HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2009, 10:43 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
The naysayers, especially Archie Teck, rely almost exclusively on speculation and take a worst-case scenario approach.
Not so. I take a reality based approach. Let's not even go where worst-case approach takes this idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
Most of the details of the domed stadium, such as how it will be heated or cooled, are not available yet. How can you criticize unreleased details?
I don't need details like paint color and seat fabric to know that heating and cooling costs for a structure that large will be massive. Nor do I need details to know that the heating and cooling costs for Taylor Field are almost nil. All those costs will be new expenditures against the city budget. Do we turn off the heat at the libraries and schools to make up the cost? Or do we have some volunteers to accept giant tax hikes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
More importantly, how can anyone criticize the studying of an issue that has caught provincial and national attention?

Some people criticize the cost of the study (0.28% of the potential estimated cost of the full realization of a domed facility) and others criticize the objectivity of the researchers.

How can you evaluate the objectivity of researchers when they have barely commenced their study?
Easily, when the quote studying unquote is in no way studious, and the researchers (your word) are not actually researchers but stadium salespeople.

We've already learned the misleadingly named feasibility report is going to contain design plans and that key cost drivers have already been set in stone such as location, size, main features, and perhaps the construction company. It will be the order form for a stadium, not a true feasibility study. Clearly the decision is to buy now, and hope that the feasibility works itself out later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
So much pre-emptive nonsense from so many narrow-minded individuals.
And I happen to think it's more narrow minded to close one's mind to reality and cast a blind eye on the many and obvious challenges that exist. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

Last edited by Archie Teck; Aug 1, 2009 at 3:57 AM.
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2009, 5:17 PM
hoeding hoeding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 49
I think that one thing that people who want housing or commercial buildings instead of a new dome need to realize that once the new stadium is built Mosaic will more than likely be torn to the ground opening up another large swath of land.
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2009, 7:58 PM
Migs's Avatar
Migs Migs is offline
Regina 4 Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Teck View Post
Successful and viable stadiums like BC Place, Olympic Stadium and the Skydome?
Who said the multipurpose stadium would be anything like BC Place (which is getting a 300mil reno), Olympic Stadium, or the Skydome? Do a little research and look into modern facilities like a scale down version of the University of Pheonix stadium or the one currently being built in Stolkholm sweden.

Quote:
If what you want is stores, hotels, movie theaters and waterparks, why not build those directly then, instead of building a monolith and hoping these other things spring up in the tiny slivers of available land that would surround it.
Funny you say that as there are currently 2 hotels going to be built on the old-Superstore site (immediately beside the railyards) as well as one that will likely be built in conjunction with the Stadium. Those hoteliers must be idiots...
Quote:
I would point out there is no catalyst whatsoever for those sorts of things to spring up just because of a big stadium. There IS however a strong case to be made that if we were to drastically increase residency of the area, those things you want WILL come into being.
Instead of bitching and complaining about the stadium being built at this location, why don't you champion a push for increased residency in the numerous areas available for development currently within the downtown area? You make it seem as though there isn't much land for development in the area, and you conveniently forgot the mention the large amount of land that will become available once the old stadium is demolished.

Quote:
Can you cite some success stories that use real financials? Not just feel-good numbers like economic impact that can't really be measured.
Is your way of life seriously all about numbers? If that was the case then there would be zero stadiums across Canada, no CFL, zero landmarks, zeri museums, zero librairies, zero parks, zero hockey rinks, etc etc (as they rarely if ever make a profit)


Quote:
It's worth noting that even though the riders would be the premiere tenant, they have a history of being unable to pay even basic, minimal rent. And that's for the current aged and thrifty facilities. If they struggle to afford their modest rent now, do they have any chance of paying anywhere close to fair value for a luxury 350 million facility?
And you once again only mention that what supports your agenda. You failed to mention the millions that would be brought in annually with the sale of coporate boxes, the hunderds of millions that would be brought in with hosting the Grey Cup once every 8 years instead of twice in a century, etc etc.
Quote:
I'm pleased to see the sensible minority are speaking up and pointing out the folly of this concept. Perhaps we will come to our senses in time to prevent a big mistake.
Break out your crayons and posters. The vocal majority is looking forward to watching all 9 of you march in front of the Legislature this winter in -40C weather wishing you had an enclosed structure to protest in,

