a skytrain line, both pump money directly into the hands of men and women of various socioeconomic backgrounds throughout the city. From an economic standpoint no it does not matter what you spend money on, as money will be injected back into the economy.

Please read the entire conversation and understand the meanings of both parties' posts before calling someone ignorant.

[CBeats]

Wow I noticed a banner ad at the bottom of this page just as I finished reading it. It says "$365 million for a new BC Place roof?" - then it switched to another view - "Or more hospital beds?" Then in tiny writing it said "paid for by the new democratic party".

Hahaha they aren't profiting from that advertisement here, that's for sure.

[djmk]

again i would have to disagree with you leftcoaster.

certain types of infrastructure can create long term growth and jobs better than others. for example, you could spend the money on building a new lumber mill (which would probably not bring the desired results) or you could spend the money on a Research and Development park (which may bring in long term growth). assuming that investment dollars are finite, all investment possibilities need to be compared. besides, i really doubt you claim that "thousands" of BCers will work on this project.

as well, the NDP is a provincial party and they have to answer to their constituents outside the lower mainland. These renos basically will be enjoyed by people living in the lower mainland but be paid for by a provincial body using provincial tax dollars. these people have every right to question the $365 million tab, especially John Horgan which I think is in the Juan de Fuca riding.

[Canadian Mind]

I think a point people keep on missing is that the money wouldn't come from the government but from the developers. So in a way, the 365 million spent on the stadium is better then the same amount spent elsewhere, as it doesn't detract from government funds in any way, the government might even make a substantial amount of tax dollars out of the deal.

In addition to that, you can't take the 365 million away from the developers earmarked for the stations and direct it to public coffers, because the money wouldn't pass through government hands. it would go from the developer of the property to the developer of the roof. It would have been like the government taking the 400 million for the shangri-la and putting it towards Skytrain or healthcare. Not on.

[Yume-sama]

Logic and feasibility are not something that has to come in to effect during a political campaign, Mr. Canadian Mind :P

[Canadian Mind]

Logic and feasibility is not something that has to come in to effect during a political campaign, Mr. Canadian Mind :P

It's usually lacking in any form of beaurocracy. :banana:

[Stingray2004]

as well, the NDP is a provincial party and they have to answer to their constituents outside the lower mainland. These renos basically will be enjoyed by people living in the lower mainland but be paid for by a provincial body using provincial tax dollars.

But Pavco is a provincial crown corporation and its only assets are BC Place Stadium and surrounding lands as well as the VTCC situate only within the City of Vancouver.

And the financing for the roof replacement will not be from government general revenue/debt financing, but from the realization of the returns from developing the Pavco lands around the same BC Place (and perhaps some Pavco interim financing).

That makes a huge difference.

And then from the same New Democrats from May 16, 2008:

[New Democrat MLA Harry] Bains said a 2006 report clearly told the Campbell government that the B.C. Place roof replacement needed to become a priority. But the government's mismanagement of the project means a proper venue in time for 2010 Olympics is now highly unlikely.

"Gordon Campbell's talk about his 'vision' for the B.C. Place for the next 25 years is simply not credible when his record shows he ignored all warnings about it in the last two years.

Source: BC NDP
http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/arrogant-bc-liberals-bungle-bc-place-roof-project

One can't have it both ways in life and speak differently out of both sides of one's mouth... then that becomes a credibility issue.

So do we just replace the bubble with a new bubble and forget about the retractable roof and its future potential... and the Whitecaps MLS franchise for that matter?

[djmk]

I think a point people keep on missing is that the money wouldn't come from the government but from the developers. So in a way, the 365 million spent on the stadium is better then the same amount spent elsewhere, as it doesn't detract from government funds in any way, the government might even make a substantial amount of tax dollars out of the deal.

In addition to that, you can't take the 365 million away from the developers earmarked for the stations and direct it to public coffers, because the money wouldn't pass through government hands. it would go from the developer of the property to the developer of the roof. It would have been like the government taking the 400 million for the shangri-la and putting it towards Skytrain or healthcare. Not on.

almost.

