HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2009, 6:13 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is offline
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 6,230
^ exactly. I think we all hope that Regina can get a new stadium built. I am just of the opinion that sports like football, baseball, etc. belong in open air stadiums.
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2009, 6:15 PM
Migs's Avatar
Migs Migs is offline
Regina 4 Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,451
Here is a fun panoramic view of the new stadium location.

http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/foo...ion/index.html

And I am not too sure why people are so concerned about parking. Think about what Stormer said above as well as the possible addition onto the Casino parkade. And don't forget about the multitude of areas just east of Broad St (ie where the old Molson's brewery is located). I believe there willl be very little if any surface parking immediately beside the stadium as there are big things planned for the area.
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2009, 7:14 PM
hoeding hoeding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
Hoeding! OMG that parking looks awful.

I wouldn't be too focussed on the location of the existing tunnels. I expect there will be more than one crossing of the tracks. I would like to see a wide bridge over the tracks at Scarth Street that would allow pedestrians and maybe even vehicles to cross and give a feel that the stadium area is part of downtown rather than cut off by the tracks. The bridge could even have landscaping, outdoor art, kiosks, etc. Think of the famous Rialto Bridge in Venice.

This is a natural spot for a bridge as it would go in the space between the post office and Casino Show Lounge/Casino office building. It would lead directly into the North entrance of the Cornwall Centre and into the main hall of the mall which is really just an enclosed streetch of Scarth St. It then leads to the South exit on the the F.W. Hill Pedestrian Mall.
That would be the natural location for a tunnel to the casino because of the existing casino layout iirc.(could be wrong, I've only really been to the show lounge)


-edit- I think I labeled sasktel's parkade wrong

     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2009, 7:36 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,574
You are exactly right on the tunnel location. My point is merely that I do not expect the location of the tunnel to dictate where the stadium is situated.

These are pics of the tunnel I posted on the Regina Construciton thread a while back:


     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2009, 7:52 PM
hoeding hoeding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
You are exactly right on the tunnel location. My point is merely that I do not expect the location of the tunnel to dictate where the stadium is situated.
Yeah, the stadium mainly landed where my copy and paste happened It likely depends on whether or not the Casino prefers to have the stadium close to it, or to have the related hotels and other commercial developments near. One thing is for sure and that is that I hope we don't end up with a downtown acre of flat gravel parking This amount of landscape being opened up in the downtown core of a city is a very rare opportunity by all standards and I would hate to see it squandered with poor use of land.
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2009, 12:38 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 11,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjpaul View Post
hillbilly Liberal douchbags, IMO, they are such losers.

ha ha...yeah michael ignatief is such a hillbilly....look at where the overwhelming conservative vote comes from in this country....lots of guys named billy who live in the hills....
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2009, 12:48 AM
saskdave saskdave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 76
Came across this......some more food for thought on a dome for Regina..

Dave

http://www.saundersevans.com/portfol...um%20dome.html
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2009, 1:24 AM
mjpaul's Avatar
mjpaul mjpaul is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Little Chicago. (Moose Jaw)
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
ha ha...yeah michael ignatief is such a hillbilly....look at where the overwhelming conservative vote comes from in this country....lots of guys named billy who live in the hills....

When i say "Liberal", i dont mean the "Liberal Party" because they are
overqualified as far as douchbags are concerned. (NDP and Harper Neo cons incl.)


I am reading over the report for the stadium and now i am kinda getting pumped up about it. Just imagine the possibilities now that the Railroad yard is being relocated near the airport. The ideas are limitless.

Its great that Saskatchewan has two growing and vibrant cities...the competition and rivalry is very positive.

it would be neat to see a mini light rapid Transport linking downtown via the stadium to Evraz place.

The stereotyping of Regina will slowly fade away
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2009, 10:32 PM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcaout View Post
It is good this forum is up and running, a few of the Regina development fourm people probably tire sifting through dome posts.

People who read the other forum will know I am against the dome idea and I wanted to make a few points here why that is.