Last edited by Migs; Jul 31, 2009 at 10:27 PM.
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2009, 8:32 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Teck View Post

If what you want is stores, hotels, movie theaters and waterparks, why not build those directly then, instead of building a monolith and hoping these other things spring up in the tiny slivers of available land that would surround it.
If you look at Google Earth you will see that two BC Place stadiums could sit on the rail yards and still leave room for double tracks and lots of excess lands for other building and parking structures.
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2009, 10:43 PM
Migs's Avatar
Migs Migs is offline
Regina 4 Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
If you look at Google Earth you will see that two BC Place stadiums could sit on the rail yards and still leave room for double tracks and lots of excess lands for other building and parking structures.
Exactly.

IMO it would be goofy to build residential properties on the railyard lands given the gross amount land that is already available that should be used for development in the downtown core. Just look at all that ground level parking........yeah lets build the much needed residential properties somewhere other than these vacant lots......

http://www.reginadowntown.ca/siteima...townmapnew.pdf
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 3:34 AM
mjpaul's Avatar
mjpaul mjpaul is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Little Chicago. (Moose Jaw)
Posts: 123
I bet that they will design it to look like a Westeel-Roscoe Grain bin or a Behlen Quonset. Some Joker will insist it has to resemble "something Saskatchewan".

the same guy who had the "Queen City Ex" brainstorm will demand this.

i dont like stupid people. they make me mad I tells yah.

(and part of YQR is built like a Westell Roscoe grain bin...you can see this when taxing out to the runway)
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 4:03 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoeding View Post
I think that one thing that people who want housing or commercial buildings instead of a new dome need to realize that once the new stadium is built Mosaic will more than likely be torn to the ground opening up another large swath of land.
Wrongly or rightly, that is not really a desirable neighborhood. Yuppies want Harbor Landing not a place near Dewdney and Robinson.

The stadium site is already in a near perfect location. Why blow hundreds of millions of dollars to move it to a bad location? It's only to placate the casino's interests. Next will people want to tear down the warehouse district to make room for the riders practice field.
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 4:12 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
If you look at Google Earth you will see that two BC Place stadiums could sit on the rail yards and still leave room for double tracks and lots of excess lands for other building and parking structures.
My impression from the plan views was that is too small an area to fit much more than a stadium.

So I decided to survey the area this morning and get a feel for the size first hand.

We left there even more convinced the location could fit a stadium and the forementioned hotels, but not much else. The rear of the via station and postal office feel even closer to Dewdney when you are there in person. It also had the feel that a stadium situated there would feel like it's in the shadow of the downtown, rather than standing out on its own.
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 4:31 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
If you look at Google Earth you will see that two BC Place stadiums could sit on the rail yards and still leave room for double tracks and lots of excess lands for other building and parking structures.
Wholistic architecture is more than just being able to drop a structure of a certain dimension onto a plot of land. It's about situating it and surrounding it appropriately to achieve a certain impression, certain functionality, and certain flow. From the aeriel view, you could drop Taylor Field over Victoria Park. But you wouldn't want to.

Look at the rail site more closely. The widest parcel (from Albert Street to the east) is already spoken for with development fully under way. The area gets thinner as you travel east. There's talk of a hotel at the east end, no doubt linked by passageway to the casino.

So in the middle third section you could drop in a Taylor Field sized stadium... barely. You'd have to give up the plaza, the practice field, tailgating, and parking however. Maybe we could use the abandoned Taylor Field grounds for these things, and just take the monorail over to the downtown dome for the Rolling Stones, Eagles, Beatles & Led Zeppelin concerts every weekend.

