Regina's Multi-Purpose facility - Page 13

ceedub1170 · #**241** Posted **Aug 9, 2009, 8:18 PM**

^^ Well said

grumpy old man · #**242** Posted **Aug 9, 2009, 9:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migs

That said, would you be in support of the children's hospital being built in Regina since you guys already have more hospitals than us?..........

Also, are you in support of a multipurpose stadium to be built in Regina?

Not being from Saskatchewan I don't have an animus towards one city over another. So I don't care philosophically what get's built where.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migs

So then you are in full support of a new stadium in Regina? Great to hear.

Why is this so important to you? For the record I have said all along that a new domed stadium would be great and wished you guys luck in getting one. I've also suggested that if this is to happen it's best to do it right or not at all.

Here is the part you'll hate: I just don't think it is practical nor cost-credible for Saskatchewan.

I'd also love one in Winnipeg. I don't happen to think it is cost-credible here either.

Not on the tax-payer's backs anyway.

Sorry to disappoint. Oh, ummm, don't make this a personal issue. It is merely my opinion.

skphc08 · #**243** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 3:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by grumpy old man

Here is the part you'll hate: I just don't think it is practical nor cost-credible for Saskatchewan.

I'd also love one in Winnipeg. I don't happen to think it is cost-credible here either.

Not on the tax-payer's backs anyway.

Sorry to disappoint.

Not disappointing at all. This is a reasonable approach at this time.

Archie Teck · #**244** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 12:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by grumpy old man

Here is the part you'll hate: I just don't think it is practical nor cost-credible for Saskatchewan.

"Not cost-credible" - I applaud this phrase as it succintly sums up the situation.

The luxury stadium is not cost-credible given the population, the tax base, the challenges we face, and the fact we have numerous other facilities in place that more than adequately fulfill the 'multi use' claim of what is essentially a roughrider domed stadium.

The problem I think is that the stadium fanatics aren't as financially astute as the people who are questioning it. We have people chucking out claims like corporations will pay hundreds of millions for box seats, and yet these people have no clue what hundreds of millions of dollars actually represents in the real world.

The stadium fanatics speak in terms of dreaming big and thinking big, but nowhere is there a reality to back up the dream. It's like dreaming of being an NBA star, but not being willing to show up for practice or get in shape. It's OK to dream big, but you have to back it up with something of substance.

It's as if people don't realize money, time, and resources are finite. Every 300 or 400 million you dump into a rider dome, that's 300 or 400 million LESS that you no longer have for things like a children's hospital, education, or creating a sustainable industry of some kind. It's fun money, blown on a luxury.

We all see what I call "idiotic accounting" all the time. A friend recently showed me his fancy quad and said he got it for free. I couldn't believe this expensive quad was really free, but he explained he used his multi-thousand dollar tax refund to buy it. So in his mind, it was free. Sure his credit cards are run up and he's got a huge mortgage, but somehow, he sees this as a free quad. It's sad, but some people prefer to buy their toys and fool themselves that it doesn't cost them anything.

When our leaders sneak $350 million out of whatever slushy accounting source they'll come up with, be it casino or crown corp, I fear that the public - including many of the more vocal and negative voices on this board - won't realize that is money taken from the public at the expense of other opportunities.

Archie Teck · #**245** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 12:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceedub1170

Should we then have a plebiscite for the new bridge in Saskatoon? The Sinchrotron at UofS? The Children's Hospital in Saskatoon? These all have huge pricetags too. I'm sure Prince Albert doesn't want to pay for a new bridge or the Sinchtron in Saskatoon.

Sure you can't plebiscite every issue. However this one represents a total departure from what politicians promised in their campaign - at least the provincial ones.

If they want to do a 180 on what they said, then by all means we should have an election. If candidates will put their name public as saying "yes I'd rather spend a half billion on a domed stadium for downtown Regina" then the public can decide if they want to vote for that candidate.

There's a civic election coming up. The councillors and mayoral candidates should have to go on record about what they support and specifically how much of the city budget they are willing to commit.

timewilltell · #**246** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 1:14 PM**

rider domes are built every hundred years , what is the big deal the entertainment complex ads to the quality of life to a city , sports and entertainment are very important , as for parking there are almost 7000 spaces downtown , many parkades near casino regina

Chaps · #**247** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 2:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Teck

OK obviously my point was that we are already attracting top acts without a large domed stadium. But within there was a valid question as to what high value permanent jobs do we think would be created by plunking the stadium downtown?