First, the city CMA maybe up to 250 000 (I threw Moose Jaw in) or 1/4 the population of Calgary/Edmonton and 1/2 to 1/3 the CMA of Winnipeg. The connections by Air aren't as good, though that might change, by road are the same, no rail. We are economically and geographically isolated although this is being addressed with airport expansion and HUB creation. The size of the facility and our geographic position/ surroundings don't add up.

Second, the main tennant Roughriders are probably more popular than ever but that has fluctuated in the past. More important, the CFL is strong now but regardless of how well the Riders do failure in Toronto due to NFL competition-subsequent loss of TV interest could destroy the league as we know it. The Leader Post recently said more than 50% of CFL merchandise comes from the Riders. Because we're doing well doesn't insure the league is or will in the future.

Third, although the football field turf is perfect for the Riders it doesn't allow for other sports. Soccer locally could be played on it but exibition games are probablly the only chance for some kind of professional soccer, but the market isn't large enough, and the very large clubs in Europe could attract people from the praries but they wont play on a artificial surface. Canadian national team wont come and Rugby is out. From the executive summery report, baseball looked like it would need some modification of the playing surface to be wider than necessary for just football and again not a market or venue for anything greater than A baseball and I'd doubt A could have a proper go. Hockey, maybe, but what about cooling the space effectively for an exhibition game be worth it? Basketball doesn't fit, although again at a local level I can imagine like 8 courts for some kind of event/tournament.

Forth, Tradeshows are very important to fill the calendars of the other major Canadian domes- go to their websites to check them out- I could imagine a fair few car-boat-home/garden-cottage-RV type events but it seems our market may not support the largest of them and I question how much will be just stealing off the Exhibition Grounds.

Fifth Concerts, Full field concerts will be few and far between just because those acts are few and far between. U2, the Who, Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Led Zepplin, Paul McCartney, Springstien with Tom Petty maybe The Egales, Billy Joel. I'm running out and the last few would have to be package deals to get nearly 50 000 people to come to Regina. Again, this would likely depend on other prarie cities not hosting the same act on that tour. I can imagine most concerts requiring half a field and then it gets interesting because the capacity is comparble to a saddle dome, rexall, ACC. While this sounds good, again it become more likely the cities around us still are on the tour and the numbers go down. Also different sounds that don't a have a broad appeal might not attract the numbers. For example, AC/DC is an event and they're popular enough through the generations that there are many fans and many will go just because it is the ticket, the party in town to be at. Would Nine Inch Nails, System of a Down or Radiohead attract 20 000 in Saskatchewan? I'm not convinced, but probably a Kanye West, No Doubt or Red Hot Chilli Peppers could work half a dome in the Sask market, but we'd be competing with S'Toon for some of those. The best facility for concerts would be a multi-purpose room attached with good accoustics that could hold 1500-2000 +. Use it as a ballroom style, with lots of smaller banquets and conventions for the day and at night it would provide a venue for bands but again do bands fly over because of venues or just because of lack of demand outside major markets?

Sixth, 350 million is a lot even by current stadium standards, look around at europe or north america and most stadia, even ones much larger are less or similar in cost. 350 doesn't include parking, land cost/servicing or the walkways/connections to link different projects-possible hotels- or areas (downtown). The porject seems much more expensive now than recent ones and no costing has been provided. Parking and traffic is a major concern for downtown. For rider games I can imagine park and ride solutions using the exhibition grounds or malls and busing in. But there will have to be parking for various other events at different times. I wish it weren't so, but this is a driving city/region, although building up the casino lot or extensive underground/parking strcutures or probably a combination of those options will a park and ride might get the job done.

Seventh, I am a little concerned with the economic determinism in the pro side. I have no doubt such a facility will bring more, probably not that much more, dollers into Regina but so far the bars and Casino have been the most obvious benificiaries but is that what the city wants to become, 'Regina, come for the dome, stay for the binge drinking and gambling.' I foresee Dewdney Ave becoming like a Redmile or Oilermile complete with rowdy unpradictable crowds and rampant alcoholism. Every game because that's likely the front door to the stadium. Casino connections aren't for those under 19, or will laws change or special areas be created. Where do the buses leave to/from if the north street is full of people off to the entertainment district after the game? It is important that we understand how much this realigns the city, it's focal points, and where activity could potentialy take place.