Of course I jest. But I would really rather see a nice structure that rises out of the prairie (like Taylor Field) than to try and squeeze something into too small a parcel and is surrounded by architecture that makes it seem smaller than it really is.
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 5:12 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
Who said the multipurpose stadium would be anything like BC Place (which is getting a 300mil reno), Olympic Stadium, or the Skydome?
Whoah, backtrack 2 seconds. You were the one who questioned my asertions about economic viability. I brought you 3 very relevant and comparable examples of stadium failures. How about you provide some facts and logic as to how this stadium will avoid the fate of its contemporaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
Funny you say that as there are currently 2 hotels going to be built on the old-Superstore site (immediately beside the railyards) as well as one that will likely be built in conjunction with the Stadium. Those hoteliers must be idiots...
Anything but. They are shrewdly taking advantage of the guillible public and our naive leaders. They will let public money pour into a giant sinkhole to create the traffic that will let their private venture succeed. They will get rich(er) while the public loses out. Now if Bast offers to personally purchase and operate the stadium, that's another thing. But it won't happen because he much smarter than our politicians when it comes to turning a profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
Instead of bitching and complaining about the stadium being built at this location, why don't you champion a push for increased residency in the numerous areas available for development currently within the downtown area?
I already do but it's futile trying to save glasses of fresh water when a rabid group around you is trying to pour truckloads of salt into the lake. The costs and negative impacts of a downtown stadium will kill any chance of something better taking place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
You make it seem as though there isn't much land for development in the area, and you conveniently forgot the mention the large amount of land that will become available once the old stadium is demolished.
Conveniently? Few would regard that location as desirable land for residency and the associated uses we speak of. Nobody is clamoring to gentrify the streets around Taylor Field, and I highly doubt that would change.

Besides, it's yet another idea that doesn't make any sense.

People that work downtown won't want to walk from Taylor Field to their workplace. It's unrealistic. They'd need to drive or perhaps take transit. But once a person makes the decision to travel to and from work, the vast majority would then select more desirable suburban sites at the outskirts with a lower density of pawn shops.

The Taylor Field site is already fed by large traffic arteries and is flanked by various excellent sports and entertainment facilities.... now doesn't that sound like a site that's just perfect for...... oh I don't know... how about the socalled multi-use complex?

Last edited by Archie Teck; Aug 1, 2009 at 5:25 AM.
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 5:16 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
Is your way of life seriously all about numbers? If that was the case then there would be zero stadiums across Canada, no CFL, zero landmarks, zeri museums, zero librairies, zero parks, zero hockey rinks, etc etc (as they rarely if ever make a profit)
Actually your example undermines your original argument. The only way we can have some of these public facilities is through prudent and sensible use of public funds. If we blow decades worth of money on one giant flop of a project, we risk killing all those many important elements. And for what? Someone's short-term political glory? To crank up our casino take a little higher? To deceive ourselves that someone outside the province will care that we built a cement ring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
And you once again only mention that what supports your agenda. You failed to mention the millions that would be brought in annually with the sale of coporate boxes, the hunderds of millions that would be brought in with hosting the Grey Cup once every 8 years instead of twice in a century, etc etc.
I "failed" to mention these because they are sadly based on false hope and unrealistic dreams.

Do some homework my friend. We have a recent market value on stadium sponsorship. Mosaic -the company we sold out our history to - is paying 375,000 annually to essentially own the identity of one of a historic landmark. Even obtaining the 375,000 figure took a fair amount of negotiation and concession.

What makes you think they - or anyone else - is prepare to pony up 100 times the size of that already big deal?

I guess maybe we could find 99 more companies, all of them as rich as Mosaic, and give naming rights to all 100 companies. We'd be briefly famous for having the longest stadium name in the world. Our playing surface would gain world-wide attention for having zero green area and being 100% logo covered. But I do fear that companies 3 through 100 might question the value of their sponsorship dollars spent. And we'd lose thousands of paying customers since these 100 corporate sponsors would want boxes and event tickets for themselves.

