HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 4:46 PM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
Define stadium failures? Is it simply a failure if it doesn't make money
Um, yes. If the claim was it would be a financial boon, and instead it loses money, then absolutely that is a failure.

You and others are publicizing all kinds of completely phony economic benefits that are easily debunked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
or is it a success if it brings civic pride,

history (are you aware of the history that has already taken place at a place like the Skydome?)
Now we're getting somewhere. If you want to have a stadium for reasons like this, why not just be honest and admit it? Why dress up your desire for pride and bragging rights in a cloak of lies about financial benefits that it sounds like you are finally learning are an illusion?

So now that we are the truth of the matter, we have something that can be discussed. If the citizens of Saskatchewan would like to have a luxury stadium, a giant status symbol, then let's discuss that. Let's discuss how much money is worth pouring into that dream.

For example I'm pleased that Wascana Lake was refurbished. It improved the park and removed some of the stigma. But I would never have been naive enough to believe that project would actually break even let alone serve as some kind of economic engine. Same story with this stadium boondoggle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
millions worth of economic activity,
"economic activity" is the equivalent of magic beans. It has no discernible value and is used only to mislead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
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....
No, nor did it explicitly state not to put a coal mine or a UFO landing strip there either. Be reasonable. It talked about doing things that are pretty much the opposite of building a stadium.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
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)
Frankly I'd rather see those existing sites be redeveloped. I disagree with your claim that there is a surplus of surface parking in the downtown. I actually think there is a drastic shortage. But that's not what this stadium thread is about so I'd rather stay on topic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs
perfect for a brand new multiuse complex. Just ask the owner of Bushwakkers and McNally's if he's exciting about this project......
Tell you what... if you can get Robertson to kick in say 100 million, I will give you an unconditional apology. Wait, let's make it even easier. If you can get him to do just $3.5 million (a mere 1% of the stadium's cost) then I'll do the same. Before you waste a lot of time trying, remind yourself that stadium naming rights go for only $375,000 per year.

But if he isn't willing, then you have to admit then publicly that smart business people have assessed the ROI potential of this stadium and have concurred - it's a giant money losing proposition.
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 4:48 PM
grumpy old man grumpy old man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 512
Quote:
Are you suggesting the Blue Jays would still be playing in the old exhibition stadium? (which was also built with public money)
I'm not suggesting anything. The point is moot. Why even debate this???

Quote:
Yup. Its already been whispered out of the CFL head office that Regina won't get anymore Grey Cups under the current conditions.
I don't buy this for a nanosecond. Don't let rumours and innuendo drive your ambitions.

Quote:
What makes you think the new stadium in Regina will be anything like the Skydome or BigO?
Ummm, I think you missed my point.

Quote:
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.......
You are way too emotionally tied to this thing. I suspect you've never spent any time outside of Regina eh? It has NOTHING to do with the size of the facility and EVERYTHING to do with the draw.

Keep dreaming. I'd never want to discourage people from thinking big and even thinking over your weight. But I fear you are letting your vision cloud your judgement.
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 5:54 PM
drumuser drumuser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 102
migs, i 100% back you.... good job!
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 7:21 PM
hoeding hoeding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 49
Is there any reason that the stadium couldn't be partly funded by a share system similar to the rider shares?

Given the option I would be willing to throw a few of my personal dollars at this thing to see it happen.
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 8:23 PM
Rottie Rottie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary formerly Regina
Posts: 226
I would buy a share in a heartbeat if I knew it was going towards a new home for the riders. I'm sure tens of thousands of others would as well. I just hope it's a retractable domed stadium. Don't cheap out. Sure it's alot of money but what isn't these days. Thinking big is what built the CN tower. An icon that brings many people to Toronto and they spend money there, hence economic activity and yes bragging rights and pride.