Lastly, the process of releasing the report and starting a feasability study on the same day, the lack of any time to think or debate -even on the other fourm people have been attacked on their character/social-economic status for oposition. The executive summary realeased by the government has no costing, no way to confirm the numbers and no public in put. That said CTV news Regina did an online poll and found 69% were for. Not scientific, but there seems to be broad support of 55-60% range for the dome.

Everything together suggests to me this is a risky throw of the dice to make Regina into some hot new spot. It is bold, and very much inline with the bosterism that the city fathers and new gov't believe in. I don't think it'll work well. I think the space could be used to increase residency downtown and link the warehouse district to downtown with a network of shoping streets with residences above. Time will tell.
Hear hear! Finally some common sense being expressed (even if I don't agree with 100% of what you've said).

Even calling this a Feasibility study seems to be a misnomer. They're paying a stadium sales organization to tell them whether or not they should purchase a luxury stadium. The folly is obvious.

Floating 'economic impact' numbers is a big clue that this will be a financial boghole. They deliberately avoid using real world metrics like ROI that would expose a more honest portrayal.

The site selection itself is troublesome. It takes a congested area and makes it even more congested.

Operating costs will suck precious funds away from many other other valuable facilities and services.

That said, if a private (not crowns & casinos) consortium of companies and investors wants to build and shoulder the operations of this facility, then all power to them. But please don't squander public funds on such an extravagance.

Last edited by Archie Teck; Jul 26, 2009 at 12:49 PM.
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2009, 4:48 PM
timewilltell timewilltell is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 187
bla

Last edited by timewilltell; Sep 28, 2009 at 11:31 PM.
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2009, 9:57 PM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Hmm....
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 3,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Teck View Post
Hear hear! Finally some common sense being expressed (even if I don't agree with 100% of what you've said).

Even calling this a Feasibility study seems to be a misnomer. They're paying a stadium sales organization to tell them whether or not they should purchase a luxury stadium. The folly is obvious.

Floating 'economic impact' numbers is a big clue that this will be a financial boghole. They deliberately avoid using real world metrics like ROI that would expose a more honest portrayal.

The site selection itself is troublesome. It takes a congested area and makes it even more congested.

Operating costs will suck precious funds away from many other other valuable facilities and services.

That said, if a private (not crowns & casinos) consortium of companies and investors wants to build and shoulder the operations of this facility, then all power to them. But please don't squander public funds on such an extravagance.
I also find this portion of your post troublesome... Anytime you develop an area downtown with new residential or a new office building you make an already conjested area even more congested... Or are you suggesting we should not develop downtown anymore and let it slowly fade/die?
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2009, 12:26 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
I also find this portion of your post troublesome... Anytime you develop an area downtown with new residential or a new office building you make an already conjested area even more congested... Or are you suggesting we should not develop downtown anymore and let it slowly fade/die?
No, quite the opposite. I would strongly support economically viable, sustainable development in that area. Since the dome is likely not viable or sustainable, that's another reason not to stuff it in there. The problem - as we will see unfold over time - is that this project will be reliant on soft tax dollars, likely made to appear as if they coming from gambling profits. So the location won't be about common sense, it will be about trying to reward the casino.

Placing a giant structure that is expensive to maintain and will sit empty most of the time is a blown opportunity for what could go there.

Imagine if the development of that area went to projects that had to stand on their own feet, rather than be artificially propped up by public funds and back room manipulation.

I'm talking about businesses, residences and actual entertainment (ie non gambing) projects that have to be viable have to be well planned and executed and will have to make sense. And because they would be sensible, they would also be successful. The potential of that area is about to be squashed under a green and white elephant.

Imagine that area becoming home to thousands of new residents, workers employed in and around the downtown. Rather than commute from Harbour Landing, wasting time, creating pollution and traffic congestion, these residents could stroll to work over a pleasant system of outdoor paths and indoor walkways. Imagine new restaurants, food stores, and service-based businesses sprouting up to serve this growing community.