No, the fact is Mosaic won't pay 100 times that number. No responsible private business will pay 100 times market value for something.

Unfortunately though, I fear that casino and crown corp monopolies aren't as grounded to reality as real life businesses are. I fear they could cheerfully pay 100 times the fair rate for something. After all, it's not their money they're wasting, it's the guillible public's money.

So to your argument that "millions of dollars" will be "brought in" by corporate sponsorships. It just doesn't hold water. Nobody is paying anything close to that level.

Entertainment money is discretionary and finite, so any gains seen in big events will be at the cost of other small events. Somebody skipped spending $150 at Buffalo Days today because he bought tickets to Aerosmith instead. Except the Aerosmith money largely goes out of town when the band leaves. That's how it actually works. You're not actually creating economic impact, you're just shuffling dollars around under some shells.

The argument that the grey cup brings in "hundreds of millions" is also false. Millions, maybe in gross, but much less net. If 5,000 come for the grey cup, and they spend 1,000 each, that's $5 million. I think the CFL buyout for the event is in the low single millions. If you covet the 1 or 1.5 million profit of a grey cup... then do I have an idea for you! Just stave off building a giant stadium and viola - there's a risk free, tax free guaranteed $350 million right there. Sorry but it's senseless to spend $350 million in hopes of a $1.5 million return every 8 years.

It's also important for people to realize that money being quote brought in unquote is not the same as net profit nor even direct revenue. The Rolling Stones tour promoter pocketed over 90% of the "economic impact" of that concert. The real world benefit to the community is a tiny tiny fraction of the big number that gets touted.

Let's break it down so as to understand it. A Rolling Stones concert comes to town for 2 nights. Some hotels and restaurants go from 80% capacity to 100% for 2 nights. A 20% jump in room bookings for 2 nights. That is a very incremental gain that is here and gone in a flash. The city maybe gets $120,000 in rental revenue for the site booking which is the number everyone talks about. Nobody mentions the overhead and policing and other costs of say $100,000. The real world net impact is $20,000, but people walk around spouting about "hundreds of millions of dollars".

It's human nature to strut and want to put up the big numbers. But let's stay in reality when it comes to the actual economics.

Last edited by Archie Teck; Aug 1, 2009 at 5:51 AM.
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 11:37 AM
Migs's Avatar
Migs Migs is offline
Regina 4 Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,451
If you think a GreyCup only brings in 1-1.5 million dollars in economic profit to the city then you aren't worth arguing with as your bias is clouding your judgement. That said, can I have your tickets to the grand opening?
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 12:15 PM
grumpy old man grumpy old man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
If you think a GreyCup only brings in 1-1.5 million dollars in economic profit to the city then you aren't worth arguing with as your bias is clouding your judgement. That said, can I have your tickets to the grand opening?
Hate to disappoint ya, but if you do the math you'll discover the actual revenue/profits a Grey Cup bring in don't add up to the hundreds of millions you mentioned.

Let's play a game.

Assume 50,000 people spend $500 each over three days in Regina. So in three days maybe they spend $25,000,000.

Then there are the cost's to the city. Any idea what the Grey Cup cost's to host? Police and street maintenance and the spruce up costs, etc...

Don't get me wrong, the Grey Cup is a wonderful event that is great for the bottom line of the host city.

But we must be realistic when advancing the real worth of such an event. Hundreds of millions in revenues is absurd.
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 12:32 PM
Migs's Avatar
Migs Migs is offline
Regina 4 Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy old man View Post
Hate to disappoint ya, but if you do the math you'll discover the actual revenue/profits a Grey Cup bring in don't add up to the hundreds of millions you mentioned.

Let's play a game.

Assume 50,000 people spend $500 each over three days in Regina. So in three days maybe they spend $25,000,000.