BC Place and the VCC is operated by PavCo which is a Provincial Crown Corporation of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts. they have the right to decide to sell (or lease) the land around BC Place and do whatever they want with it.

however, because PavCO is a Crown Corp they need to act in the best interest of the province (which i'm sure they are). They have to make sure that the 365 million is spent wisely and helps the most amount of people.

now, optics is a different ball game. people in prince george may feel that this money seems rather wasteful and would rather have this money spent in their community.

that being said, i am not convinced this is a good project. but i'm happy that huge eye-sore is getting a make-over

[LeftCoaster]

again i would have to disagree with you leftcoaster.

certain types of infrastructure can create long term growth and jobs better than others. for example, you could spend the money on building a new lumber mill (which would probably not bring the desired results) or you could spend the money on a Research and Development park (which may bring in long term growth). assuming that investment dollars are finite, all investment possibilities need to be compared. besides, i really doubt you claim that "thousands" of BCers will work on this project.

Governments don't traditionally build research and development parks but I see where you are going. Once again though I was just contending that in terms of a public infrastructure project as much as the public good can be helped by one project over another, from an economic recovery standpoint they both inject the same amount of money into the economy.

Ravman was saying that since we are in a recession we should be spending money on transit and other greater good projects (which i fully agree with) however he implied that spending money on a new roof for bc place is nto a good idea in a recession. All I was saying is that they both inject the same amount of money into the economy so his criticism of the new roof is somewhat irrelevant with regards to the current economic environment. Whether this is a good use of public funds at any time is an entirely different debate, one which i believe we have had many times within this exact thread.

Thousands of BC residents may have been somewhat hyperbolic, but between indirect and direct employment it would easily account for over 500 jobs.

[Stingray2004]

people in prince george may feel that this money seems rather wasteful and would rather have this money spent in their community.

But Pavco's modus operandi is to utilize funds generated from operations to either upgrade existing facilities or retire debt, albeit they do receive an annual operation subsidy from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts.

This $365 million cost of the retractible roof doesn't yet exist (for the most part) and cannot be spent outside of those parameters. They certainly are not a provincial government slush fund to be spent around the province, which is misleading, and the New Democrats are aware of same.

[hollywoodnorth]

Well there's another reason to not vote NDP.



I'm guessing that would include more luxury waterfront condos for the homeless and drug addicts?

no doubt it sure would! ravman needs a place to live you know! LOL :cheers:

[Chikinlittle]

Anyone notice the NDP ad campaign about the BC Place roof that has even been appearing here on SSP? (I looked to see if that's how this conversation started)

I'd recommend clicking on the ad as many times as possible to help drain the NDP's resources :) (Unless of course, the cost per click is only charged once per unique IP address)

[jlousa]

Leftcoaster is right in a sense but the way he worded it sounds wrong to laymens. Any money pumped into the economy will end up in the hands of workers all the same, regardless of the project, that money will cycle thru the economy something like 6times (it's been a while since I took econ and the ratio is always changing) providing stimulus and further helping employ more people. That said there is obviously a difference in spending $400Million building 2 new prisons or that same $400Million building a new rail bridge, although economically the immediate result will be identical, long term there will be a difference(that could take years to analysis).
The current economic argument is that money is better spent now to provide immediate stimulus regardless of what the project is, instead of studying analysis and building 1 year from now. It is a little scary and will end up costing the US and most countries deeply long term.

All that said the BC Place project is a great project, but let's not kid ourselves, it's never going to run a profit nor will the leasing of the land generate anywhere near that amount (guess closer to $100Million).

[Stingray2004]

but let's not kid ourselves, it's never going to run a profit nor will the leasing of the land generate anywhere near that amount (guess closer to $100Million).

While previously focusing upon the principles behind the financing for the retractable roof... yeah, I agree, you are pretty well bang-on in terms of operational costs and development cost recoveries for BC Place stadium.

[mr.x]

Geez.....what happened to logic here?


The $365-million will mainly be coming from development revenues around the stadium, and I believe sponsor naming rights for 20 years. That amounts to about $200-million in total.

And keep in mind that one the Whitecaps only agreed to play under the dome because of the new roof and renovations AND that's also why we were able to get MLS into this city. Also keep in mind that that also means 20,000 or so spectators at BC Place for something like 20 home games at BC Place.....that should also add up to perhaps a hundred million in local economic spinoffs each year.