And ten times per year, these residents could make the 3 minute journey to the Taylor field site and watch the Rider game at a moderately and sensibly renovated historical stadium. These people could also make that same 3 minute journey to enjoy the aquatic center, the fieldhouse, the hockey complex, the soccer facility, a renovated Agridome. Giant trade shows will continue to be held at the vast area of the exhibition grounds, and the Rolling Stones size shows will continue to visit the outdoor stadium if they sense there's a few million bucks to be made off the populace.

Now wipe that beautiful image from your mind and replace it with a concrete donut that will sit empty most of the time. Think of the facilities around the city and province that will fall into decline as their budgets get slashed so that we can afford to heat and cool the empty donut.

The city recently contracted true experts to advise them on how to revitalize the downtown. These experts took the proper time and used a non-biased and objective approach. You'll note these experts did *not* recommend dropping a dome stadium on top of the downtown. They talked about increasing the residency and diversity of the area, and about specific ways of improving the flow both externally and internally. This stadium plan is nearly opposite of the sensible, intelligent advice they received.
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2009, 5:40 AM
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
No, quite the opposite. I would strongly support economically viable, sustainable development in that area. Since the dome is likely not viable or sustainable, that's another reason not to stuff it in there. The problem - as we will see unfold over time - is that this project will be reliant on soft tax dollars, likely made to appear as if they coming from gambling profits. So the location won't be about common sense, it will be about trying to reward the casino.
How do you know it won't be viable or sustainable? Is it just your opinion or do you know more than those who have built successful and viable downtown stadiums throughout North America?
Quote:
Placing a giant structure that is expensive to maintain and will sit empty most of the time is a blown opportunity for what could go there.

Imagine if the development of that area went to projects that had to stand on their own feet, rather than be artificially propped up by public funds and back room manipulation.

I'm talking about businesses, residences and actual entertainment (ie non gambing) projects that have to be viable have to be well planned and executed and will have to make sense. And because they would be sensible, they would also be successful. The potential of that area is about to be squashed under a green and white elephant.
There could still be businesses (ie stores, hotels and restaurants) and other entertainments projects (ie movie theatre, waterpark) included in the project. Why does it have to be one or the other?

Quote:
Imagine that area becoming home to thousands of new residents, workers employed in and around the downtown. Rather than commute from Harbour Landing, wasting time, creating pollution and traffic congestion, these residents could stroll to work over a pleasant system of outdoor paths and indoor walkways. Imagine new restaurants, food stores, and service-based businesses sprouting up to serve this growing community.

And ten times per year, these residents could make the 3 minute journey to the Taylor field site and watch the Rider game at a moderately and sensibly renovated historical stadium. These people could also make that same 3 minute journey to enjoy the aquatic center, the fieldhouse, the hockey complex, the soccer facility, a renovated Agridome. Giant trade shows will continue to be held at the vast area of the exhibition grounds, and the Rolling Stones size shows will continue to visit the outdoor stadium if they sense there's a few million bucks to be made off the populace.

Now wipe that beautiful image from your mind and replace it with a concrete donut that will sit empty most of the time. Think of the facilities around the city and province that will fall into decline as their budgets get slashed so that we can afford to heat and cool the empty donut.

The city recently contracted true experts to advise them on how to revitalize the downtown. These experts took the proper time and used a non-biased and objective approach. You'll note these experts did *not* recommend dropping a dome stadium on top of the downtown. They talked about increasing the residency and diversity of the area, and about specific ways of improving the flow both externally and internally. This stadium plan is nearly opposite of the sensible, intelligent advice they received.
Why can't you do both? (ie increasing downtown residency and diversity as well as a new stadium). Look at all the vacant lots and ground parking currently in the downtown corp, those are areas that should be revitalized. We can walk and chew gum at the same time and its already proven throughout many major cities in North America that downtown stadiums are good for moral, good for the economy, good for surrounding businesses, good for entertainment purposes, good for exposure to amateur sports, and good for city pride. Throughout the past century, if people used the excuses you used above, we wouldn't have a CFL and we definately wouldn't have the Roughriders. But one must remember the Riders are only one reason why this project will go ahead, all stated in the study released last week.