I'm all for a new stadium as long as it's shown that it makes sense and will be used for alot more than just football though. Building it just for political legacy and bragging rights is wrong but not building it because it may not show a profit every year is also wrong in my opinion. It's not all about money. Cities need to grow and show people worldwide that they are great places to visit and live and offer many ammenities. And for Regina a new stadium should enhance a popular tourist attraction that is the riders but open the doors to how many other shows, concerts, sporting events etc. that not only give residents new stuff to do but will entice out of towners like me to come spend money.
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2009, 8:38 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 Rottie View Post
I would buy a share in a heartbeat if I knew it was going towards a new home for the riders. I'm sure tens of thousands of others would as well. I just hope it's a retractable domed stadium. Don't cheap out. Sure it's alot of money but what isn't these days. Thinking big is what built the CN tower. An icon that brings many people to Toronto and they spend money there, hence economic activity and yes bragging rights and pride.
You mean the CN Tower was built with public money??? blasphamy!
Quote:
I'm all for a new stadium as long as it's shown that it makes sense and will be used for alot more than just football though. Building it just for political legacy and bragging rights is wrong but not building it because it may not show a profit every year is also wrong in my opinion. It's not all about money. Cities need to grow and show people worldwide that they are great places to visit and live and offer many ammenities. And for Regina a new stadium should enhance a popular tourist attraction that is the riders but open the doors to how many other shows, concerts, sporting events etc. that not only give residents new stuff to do but will entice out of towners like me to come spend money.
Very well said.

I am finished dumbing myself down and arguining this when its evident this thing is pretty much a done deal already. This is going to be fantastic for our city and province........

Last edited by Migs; Aug 2, 2009 at 10:01 PM.
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2009, 2:49 AM
skphc08's Avatar
skphc08 skphc08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Central
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcaout View Post
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.
This is a reasonable post by a "naysayer." I'm not entirely convinced myself by the politicians but I am going to defer judgment until we have a study to look at this.

But all this pre-emptive nonsense from Archie Teck is based on assumptions suggestive of a poor- or worst-case scenario. This would be fine if more definites were known about Regina's domed stadium option. If we applied ATs approach to public infrastructure, we probably would have little to none (libraries, schools, roads).

We would have no roads by your "logic" and "little bit of reasoning." They don't provide direct economic benefit/impact so they would have no value to the city, province, or country.

This is an ENTHUSIAST's form mate. And you're killing it. I am all about open discussion but I usually only debate with reasonable people. People who consider studies as one of the best ways of knowing. Not merely tenacity, tradition or so-called common sense backing uninformed viewpoints.

(Cue the catcalls of witchcraft)
__________________
Everything is real on this concrete and steel.
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2009, 4:15 AM
ceedub1170's Avatar
ceedub1170 ceedub1170 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Regina
Posts: 406
What are some other government funded projects?

Detox Centres (The "I'll never use it, so why should tax dollars be spent on it" argument)
Needle exchange program (seems to be working well for drug dealers)
New bridge in Saskatoon (is 8 not enough?)
resurfacing highways (what's wrong with gravel?)
Olympic infastructure in Vancouver (how is that going to make us money?)

My question is: Does everything the government spends money on have to make a profit? Why can't the government spend our money on something that would make those that are actually paying taxes (so we can have the programs that the less fortunate and those that abuse the system have access to) can enjoy.
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2009, 5:22 AM
babo's Avatar
babo babo is offline
Regina rhymes with fun!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: I don't like elevators.
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
And I am curious, when this project is finished, are you going to be a patron?
Not that you asked me, but I will go out of my way to not be a patron. This new stadium, when it is built, will show the world that we, too, are gullible enough to believe in the false promise of economic activity.
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2009, 9:52 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoeding View Post
Is there any reason that the stadium couldn't be partly funded by a share system similar to the rider shares?

Given the option I would be willing to throw a few of my personal dollars at this thing to see it happen.
I would be happy to see that happen, however I would also know that anyone foolish enough to invest would lose all their money.

Here's a reality check:

Mosaic stadium currently brings $211,000 in annual revenue. Please note: that's THOUSAND. 211 THOUSAND. Not million. It's approximately the same as what the Neil Balkwill centre generates and a small fraction of what the Sportplex, Northwest and Schmirler Centres bring in ($2.6 million combined)

I don't know what it costs to operate Mosaic stadium in total, but event cleanup alone costs $21,000. Lights, maintenance, painting, bathroom repairs, staff, and other incidentals probably eats up a good portion of the remainder. It's probably a close to break even situation.

So the current stadium which was long since paid off can barely turn a buck. It has no mortgage and is utterly cheap to operate. Does anyone seriously expect a $350 million facility to do anything except lose megatons of money?

Interest on $350 million alone would be about $24-25 million, or nearly half of the city's $52 million police budget. Does anyone here want to cut the police force in half just to pay the interest on this dome stadium?

How much of the fire department, schools, and library budgets will have to be cut to afford the heating bill?

Is anyone here interested in jacking up property tax rates even further? Regina is already among the highest taxed cities in Canada by a July 2009 survey.