This is simply another case of the NDP being opposed to the Liberals for the sake of just being against them. And it seems like it was just yesterday that the NDP [and even Ravman himself] were harping on the Liberals for not doing more to BC Place.

Anyhow, I'm not worried....the NDP doesn't stand a chance at winning the election.

[fever]

Politics aside (under different circumstances I could see the parties' roles reversed on this issue), the cheap way out of this is to build a cheaper stadium like Toronto's somewhere else while making modest renovations to BC Place. The location might not be as good, but the stadium would actually be soccer-specific and have the desired 20000 to 30000 seats.

I don't think there's an economic of justification for the new roof (there doesn't have to be), and I don't think the changes will really make that much of difference aesthetically or functionally in the end, aside from making it technically soccer-ready.

[Canadian Mind]

Politics aside (under different circumstances I could see the parties' roles reversed on this issue), the cheap way out of this is to build a cheaper stadium like Toronto's somewhere else while making modest renovations to BC Place. The location might not be as good, but the stadium would actually be soccer-specific and have the desired 20000 to 30000 seats.

I don't think there's an economic of justification for the new roof (there doesn't have to be), and I don't think the changes will really make that much of difference aesthetically or functionally in the end, aside from making it technically soccer-ready.

well improving the safety of usage of the roof could always eb factored in. :D

[mrjauk]

Governments don't traditionally build research and development parks but I see where you are going. Once again though I was just contending that in terms of a public infrastructure project as much as the public good can be helped by one project over another, from an economic recovery standpoint they both inject the same amount of money into the economy.

Ravman was saying that since we are in a recession we should be spending money on transit and other greater good projects (which i fully agree with) however he implied that spending money on a new roof for bc place is nto a good idea in a recession. All I was saying is that they both inject the same amount of money into the economy so his criticism of the new roof is somewhat irrelevant with regards to the current economic environment. Whether this is a good use of public funds at any time is an entirely different debate, one which i believe we have had many times within this exact thread.

Thousands of BC residents may have been somewhat hyperbolic, but between indirect and direct employment it would easily account for over 500 jobs.

Okay, by adding the word "recovery" after economic, your argument makes a little bit more sense, but even from an economic recovery perspective, there is good spending and not-so-good spending.

If by economically rational, we mean maximizing expected utility, then there are more (and less) economically rational ways to spend the same amount of money.

An analogous situation arises with respect to spending on weapons and munitions. I remember some Einsteins on American television talking (as footage was being shown of a cruise missile being launched from a U.S. warship) about the economic stimulus gained from building those missiles. We were told that they cost $1 million each. So the idea was, well, now the US military will have to buy more, creating manufacturing jobs, so this was a win-win (military and economically). What these genuises failed to understand is that once the missile goes thud in the desert, its contribution to the US economy ends. Had that $1 million been spent on public transportation, or education, etc., it would continue providing knock-on benefits into the future.

[ravman]

This is simply another case of the NDP being opposed to the Liberals for the sake of just being against them. And it seems like it was just yesterday that the NDP [and even Ravman himself] were harping on the Liberals for not doing more to BC Place.


well i mean, we do not need the Ferrari version of the roof... I was harping for a new roof FOR the Olympics because the last thing we need is a roof that if flying like a toupee
I say we scale down the project and spend the other money on other essential projects like the Evergreeen Line and a skytrain to UBC... that is what BC needs... new rapid transit lines

we have seen this liberal govt give us a half a** line to the airport and a ferrari roof for BC Place... it should be the otherway around and you know it

btw incase you havent noticed, real estate has tanked... we could have gotten that much revenue back then, good luck getting them today


Note: i do not speak for the NDP... just because i agree with most of their views, doesnt mean i can speak for them

[nova9]

As a habitual NDP voter (I'm a teacher), I will have to assess my automatic vote for Carole James if they do plan on cancelling the roof upgrade.

NEVER take away stuff from people in the most important city in your dominion if you wnat to stay in power. Don't piss Vancouverites off for people in the rural areas, let me just say that. We are ROME and you are no Caesar I say.