Then there are the cost's to the city. Any idea what the Grey Cup cost's to host? Police and street maintenance and the spruce up costs, etc...

Don't get me wrong, the Grey Cup is a wonderful event that is great for the bottom line of the host city.

But we must be realistic when advancing the real worth of such an event. Hundreds of millions in revenues is absurd.
The GreyCup in Toronto in '07 brought in around 150Mil in economic activity to the GTA. When I said hundreds of millions of dollars from the Grey Cup, I was refering to the amount of games we could host over the lifespan of the new stadium.
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 2:56 PM
Migs's Avatar
Migs Migs is offline
Regina 4 Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Teck View Post
Whoah, backtrack 2 seconds. You were the one who questioned my asertions about economic viability. I brought you 3 very relevant and comparable examples of stadium failures. How about you provide some facts and logic as to how this stadium will avoid the fate of its contemporaries.
Define stadium failures? Is it simply a failure if it doesn't make money or is it a success if it brings civic pride, millions worth of economic activity, history (are you aware of the history that has already taken place at a place like the Skydome?), entertainment, arts, etc. Without this stadium failiure that you mention, where would Toronto be without the Blue Jays, the Argos, the Wrestlemania's, the hundreds of trade shows, the hundreds of concerts, etc etc that have already taken place at this world renowned stadium?
Quote:
Anything but. They are shrewdly taking advantage of the guillible public and our naive leaders. They will let public money pour into a giant sinkhole to create the traffic that will let their private venture succeed. They will get rich(er) while the public loses out. Now if Bast offers to personally purchase and operate the stadium, that's another thing. But it won't happen because he much smarter than our politicians when it comes to turning a profit.
Whoa whoa whoa, you are the one who implied in a previous post that nobody would want to set up shop beside a facility of this nature, now your saying they want to take advantage of it. Huh??
Quote:
I already do but it's futile trying to save glasses of fresh water when a rabid group around you is trying to pour truckloads of salt into the lake. The costs and negative impacts of a downtown stadium will kill any chance of something better taking place.
Since you brought it up in a previous post, did the downtown study that was just completed state anything negative about a downtown stadium being built? just curious....

And you still didn't answer the question as to why you're so against building a stadium at this location when there are numerous other spots already within the downtown core that need revitilization. (some of these locations have been vacant for decades yet you are upset about an exciting development in a completely different area)
Quote:
Conveniently? Few would regard that location as desirable land for residency and the associated uses we speak of.
What better way to revitilize the current location of Taylor Field
Quote:
Nobody is clamoring to gentrify the streets around Taylor Field, and I highly doubt that would change.

Besides, it's yet another idea that doesn't make any sense.

People that work downtown won't want to walk from Taylor Field to their workplace. It's unrealistic. They'd need to drive or perhaps take transit. But once a person makes the decision to travel to and from work, the vast majority would then select more desirable suburban sites at the outskirts with a lower density of pawn shops.
What the hell are you talking about, its 3 freakin blocks from the current stadium location to the downtown? Do you think people would hop in their cars, drive a few blocks, and then look for parking in areas in the downtown that could use new residential developments much more than the railyards location your whining about. No offence but your not making any sense.....
Quote:
The Taylor Field site is already fed by large traffic arteries and is flanked by various excellent sports and entertainment facilities.... now doesn't that sound like a site that's just perfect for...... oh I don't know... how about the socalled multi-use complex?
The railyards are fed by large traffic arteries and are flanked by various other services ammenities (like the Casino, stores, hotels, restaurants, bars, etc), perfect for a brand new multiuse complex. Just ask the owner of Bushwakkers and McNally's if he's exciting about this project......
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 3:06 PM
Migs's Avatar
Migs Migs is offline
Regina 4 Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Teck View Post
Actually your example undermines your original argument. The only way we can have some of these public facilities is through prudent and sensible use of public funds. If we blow decades worth of money on one giant flop of a project, we risk killing all those many important elements. And for what? Someone's short-term political glory? To crank up our casino take a little higher? To deceive ourselves that someone outside the province will care that we built a cement ring?