Oh and for the record, the experts that were contracted to help revitilize the downtown did not mention anything about a stadium because the location proposed is actually not downtown. Look at the Downtown report, its from Sask Drive to Collge Ave and Broad St to Albert St. And one more thing, you used the fact that this consuting company didn't mention anything about a stadium, I am curious if they mentioned anything about a stadium being a detriment?

That said, the wheels are turning and the momentum is looking as though this stadium will get done. We have a VERY popular Premier and an even more Popular mayor both on board in getting this done. Also it sounds like there are upwards of 3 major companies already interested in becoming partners on this fantastic project for our city and Province.
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2009, 2:03 PM
Beadyeyez Beadyeyez is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
How do you know it won't be viable or sustainable? Is it just your opinion or do you know more than those who have built successful and viable downtown stadiums throughout North America?

There could still be businesses (ie stores, hotels and restaurants) and other entertainments projects (ie movie theatre, waterpark) included in the project. Why does it have to be one or the other?


Why can't you do both? (ie increasing downtown residency and diversity as well as a new stadium). Look at all the vacant lots and ground parking currently in the downtown corp, those are areas that should be revitalized. We can walk and chew gum at the same time and its already proven throughout many major cities in North America that downtown stadiums are good for moral, good for the economy, good for surrounding businesses, good for entertainment purposes, good for exposure to amateur sports, and good for city pride. Throughout the past century, if people used the excuses you used above, we wouldn't have a CFL and we definately wouldn't have the Roughriders. But one must remember the Riders are only one reason why this project will go ahead, all stated in the study released last week.

Oh and for the record, the experts that were contracted to help revitilize the downtown did not mention anything about a stadium because the location proposed is actually not downtown. Look at the Downtown report, its from Sask Drive to Collge Ave and Broad St to Albert St. And one more thing, you used the fact that this consuting company didn't mention anything about a stadium, I am curious if they mentioned anything about a stadium being a detriment?

That said, the wheels are turning and the momentum is looking as though this stadium will get done. We have a VERY popular Premier and an even more Popular mayor both on board in getting this done. Also it sounds like there are upwards of 3 major companies already interested in becoming partners on this fantastic project for our city and Province.
That fact has got to be stressed, because if the Riders keep putting the same product on the field that I watched on Saturday..this dome could be built to seat 15 000 and it may not get filled on the 10 gamedays a year in the coming seasons.
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2009, 10:15 PM
cebubu's Avatar
cebubu cebubu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beadyeyez View Post
That fact has got to be stressed, because if the Riders keep putting the same product on the field that I watched on Saturday..this dome could be built to seat 15 000 and it may not get filled on the 10 gamedays a year in the coming seasons.
Yes, and that goes both ways so what's your point.
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2009, 5:47 AM
skphc08's Avatar
skphc08 skphc08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Central
Posts: 181
The naysayers, especially Archie Teck, rely almost exclusively on speculation and take a worst-case scenario approach.

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?

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. They have not even released any data or reports. The distinct possibility exists that they will conclude that the domed facility is not the best option from a feasibility standpoint.

How can you evaluate the objectivity of researchers when they have barely commenced their study?

So much pre-emptive nonsense from so many narrow-minded individuals.
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2009, 6:37 PM
mjpaul's Avatar
mjpaul mjpaul is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Little Chicago. (Moose Jaw)
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew View Post
^ exactly. I think we all hope that Regina can get a new stadium built. I am just of the opinion that sports like football, baseball, etc. belong in open air stadiums.
i am very much against an open air stadium. we can be faced with nasty winter weather 9 months of the year. To spend that kind of money just for the Roughriders and high school football would be wreckless.

Could you have imagined a Rolling Stones concert with 50,000 people? because thats what would have happened. No worries about the weather

The spinoff effects of a indoor facility will outweigh the costs of running the thing. The CP yards will be transformed and tax revenues will increase.

The CP yards are ugly and to watch the Urban transformation is a long time coming
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2009, 4:20 AM
mcaout mcaout is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
The naysayers, especially Archie Teck, rely almost exclusively on speculation and take a worst-case scenario approach.

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?

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. They have not even released any data or reports. The distinct possibility exists that they will conclude that the domed facility is not the best option from a feasibility standpoint.

How can you evaluate the objectivity of researchers when they have barely commenced their study?