[mr.x]

well i mean, we do not need the Ferrari version of the roof... I was harping for a new roof FOR the Olympics because the last thing we need is a roof that if flying like a toupee
I say we scale down the project and spend the other money on other essential projects like the Evergreeen Line and a skytrain to UBC... that is what BC needs... new rapid transit lines

Oh please, the Evergreen Line is done and the UBC extension is probably at least 5-6 years away until we'll see any work - we'll be out of recession well before then. The Surrey extension is probably the same.

You couldn't even build a rapid transit line with what we're spending on BC Place anyway, and if you haven't already noticed there have been quite a few transportation capital infrastructure announcements over the last few weeks adding up to hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Fact is, the modified stadium will be a great asset to the city and will provide economic benefits for our dollars worth. Scaling down the project would simply bring it back down to mediocrity...either do it right, or don't do it at all.

And you, and your beloved party, also seem to have completely ignored about the MLS.

While a new roof in time for 2010 would've been quite nice, there's no reason why we can't nor shouldn't build it for ourselves either (regardless of the recession) - to enjoy it for decades to come rather than just for a 17-day.



we have seen this liberal govt give us a half a** line to the airport and a ferrari roof for BC Place... it should be the otherway around and you know it

You'll say anything to defend the NDP.

First, you supported the new roof and the renovations and even harped on the Liberals for not doing more. But now, because the NDP has denounced the plans you're jumping ship and shitting on the plans. How typical.

The Canada Line is done. While I've had strong criticisms about it in the past, I'd like to reserve any further judgment until a year or so after the line is in operation.


btw incase you havent noticed, real estate has tanked... we could have gotten that much revenue back then, good luck getting them today

Note: i do not speak for the NDP... just because i agree with most of their views, doesnt mean i can speak for them

The BC Place land sales wouldn't have occurred anytime soon regardless, rather two years or so from now.


Note: you're the mouthpiece of the NDP in this forum.:rolleyes: The only member here that posts party news releases [and actually buys what they sell] is yourself. You don't exactly see any of us posting Liberal news releases.

Not to mention that you partisanize nearly every issue, and you make it quite blunt in nearly every post you make.....Liberal this, NDP that, their fault, his fault, her fault, finger pointing, bah.

[paradigm4]

You couldn't even build a rapid transit line with what we're spending on BC Place anyway, and if you haven't already noticed there have been quite a few transportation capital infrastructure announcements over the last few weeks adding up to hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now that's just not true. You might not be able to build much SkyTrain, but you could certainly build a nice LRT line for $365 M. Not saying they should - just pointing that out.

[mr.x]

Now that's just not true. You might not be able to build much SkyTrain, but you could certainly build a nice LRT line for $365 M. Not saying they should - just pointing that out.

Well, $365-million....minus the $100-million sponsor naming rights contract over 20 years....minus the ~$100-million in development revenues....and that leaves you with ~$165-million in taxpayer dollars.

It would most certainly be enough to build most of the Downtown Streetcar loop.

[Vancity]

Just get the renovations, upgrades, and the building of the new roof done. The city needs a lot of things. Having a renovated BC Place is a nice thing to have for our city. I, for one, am happy that we're getting a new stadium. Always having to hear other cities getting newer, state-of-the art facilities, and here in Vancouver, we have facilities that are aging faster than grandma and grandpa, and we don't do anything about building new stadiums, etc. If not even for the upgrades to BC Place, we wouldn't even have an MLS franchise, which, as someone else has pointed out, will bring millions of dollars to the city.

[jlousa]

The stadium is much like public transit as is the convention center, in that themselves they do not generate money, but they facilitate the making of money by their spinoffs.
I know I'm in the minority about thinking a retractable roof is a waste and we'd be economically better served by a new fixed roof. But getting the retractable isn't the worst thing we could do with the money either, at least we'll have something to show for it and sometimes it makes sense to spend some money to boost morale.
While I don't buy the Superbowl rumour, if it were to happen the boost to the city would be almost unmeasurable. Heck even stealing the ProBowl for a year would be huge.

[djmk]

hey everybody, great conversation!

however, lets refrain from the liberal/ndp bashing and stick to the non-political realm.