I "failed" to mention these because they are sadly based on false hope and unrealistic dreams.

Do some homework my friend. We have a recent market value on stadium sponsorship. Mosaic -the company we sold out our history to - is paying 375,000 annually to essentially own the identity of one of a historic landmark. Even obtaining the 375,000 figure took a fair amount of negotiation and concession.

What makes you think they - or anyone else - is prepare to pony up 100 times the size of that already big deal?

I guess maybe we could find 99 more companies, all of them as rich as Mosaic, and give naming rights to all 100 companies. We'd be briefly famous for having the longest stadium name in the world. Our playing surface would gain world-wide attention for having zero green area and being 100% logo covered. But I do fear that companies 3 through 100 might question the value of their sponsorship dollars spent. And we'd lose thousands of paying customers since these 100 corporate sponsors would want boxes and event tickets for themselves.

No, the fact is Mosaic won't pay 100 times that number. No responsible private business will pay 100 times market value for something.

Unfortunately though, I fear that casino and crown corp monopolies aren't as grounded to reality as real life businesses are. I fear they could cheerfully pay 100 times the fair rate for something. After all, it's not their money they're wasting, it's the guillible public's money.

So to your argument that "millions of dollars" will be "brought in" by corporate sponsorships. It just doesn't hold water. Nobody is paying anything close to that level.

Entertainment money is discretionary and finite, so any gains seen in big events will be at the cost of other small events. Somebody skipped spending $150 at Buffalo Days today because he bought tickets to Aerosmith instead. Except the Aerosmith money largely goes out of town when the band leaves. That's how it actually works. You're not actually creating economic impact, you're just shuffling dollars around under some shells.

The argument that the grey cup brings in "hundreds of millions" is also false. Millions, maybe in gross, but much less net. If 5,000 come for the grey cup, and they spend 1,000 each, that's $5 million. I think the CFL buyout for the event is in the low single millions. If you covet the 1 or 1.5 million profit of a grey cup... then do I have an idea for you! Just stave off building a giant stadium and viola - there's a risk free, tax free guaranteed $350 million right there. Sorry but it's senseless to spend $350 million in hopes of a $1.5 million return every 8 years.

It's also important for people to realize that money being quote brought in unquote is not the same as net profit nor even direct revenue. The Rolling Stones tour promoter pocketed over 90% of the "economic impact" of that concert. The real world benefit to the community is a tiny tiny fraction of the big number that gets touted.

Let's break it down so as to understand it. A Rolling Stones concert comes to town for 2 nights. Some hotels and restaurants go from 80% capacity to 100% for 2 nights. A 20% jump in room bookings for 2 nights. That is a very incremental gain that is here and gone in a flash. The city maybe gets $120,000 in rental revenue for the site booking which is the number everyone talks about. Nobody mentions the overhead and policing and other costs of say $100,000. The real world net impact is $20,000, but people walk around spouting about "hundreds of millions of dollars".

It's human nature to strut and want to put up the big numbers. But let's stay in reality when it comes to the actual economics.
Are you aware that there are currently 4 private companies interested in this project?

And I am curious, when this project is finished, are you going to be a patron?
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 3:26 PM
grumpy old man grumpy old man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 512
Quote:
Define stadium failures? Is it simply a failure if it doesn't make money or is it a success if it brings civic pride, millions worth of economic activity, history (are you aware of the history that has already taken place at a place like the Skydome?), entertainment, arts, etc. Without this stadium failiure that you mention, where would Toronto be without the Blue Jays, the Argos, the Wrestlemania's, the hundreds of trade shows, the hundreds of concerts, etc etc that have already taken place at this world renowned stadium?
Great big leap to a conclusion that none of these events, historic or no, would not have happened without the Skydome. This is one of the fatal flaws in your argument favouring such a structure.