My view is it would not be many. Maybe some street vendors or parking valets at the 10-20 events per year, generating probably little to no incremental tax however.

The casino & nearby bars would probably get a bit of extra walk in traffic before or after games. But would jobs actually come from that, or would the establishments simply accept the extra revenue against the bottom line and use their current staffing complement?

The bars on Dewdney are already overcrowded as the lineups and bylaw enforcement actions will attest. I guess it's possible that a few of the weaker businesses along Dewdney would get turned over into Habanos II and Bushwakker II. But if server jobs were created it would likely be at the cost of other establishments folding elsewhere.

The build itself will suck up the existing local tradespeople, returning us to that terrible environment of 2 years ago when people had to pay 2x the normal price for below average trade work. The trades people coming in from other regions would be fleeting, and they would live as cheaply as possible in rooming houses, trailers etc. A welder on a one year stint is not going put down roots. They'll stash their wages and try to minimize living costs, then move on as quickly as they came when another project in Alberta offers to pay $5 more hour.

It just doesn't seem like there would be a real benefit in terms of job creation.

On the other hand, what if we created a vibrant downtown where people could live... year round, 365 days - not just for a few hours 10 times a year. It would spur creation of grocery stores, cleaners, restaurants, tailors, retailers, entertainment, you name it. These residents would devote less of their income to vehicles and commuting, so they'd have high disposable cash and would thus be desirable consumers for the surrounding businesses. Value would be created all around. Businesses would thrive and pay more tax, and the city would collect more as well. Now that's something sustainable.

Couldn't agree more.

But could a large indoor farmers market (offseason) and other financially intangible events not be helpful this this pursuit?

I don't think a stadium downtown hampers this at all, in fact it would aid it IMO.

If getting 10,000 people to move downtown was easy, it would be done. A stadium does not hurt this.

Chaps · #**248** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 2:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rottie

Yes I realize top acts are being attracted without a domed stadium but not in Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr and May. Lost potential.

I said jobs would be created before during and after construction. I did not say high value. The world needs ditch diggers too. And if some of these jobs go to other provinces well great. Some high value jobs would be architects and their firms, designers, engineers,general contractors, hotel management, tradesmen. More permanent ones would be an increase in demand for cabbies, buses, food and drink, hotel staff, stadium employees. Jobs. Period.

I agree with your last paragraph in it's entirety and I believe that aspect has already been accounted for in the recently released downtown plan that has been ok'd by council correct me if I'm wrong. Now whether all the aspects of that plan get implemented is a different story but I'm not being cynical about that until I have reason to be. The revitilization of Vic park is supposed to go next year, the new public library including residential and retail aspects that are rumoured to be in progress and the dense residential project on the south edge of downtown canterbury park are all good beginnings. What i'm getting at is why can't the downtown have a stadium with the vibrant downtown you believe in.

That's a good point that nobody ever "gets."

Every moans about what type (read: pay range) of jobs will be created. They all want high-tech, high paying jobs. Sure those are nice, but all they do is increase the gap between rich and poor.

They moan about low paying, grunt labour jobs...but THOSE are the jobs that are getting the unemployed employed.

So is one really more important than the other? Movement vs new employment?

IMO, it's stupid to turn your nose at ANY job creation.

Chaps · #**249** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 2:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Teck

And speaking on a specific level, stadiums don't encourage people to move in and take up residency next door. In fact residents flee from these areas. Nobody with a choice lives next to a stadium.

So the question is back to you: if the master plan calls for increased residency in the downtown, why would we sink a half billion into an object that is practically guaranteed to discourage residency?

What residency? Aside from a spotted warehouse condo or two, the proposed area is not in close proximity to any residential. In fact, the land it's proposed for is zoned commercial/industrial is it not?

There are residential vacancies in the heart of downtown, and proposed condos waiting for fill before construction. So what is your proposed use for the railyards? More residential highrises to sit empty?

Yes this touches on your point...we need more residents downtown. But this stadium is NOT pushing people out, and in fact may encourage a few to consider downtown.