So much pre-emptive nonsense from so many narrow-minded individuals.

I agree as a "naysayer" my posts have been likely in the speculative/worst case scenario region of the issue. It seems much of the positive comments have also been speculative though, as people imagine the look of the facility, different events that might be brought in, other businesses that could work well with a stadium and so on. I don't criticize people dreaming or posting what they'd like to see or ideas they feel would make such a facility better. I do think it is important to think about the worst case scenarios, or difficulties as well. Since I'm not for a domed stadium, I've posted such thoughts.

As for the feasibility study, I am not against it, I would have prefered a week or two for the public to digest the inital study before the recommendation was studied in depth. Or even better, the data or some numbers were realised rather than just the bottomline figures in the executive summary. I don't worry so much about the authors of the feasibility study but the politicans and invested interests that haven't been named but apparently exist.

In today's Leader Post Anne Campbell wrote a letter pushing for the dome to be a winter haven for walkers and plants. I could sit here and shoot holes in her thoughts with more speculation but really I thought it was an interesting, if unlikely, posible use. It would be interesting to read more ideas the proside have for the dome, different uses, configerations, confrences or events that would apply. I don't really plan on posting here until further news comes out unless someone address a previous post I've made.
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2009, 10:26 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
How do you know it won't be viable or sustainable?
Common sense and a little reasoning bear this out.

I'd agree to an arrangement that tests your theory that the stadium will be profitable. How about we agree that no public funds be used, and if some person or company wants to build it and take all the profits, let them. See if there are any takers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
Is it just your opinion or do you know more than those who have built successful and viable downtown stadiums throughout North America?
Successful and viable stadiums like BC Place, Olympic Stadium and the Skydome?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
There could still be businesses (ie stores, hotels and restaurants) and other entertainments projects (ie movie theatre, waterpark) included in the project. Why does it have to be one or the other?
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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
its already proven throughout many major cities in North America that downtown stadiums are good for moral, good for the economy,
Can you cite some success stories that use real financials? Not just feel-good numbers like economic impact that can't really be measured.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
But one must remember the Riders are only one reason why this project will go ahead, all stated in the study released last week.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
That said, the wheels are turning and the momentum is looking as though this stadium will get done. We have a VERY popular Premier and an even more Popular mayor both on board in getting this done. Also it sounds like there are upwards of 3 major companies already interested in becoming partners on this fantastic project for our city and Province.
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.
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2009, 10:29 AM
HomeInMyShoes's Avatar
HomeInMyShoes HomeInMyShoes is online now
arf
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pile 'O Bones
Posts: 12,108
@mcaout: You haven't been around the Regina thread enough to know that any even slightly negative sounding post is treated as witchcraft.

For a lot of the other uses of the dome, other facilities are going to suffer (Agribition Grounds). Part of this balancing act needs to realize that Regina's ability to draw events is based on its size and connections to the outside world (both of these are working against Regina in a lot of ways.) I do believe there are lots of events that Regina can compete for, host and do an excellent job of, but you need to sell that to event organizers.

I would also like people to realize that there are other ways to redevelop the CP railyards outside of a stadium. I'm a big proponent of downtown stadiums (open or closed). I've lived in cities that have done the opposite (Ottawa) and ones that have done them downtown (St. Louis) and the downtown ones are better for atmosphere, accessibility (although I would argue that in Regina accessibilty is only by car at present and it's no longer than 20 minutes for anyone even if they built it in Pense), before and after meetings with friends or clients. If Regina is building a new stadium I think the railyards are an ideal spot.

But I do argue that there are lots of other options for the railyards. What about the downtown theatre we need? What about a second (two city block) park that is a bit more open for events (although I really liked the closed in and intimateness of Victoria Park for the folk festival when I lived in Regina) and what about rebuilding a couple of the connector roads into some mid-rise residential developments? Much as I think the MacKenzie has a great space in the TC Douglas building, what about a permanent stand-alone gallery in the area around the new park?
__________________

-- “We heal each other with kindness, gentleness and respect.” -- Richard Wagamese
-- “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” -- Dr. Seuss
     
     
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 7:12 PM.

     

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