Did Regina lose out at an opportunity for a Grey Cup? The Rolling Stones? Don't forget the Alouettes were struggling in that monstrous Big O and are doing wonderfully in an outdoor stadium one third the size. The Argonauts are considering building a similar sized outdoor stadium as well.

You ought to consider not comparing Regina opportunities to those that might be available to Toronto or Vancouver. Some are possible. Most will never happen.

I feel your argument would be much stronger were you to keep the reach of your dreams more realistic.
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 4:20 PM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
The GreyCup in Toronto in '07 brought in around 150Mil in economic activity to the GTA. When I said hundreds of millions of dollars from the Grey Cup, I was refering to the amount of games we could host over the lifespan of the new stadium.
Nice cover up!

But still you use the disguise of "economic activity". Economic activity is not a true measure of anything. When have you ever seen a company financial statement that talks about "economic impact" or "economic activity"? The answer is you don't, because these are bs phrases used when someone is trying to sell something that doesn't have a valid business case.

Smoke and mirrors come out, and numbers get magically rounded up, waaaaay way up.

If it were to be measured, what is the actual incremental benefit to a city from an event... and more importantly, what of that amount can actually be directly attributed to the prescence of the $350 million facility?

It seems to be getting ignored that Regina has successfully hosted 2 grey cups with the existing stadium. Clearly a $350 million outlay is not necessary and has zero chance of even breaking even.
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 4:32 PM
Migs's Avatar
Migs Migs is offline
Regina 4 Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy old man View Post
Great big leap to a conclusion that none of these events, historic or no, would not have happened without the Skydome. This is one of the fatal flaws in your argument favouring such a structure.
Are you suggesting the Blue Jays would still be playing in the old exhibition stadium? (which was also built with public money)

Quote:
Did Regina lose out at an opportunity for a Grey Cup?
Yup. Its already been whispered out of the CFL head office that Regina won't get anymore Grey Cups under the current conditions.
Quote:
The Rolling Stones? Don't forget the Alouettes were struggling in that monstrous Big O and are doing wonderfully in an outdoor stadium one third the size. The Argonauts are considering building a similar sized outdoor stadium as well.
What makes you think the new stadium in Regina will be anything like the Skydome or BigO?
Quote:
You ought to consider not comparing Regina opportunities to those that might be available to Toronto or Vancouver. Some are possible. Most will never happen.
Under the current conditions I agree with that last sentence. When this stadium gets built, it will be the only enclosed facility between Vancouver and Toronto. Do the math.......
Quote:
I feel your argument would be much stronger were you to keep the reach of your dreams more realistic.
Sorry but I don't vote for the NDP, I like to think big. For decades this province has been held back by thinkers like Archieteck. Now with VERY popular leaders like Fiacco and Wall running the show (both of whom are in full support of a retractable roofed stadium at this location), the province has never been in better shape.
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 4:35 PM
Migs's Avatar
Migs Migs is offline
Regina 4 Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Teck View Post
Nice cover up!

But still you use the disguise of "economic activity". Economic activity is not a true measure of anything. When have you ever seen a company financial statement that talks about "economic impact" or "economic activity"? The answer is you don't, because these are bs phrases used when someone is trying to sell something that doesn't have a valid business case.

Smoke and mirrors come out, and numbers get magically rounded up, waaaaay way up.

If it were to be measured, what is the actual incremental benefit to a city from an event... and more importantly, what of that amount can actually be directly attributed to the prescence of the $350 million facility?

It seems to be getting ignored that Regina has successfully hosted 2 grey cups with the existing stadium. Clearly a $350 million outlay is not necessary and has zero chance of even breaking even.
What drives an economy??? People spending money.

And who really cares if this thing breaks even, with that ridiculous mentality it was stupid to deepen Wascana Lake a few years ago as we'll never get the return on our investment.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:22 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.