As far as "this not being in the plan"...this land was not in the plan. The plan focused the area between Sask Dr and Vic Ave with some limited bleeding. the plan suggested linking warehouse to downtown...which surprisingly, is also in the plans for the stadium project...to link the districts.

So looks like they are actually following the plan.

The city is investing money into downtown as part of the downtown proposal. That money was earmarked before the stadium talk. That stuff is already happening. The resulting increase is residency is going to take time. People aren't going to jump downtown at the idea of an improved downtown, they'll wait to see the results. The downtown plan is still happening. So your paranoia about this stadium harming that is completely unfounded.

Chaps · #**250** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 2:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migs

I agree, so why not do both? Check out the map I provided in an earlier post, or bettter yet 'google earth' and you'll see there are already MANY locations througout downtown Regina that need development (ie getting rid of all the eyesore groundlevel parking lots).

Of course it won't cure everything, nobody said it would. But it would get more people downtown on a regular basis and add to that current downtown plan that is about to be implemented, I see our city going in the right direction.

Because some people are wholeheartedly against sprawl, and for infill...except I guess when it comes to downtown. Downtown we need more sprawl and less infill?

Who knows Migs. I agree with you that our downtown needs infill before we start expanding it.

Chaps · #**251** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 3:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Teck

Migs! It's been so long since you promised to leave this thread! Well OK it's actually been 2 days. What made you break your word so quickly? You aren't a politician by any chance are you?

But seriously if you're going to suppress the personal attacks and debate the topic now I welcome you back.

I would encourage you - and anyone else with an interest - to visit the downtown in person rather than rely on google maps. The human street level perspective is important and you can't get that sitting on your computer looking at a grainy satellite image.

Go near Hamilton and Sask Drive near the Sears. You'll see no street parking and car after car circling around the casino. The casino saw this congestion, that's why they built additional parking, but even that only had a slight effect.

As it stands, shoppers fighting the traffic to go downtown are rolling the dice whether they will have convenient parking, and more often than not, they won't. What you don't see on google maps is this lack of parking and the parkade and surface lot signs that read 'lot full'.

On google maps you don't see the aggressive parking enforcement handing out expensive meter tickets or deciding that someone's vehicle is one foot too far or too close. These experiences sour the customer and they've developed an aversion to downtown. It sounds like you want to make that situation even worse with your constant cries to reduce parking in the downtown.

Yes I know with patience and perseverence and cash, it is possible to find parking downtown. But frankly the consumer doesn't want the headache. They opt to go to the outskirt malls and box stores where easy parking is assured for them.

We could debate the nature of humanity and why they do this, or we could accept that's just the way it is. People want to avoid headaches, and they like free parking within a few steps of the entrance. Sure it's lazy or whatever, but if we are competing for their attention, we have to meet their needs. Your idea of eliminating parking would be cutting off the nose to spite the face.

So you want to increase residential downtown, all the while making it more convenient to live elsewhere and travel downtown instead?

I work and play downtown. Parking is hardly an issue. Actually, parking is NOT an issue.

What IS an issue...is people who want FREE parking.

There is an abundance of parking downtown, it just costs a couple bucks.

Are you suggesting we throw up tons of free surface parking? Or should we build parkades for free?

With these people moaning about no reasonable ROI with a stadium...how are they going to react to government funded parkades that have 0 ROI?

Anyone who knows Regina downtown knows that we do not need more parking.

I park downtown 5 days a week for work, and a couple more times each week for other things. I've never had to leave downtown and go elsewhere because of no parking. Anyone who says otherwise is full of crap. And no, I don't have access to a company lot.

Chaps · #**252** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Teck

Simply saying a location is old and should be abandoned defeats your own argument. The downtown is even older than Taylor Field - should we be abandoning it too then?

Actually it defeats YOUR argument. Many new buildings have been built downtown within the last 100 years. And many of them in the last 20 years. Many buildings were replaced. And at least one very noteable building in Regina's downtown may be replaced in the near future as well.

I fail to see how that even remotely dismisses Migs point. But it does to yours quite considerably.

Chaps · #**253** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by grumpy old man

By all means, put it to a plebiscite. Just make sure the question is crystal clear, with no ambiguity. It should also be made clear that crown corporations = taxpayer funding...