Wouldn't it make more sense to use that land for something that might generate revenue in the form of property taxes?

Sorry but it's not even a close question as to whether we can afford this. We simply can't.
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2009, 9:55 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedub1170 View Post
What are some other government funded projects?

Detox Centres (The "I'll never use it, so why should tax dollars be spent on it" argument)
Needle exchange program (seems to be working well for drug dealers)
New bridge in Saskatoon (is 8 not enough?)
resurfacing highways (what's wrong with gravel?)
Olympic infastructure in Vancouver (how is that going to make us money?)
Every million we flush down the stadium toilet is another million we no longer have to fund worthy community programs.
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2009, 10:03 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
If we applied ATs approach to public infrastructure, we probably would have little to none (libraries, schools, roads).
Actually you are 180 degrees from the truth. My philosophy is one of careful fiscal management, so that we actually can afford to offer those things.

Your philosophy is to spend money we don't have and never will, and hope that magic happens to send money back our way. Your approach - if followed - leads to the destruction of community services because we will be saddled with debt from our foolish expenditures. Montreal sufferered 40 years for their stadium bungle. You wanna copy them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
This is an ENTHUSIAST's form mate. And you're killing it. I am all about open discussion but I usually only debate with reasonable people. People who consider studies as one of the best ways of knowing.
I would love to see an actual study. This next "study" is to ask a stadium sales company how big of a stadium we should order from them. It's ridiculous, but hey if you can't see that, it's not my fault.
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2009, 10:11 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
By the way, we're well in the CFL season and there have been a lot of great games so far. Mosaic Stadium has been nearly sold out for most of them, but demand hasn't been enough to create standing room tickets or anything like that. It would appear the current size is fairly appropriate for the demand.

So far this year I've yet to see a single game that would be enhanced by being played indoors. The only games with a lacklustre crowd atmosphere have been those held in BC Place domed stadium.

When it gets right down to it, this roughrider stadium might really only mean maybe 1 or 2 late season games are "better" than they would have been if played in the open air. Are we really going to drop $350 million for the sake of 1 or 2 games per year? Wouldn't it make infinitely more sense to spend a few million sprucing up the current stadium and turning that downtown corridor into something productive?
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2009, 1:04 PM
grumpy old man grumpy old man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedub1170 View Post
What are some other government funded projects?

Detox Centres (The "I'll never use it, so why should tax dollars be spent on it" argument)
Needle exchange program (seems to be working well for drug dealers)
New bridge in Saskatoon (is 8 not enough?)
resurfacing highways (what's wrong with gravel?)

My question is: Does everything the government spends money on have to make a profit? Why can't the government spend our money on something that would make those that are actually paying taxes (so we can have the programs that the less fortunate and those that abuse the system have access to) can enjoy.
You're serious aren't you? Of course you don't see the difference between these programs and a football stadium?

Why do some peeps feel the need to offer these types of nebulous arguments in debates over football stadiums?

BTW the Olympics in Vancouver were reported to make a small profit.

However, profit does not have to be the objective of a new stadium. But break-even should be. Unless Saskatchewan taxpayers want to put up $350 million plus an operating cost annuity...
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2009, 7:59 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
I disagree with your claim that there is a surplus of surface parking in the downtown. I actually think there is a drastic shortage.
This right here proves that you have no idea what makes a downtown great. Shortage of surface parking in downtown Regina. Tell me your interpretation of what the downtown study says about surface parking? Better yet, nevermind.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Teck View Post
By the way, we're well in the CFL season and there have been a lot of great games so far. Mosaic Stadium has been nearly sold out for most of them, but demand hasn't been enough to create standing room tickets or anything like that. It would appear the current size is fairly appropriate for the demand.

So far this year I've yet to see a single game that would be enhanced by being played indoors. The only games with a lacklustre crowd atmosphere have been those held in BC Place domed stadium.

When it gets right down to it, this roughrider stadium might really only mean maybe 1 or 2 late season games are "better" than they would have been if played in the open air. Are we really going to drop $350 million for the sake of 1 or 2 games per year? Wouldn't it make infinitely more sense to spend a few million sprucing up the current stadium and turning that downtown corridor into something productive?
With every repetitive post you make, you make less and less sense. First of all, the Riders are already about 7,000 fans ahead of last years attendence after 4 homes games. Secondly, the current capacity of Mosaic Stadium is about 31,000, and the plan for the new mutlipurpuse stadium is between 34-35,000 permanent seats. Huge difference hey?