[mr.x]

The stadium is much like public transit as is the convention center, in that themselves they do not generate money, but they facilitate the making of money by their spinoffs.
I know I'm in the minority about thinking a retractable roof is a waste and we'd be economically better served by a new fixed roof. But getting the retractable isn't the worst thing we could do with the money either, at least we'll have something to show for it and sometimes it makes sense to spend some money to boost morale.
While I don't buy the Superbowl rumour, if it were to happen the boost to the city would be almost unmeasurable. Heck even stealing the ProBowl for a year would be huge.

Best line, ever. I couldn't agree more.

[hollywoodnorth]

Anyone notice the NDP ad campaign about the BC Place roof that has even been appearing here on SSP? (I looked to see if that's how this conversation started)

I'd recommend clicking on the ad as many times as possible to help drain the NDP's resources :) (Unless of course, the cost per click is only charged once per unique IP address)

yup I click ALL NDP ads non stop and tell other people to do the same :)

[LotusLand]

http://vancitybuzz.blogspot.com/2009/04/ndp-now-fuming-over-bc-place.html

The NDP seriously need to shut up and go to school because they know nothing but union rhetoric.

[mr.x]

Friends Of Soccer Objects to NDP Anti-Soccer Stadium Ads

On Wednesday, April 1, the BC New Democratic Party ran a series of internet ads on several soccer-related websites condemning the renovation of BC Place, and falsely suggesting that the cost of the renovation is coming at the expense of healthcare and the homeless. We at Friends of Soccer find these ads extremely misleading and innapropriate. We call on the NDP to immediately back away from this irresponsible threat to the future of soccer in our province.

The claim in the ad that BC citizens must choose between a soccer-friendly stadium and social services is both false and offensive. The NDP is well aware that the BC Place renovations are to be financed by the future sale and development of the lands surrounding the stadium, along with future sponsorship funds surrounding naming rights. Neither source is drawn from the general revenue tax base that fund social programs. To suggest otherwise is alarmist to say the least.

The NDP is also aware that the BC Place renovations are crucial to the development of soccer in the province. Only two weeks ago, Vancouver was awarded a Major League Soccer team for 2011. The BC Place renovations promised by the current provincial government were overwhelmingly the deciding factor in the bid process. The threat made by Carole James to revoke the renovations could place the future of professional soccer in BC in doubt, and has the potential to choke soccer projects being undertaken in other parts of BC as well.

Carole James should also recognize that BC Place is a major economic engine for the citizens of BC. Every event held there pumps millions of dollars into the BC Tourism, Hospitality and Retail industries. It is BC's largest trade and exposition centre, hosting over 200 events every year. And it is also home to the BC Lions, a football team loved by people throughout the province. Without these renovations, it is unlikely British Columbia would be hosting the Grey Cup game in 2011. The global exposure this facility provides for BC is unsurpassed.

As citizens, we expect governments to be able to address a host of issues. We expect our governments to provide sustainable healthcare, while still encouraging economic growth in our cities and towns. We expect our governments to help those who are downtrodden, but we also insist that governments allow its working citizens the freedom to build a good quality of life for their families. To say we must choose between these priorities is a false choice, and any party who forces that choice is not capable of governing this province.

Friends of Soccer has always been, and continues to be, a non-partisan grassroots movement. We have always supported the efforts of those who help the game in BC, and we've fiercely opposed those who threaten the development of soccer in our province. I'm pleased to say that we've done this regardless of party affiliation. But in this election campaign, we cannot allow the future of soccer in BC to be once again cast into doubt for cheap political gain.

It is now up the BC New Democratic Party to make a clear statement committing their party to the BC Place renovations without modification of the current plans or budget.

Otherwise, they can be certain that we will not stand idly by in this election campaign.

http://friendsofsoccer.blogspot.com/2009/04/friends-of-soccer-objects-to-ndp-anti.html

[johnjimbc]

Way to Go, Friends of Soccer!

I think you just gained another friend ;). I hate it when non-political groups or causes get caught in the cross-fire of an election, and I am very impressed that they issued such a well-thought out response.

I don't want to incur the wrath of NDP supporters here, but seriously I ought to be their target demographic and I have really been turned off by their eagerness to hoist any flag and/or hijack any bandwagon during this election cycle. It started with their trying to make points off the carbon tax, but it hasn't gotten better. I doubt I am the only one effected by their antics. There is a reason Campbell's negatives are just over 50% yet he still commands a double-digit lead on who can best lead the Province.