It sure as HELL should not!

Chaps · #**254** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 3:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceedub1170

I find it interesting that the Saskatoon members are the ones kicking up the most fuss.

Interesting? Maybe. Expected? Definitely.

isaidso · #**255** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 7:59 PM**

If Regina gets the go ahead, are we talking about 2012 or further out?

Migs · #**256** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 11:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

If Regina gets the go ahead, are we talking about 2012 or further out?

2013 Grey Cup is in Regina!

Beadyeyez · #**257** Posted **Aug 11, 2009, 1:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migs

2013 Grey Cup is in Regina!

And I will be there in the new dome... watching it. I plan to have my season tix anywhere between the 50's on the opposition side. Preferably midway up so I can get the sun on my face when the roof is opened up on a beautiful summer day.

Can't wait to see the protesters during and after the build. Then the whiners about how much it has cost. Then the politicians demanding answers for cost overruns. Then the arguement over the land Mosaic Stadium currently stands on. What should go there...what are the priorities...What About the HOMELESS!!??!! WHAT ABOUT THE ROADS??? AAARRRGGG!!! TAXPAYER MONEY!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAA??? I HATE NICE THINGS!!! AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!INFRASTRUCTURE!!!!!!!AAAAHHHHH STADIUM RUINING MY LIFE!!!AAAARRGGGG!!!! MOVING OUT OF HERE!!!! STADIUM PUSHING EVERYONE OUT OF CITY!!!!!!!!! AAAARRRGGGHHH!!! HEALTHCARE!!!!! AAAARRRGGGHHH !!!! STADIUM KILLED ME!!!!!!!!!!

Or something similar to that anyways. It will be fun to sit back and watch anyways.

sledhead35 · #**258** Posted **Aug 11, 2009, 3:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beadyeyez

And I will be there in the new dome... watching it. I plan to have my season tix anywhere between the 50's on the opposition side. Preferably midway up so I can get the sun on my face when the roof is opened up on a beautiful summer day.

Can't wait to see the protesters during and after the build. Then the whiners about how much it has cost. Then the politicians demanding answers for cost overruns. Then the arguement over the land Mosaic Stadium currently stands on. What should go there...what are the priorities...What About the HOMELESS!!??!! WHAT ABOUT THE ROADS??? AAARRRGGG!!! TAXPAYER MONEY!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAA??? I HATE NICE THINGS!!! AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!INFRASTRUCTURE!!!!!!!AAAAHHHHH STADIUM RUINING MY LIFE!!!AAAARRGGGG!!!! MOVING OUT OF HERE!!!! STADIUM PUSHING EVERYONE OUT OF CITY!!!!!!!!! AAAARRRGGGHHH!!! HEALTHCARE!!!!! AAAARRRGGGHHH !!!! STADIUM KILLED ME!!!!!!!!!!

Or something similar to that anyways. It will be fun to sit back and watch anyways.

love it!

socialisthorde · #**259** Posted **Aug 11, 2009, 4:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceedub1170

I find it interesting that the Saskatoon members are the ones kicking up the most fuss.

Actually, there have been very few posts by saskatoon members, and most of those were simply to point out how ludicrous this thread is getting, not to argue about the stadium per se. I think most of the people you are bickering with are from Winnipeg, meaning they have no particular axe to grind, which makes some of the personal attacks against them even sillier. Leave Saskatoon, the Childrens' Hospital, university and syncrotron out of this please.

spictacular mcluvin · #**260** Posted **Aug 12, 2009, 3:23 AM**

OK can we all at least agree to disagree and also agree that some people on here are set in their opinions and can not be persuaded one way or the other so its pointless to bicker back and forth.

IMO I think it's going to be great for Regina and since Taylor Field is 100 years old it's about time and since people won't be willing to fork money to a FOOTBALL ONLY stadium then a MULTI-PURPOSE stadium is the only way to go other than the status quo, but lets stop all this annoying arguing of the same points over and over again. This goes to both sides of the debate, if you don't have anything NEW to add to the debate, then PLEASE don't bother. Although it's a free country and you can do what you want, it discourages a lot of us from reading this thread. Like someone else on here said earlier. I just skim over the ridiculously repetitive arguments from both sides.