That said, with a retractable roof (yes the University of Pheonix stadium which they are using as a reference was cheaper to build with a retractable roof), you never have to worry about the weather, and you can still enjoy the beautiful days. Pretty logical to most people....

Last edited by Migs; Aug 2, 2009 at 10:01 PM.
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2009, 8:04 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
BTW the Olympics in Vancouver were reported to make a small profit.
Wanna bet?
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2009, 11:10 PM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
With every repetitive post you make, you make less and less sense. First of all, the Riders are already about 7,000 fans ahead of last years attendence after 4 homes games.
The increased attendance is directly attributable to the extra bleachers that were added.

If we were talking about an intelligent stadium plan, it might be a study that looks at the cost of making say 2000 more permanent seat, and compares it with the revenue potential.

2,000 seats x 80% use rate x 10 games x $40 = $640,000 revenue in a year

Say the riders were willing to give perhaps 20% of that over to the city in exchange for the upgrade.

A reasonable payback period for a municipal project might be 5 years but to help you out, let's be generous and say 10 years.

So say the city were to commit $1.28 million to a project that added 2000 seats. That would be a project with a reasonable chance of breaking even. Should we do it or shouldn't we would be an intelligent debate. We could play with the numbers a bit.... how does 3,000 work, what if the building cost were 2x as much or 1/2 as much, that kind of thing.

But instead we've got people with zero money and zero numeric sense pitching a stadium Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Montreal couldn't afford.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
Secondly, the current capacity of Mosaic Stadium is about 31,000, and the plan for the new mutlipurpuse stadium is between 34-35,000 permanent seats. Huge difference hey?
I thought the plan called for 38,000 but regardless. It sounds like you are advocating spending an amount that could easily spike to a half billion for the sake of 3,000 to 4,000 extra seats? That's $100,000 per seat. Why don't we have all these people who claim they would put their money where their mouth is just put in $100,000 each. Every donor would receive use of their seat for free, and in exchange the riders and the city would receive the stadium as a gift. Sounds good to me (other than the operating cost increase which is something we'd have to study)

So Migs if you truly mean what you say, it's simple. Throw down your $100k and find just 3499 friends who feel the same. There's your stadium right there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
That said, with a retractable roof (yes the University of Pheonix stadium which they are using as a reference was cheaper to build with a retractable roof), you never have to worry about the weather, and you can still enjoy the beautiful days. Pretty logical to most people....
The Phoenix stadium you speak of... how much snowfall is that retractable roof rated for? And do you think we should just assume the annual heating costs will be the same as the Phoenix stadium?
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2009, 11:17 PM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
With every repetitive post you make, you make less and less sense. First of all, the Riders are already about 7,000 fans ahead of last years attendence after 4 homes games. Secondly, the current capacity of Mosaic Stadium is about 31,000, and the plan for the new mutlipurpuse stadium is between 34-35,000 permanent seats. Huge difference hey?
A couple of weeks ago, on a beautiful summer day, with a winning team, we fell a few hundred tickets short of selling out. That tells me that demand is healthy but not excessive. Frankly it seems like we've got the sizing dialed in pretty good where we are.

If a new facility costs were to cause a $20/seat stadium improvement fund surcharge, I think we'd see reduced buying.
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 12:00 AM
skphc08's Avatar
skphc08 skphc08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Central
Posts: 181
That was a pre-season game. Its 1 game out of 25 where there hasn't been excessive demand. But this is how you typically manipulate facts to forward your "fiscally sound" thinking.

If you were a bit more informed on the issues, you would know that this "giant cement donut" will probably be heated by geothermal sources. And there is a good chance it will be LEED certified as well.

Do you have any legitimate arguments against the stadium or just more useless speculation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Teck View Post
A couple of weeks ago, on a beautiful summer day, with a winning team, we fell a few hundred tickets short of selling out. That tells me that demand is healthy but not excessive. Frankly it seems like we've got the sizing dialed in pretty good where we are.

If a new facility costs were to cause a $20/seat stadium improvement fund surcharge, I think we'd see reduced buying.
__________________
Everything is real on this concrete and steel.
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 12:52 AM
ceedub1170's Avatar
ceedub1170 ceedub1170 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Regina
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy old man View Post
BTW the Olympics in Vancouver were reported to make a small profit.

...
BTW the new multipurpose facililty in Regina is reported to make a profit. You can't have it both ways, Bucko.
     
     
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 5:43 PM.

     

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