Perhaps they should just state their full slate of policies and run on them, which is how campaigns should be run. They should leave the sideshow stuff to someone else, somewhere on the other side of the 49th parallel. The current approach is rather juvenile, which is sad. BC deserves a real campaign of ideas.

[hollywoodnorth]

!Go Friends of Soccer Go!

[newjersey19]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3405685787_965bebf62e.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3405685377_8be566347c.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3615/3405684621_e06cffbeec.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3558/3406496944_eb1ff8a451.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3579/3406495746_09a3c107b7.jpg

[raggedy13]

^Care to elaborate? :) Are they doing something to the roof?

[CBeats]

Yeah, that's just the Playdome (which I missed for the 3rd time in a row) but not much else...

[ravman]

^Care to elaborate? :) Are they doing something to the roof?

they are removing the fan rooms that are downstairs and replacing them with these small and temporary ones uptop... thats my best guess... i dunno for sure

[mr.x]

Sort of looks like the roof is a living organism, and those are its feeding tubes.


What a shame that we're spending all this money on these temporary renovations.

[GeeCee]

Well, like your buddy over at SSC says, the roof could come down at ANY TIME!!1111 OMG ;)

The tubes do look pretty weird.

[Vancity]

Carole James and the NDP screwed up.

I want the roof, and the renovations to BC Place. it's about time we got an upgraded stadium.

[nova9]

Went to the Autoshow after the Convention Centre open house. It was a mess. Hard to see if anything has been done but being inside again just re-affirms how badly I want the stadium to be renovated already.

(BTW, is it me or is $15 for the Autoshow not worth it at all?)

[Distill3d]

Went to the Autoshow after the Convention Centre open house. It was a mess. Hard to see if anything has been done but being inside again just re-affirms how badly I want the stadium to be renovated already.

(BTW, is it me or is $15 for the Autoshow not worth it at all?)

gonna agree with you there. used to be that you could get free passes by test driving cars (or as it is in Calgary and Edmonton), so i went and test drove a car and asked the guy if he knew of any thing he could give me to sweeten the deal, like free auto show passes, and he said that no one here does that.

[isaidso]

So will the Lions be the first to use BC Place once the new roof is installed? It's going to a nice shot in the arm for football in Vancouver as well as an awesome venue for the Grey Cup.

http://www.vancouvermls2011.com/images/bg_sub_header.jpg

[Locked In]

So will the Lions be the first to use BC Place once the new roof is installed? It's going to a nice shot in the arm for football in Vancouver as well as an awesome venue for the Grey Cup.


The new roof is expected to be completed in early 2011 I believe. The 2011 MLS season starts months before the CFL season, so I would imagine the Whitecaps will play there in 2011 before the Lions do. Maybe they'll manage to get a marquee event in there to open it - a touring premier league team or something - but the timing of the overseas football seasons might make that awkward.

[mr.x]

London Olympic Stadium
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3367810322_2154335874_b.jpg



Hopefully, BC Place could have similar banners running around its exterior to hide the concrete.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x11/MartinLeRoy/London-1.jpg

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x11/MartinLeRoy/London2.jpg

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/Parklands2.jpg

[vanman]

^That stadium is hideous.

[mr.x]

^That stadium is hideous.

I actually like it, it's London's committment to sustainability.

You could argue it being ugly because the stadium is largely temporary. It'll seat 80,000 during 2012, but will be reduced to 20,000 after the Games. Only the lower bowl seats are permanent.

And oh, btw the London stadium will cost 550 million pounds....roughly equivalent to over $1-billion Canadian.:haha: Quite a price to pay for a venue that is mainly temporary.

[vanman]

What!?!? That's insane. For a billion dollars that stadium should be permanent, ugly or not.

[dreambrother808]

it looks so expo 86 :yuck:

[CBeats]

the triangular lights are...something else

i agree with the expo likeness - all triangles and such make it look like science world does

[mr.x]

the triangular lights are...something else


They were originally trapezoids. :D

[CBeats]

They were originally trapezoids. :D

Oh my. Who knew temporary structures = hideous geometric lights?