HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4241  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 3:14 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
For hockey and basketball, as indoor venues, you want to try and use it at least 100 times per year to make it worth it. Scotiabank arena, for me, seems like a raging success because it's booked almost every night. It can be difficult to adapt an arena for both hockey and basketball (see Barclay's), but Toronto seems to have found a good formula (correct me if I'm wrong Torontonians).
Barclays was designed as a basketball facility first and foremost. It's a kludge to get a hockey rink into there.

If an arena designed from the outset as a hockey/basketball hybrid, the compromises are nowhere near as bad. There's a bunch of those designs around. It's also why the private sector is more into arenas - you can run events year round and the smaller capacity means you can fill it more easily.

The economics of football stadiums are terrible, given their lack of use, high capacities and astronomical costs. I've always considered CFL stadiums as sort of a 'gift' from the locals. The NFL is into another level of 'gift'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4242  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 3:23 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
You're right. The old crop of multipurpose stadiums were typically owned by public authorities and team owners didn't get much if any of the proceeds from concessions, parking, etc. There were little if any premium seating areas like suites and club seats to make money from.

Of course, that's a pretty flimsy set of arguments to justify public dollars for new venue construction, so naturally the owners had to pump up the fan angle... they had to "teach" the fans that the venues they were fine with were in fact grossly inadequate and had to be replaced, etc. Not surprisingly, many people bought it.
They bought it, indeed. Bought and paid for it.

SkyDome's advantages are just too good though:

1. It's paid for, mostly courtesy of Ontario taxpayers.
2. It has a retractable roof, which can be helpful in Toronto's climate.
3. The location can't be beat with good connections to transit and entertainment in the heart of the city.
4. It has the amenities that earn $$$ for the owner.

About the only bad thing about it is that it doesn't have the 'baseball feel' like many newer ballparks do. However, I suspect that's window dressing. If the team sucks, nobody will go to the fanciest place to watch a team repeatedly lose. Have a winning team and you'll pack the joint, as we saw in 2015 and 2016.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4243  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 3:26 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Totally true. Skydome delivers on the essentials, and it's hard to see how a billion dollar pricetag for Rogers would justify the marginal improvements that a new stadium would offer.

Also, in some respects Skydome feels less outdated than it did 20 years ago. Baseball's obsession with nostalgia peaked in the 90s/00s, and in more recent years we've been seeing increasingly contemporary stadium designs (just look at what has been built in the last decade in places like Minneapolis and Miami). That ugly hangar of a stadium they've built in Dallas makes Skydome look like an architectural jewel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4244  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 3:32 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
Barclays was designed as a basketball facility first and foremost. It's a kludge to get a hockey rink into there.

If an arena designed from the outset as a hockey/basketball hybrid, the compromises are nowhere near as bad. There's a bunch of those designs around. It's also why the private sector is more into arenas - you can run events year round and the smaller capacity means you can fill it more easily.

The economics of football stadiums are terrible, given their lack of use, high capacities and astronomical costs. I've always considered CFL stadiums as sort of a 'gift' from the locals. The NFL is into another level of 'gift'.
Definitely true. I'd say that in the case of NFL stadiums it's *a bit* better because in many U.S. cities you at least have regular or occasional college football events that might use it a few times a year, or even stuff like local or state high school football championships that might draw decent enough crowds to justify using it.

In the case of outdoor stadiums the climate in much of the U.S. is also more conducive to using them for concerts as well for a greater part of the year.

Other than the main tenant it's hard to imagine many potential annual uses for even modest-sized CFL stadiums like Ottawa's and Hamilton's.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4245  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 3:32 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Totally true. Skydome delivers on the essentials, and it's hard to see how a billion dollar pricetag for Rogers would justify the marginal improvements that a new stadium would offer.

Also, in some respects Skydome feels less outdated than it did 20 years ago. Baseball's obsession with nostalgia peaked in the 90s/00s, and in more recent years we've been seeing increasingly contemporary stadium designs (just look at what has been built in the last decade in places like Minneapolis and Miami). That ugly hangar of a stadium they've built in Dallas makes Skydome look like an architectural jewel.
AT&T stadium and many newer retractable roof stadiums still look dark inside compared to SkyDome. To me, at least.

Maybe that's the point. In 20 years, owners will be clamouring for replacing these 'architecturally outdated' designs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4246  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 3:42 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
That ugly hangar of a stadium they've built in Dallas makes Skydome look like an architectural jewel.
Whether or not you think it looks better is beside the point, though, when the main purpose of a lot of these newer stadiums is amenities. Being an architectural jewel doesn't pay the bills like player, corporate, and training facilities built in-house. There's a lack of expansion or renovation potential at Rogers which is going to be what holds it back in the medium-term.

I think the new stadium in Minnesota is one of the nicer stadiums in North America visually. Actually, Minneapolis has three new stadiums.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
AT&T stadium and many newer retractable roof stadiums still look dark inside compared to SkyDome. To me, at least.
I don't see much of a difference, IMO.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4247  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 3:55 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Definitely true. I'd say that in the case of NFL stadiums it's *a bit* better because in many U.S. cities you at least have regular or occasional college football events that might use it a few times a year, or even stuff like local or state high school football championships that might draw decent enough crowds to justify using it.

In the case of outdoor stadiums the climate in much of the U.S. is also more conducive to using them for concerts as well for a greater part of the year.

Other than the main tenant it's hard to imagine many potential annual uses for even modest-sized CFL stadiums like Ottawa's and Hamilton's.
Most college football teams playing in NFL stadiums tend to be in the same category as CPL teams playing in CFL stadiums... basically a renter to help pay some of the bills, but in no need of such a large and extravagant facility. They would rarely if ever justify those facilities. (The big glamorous NCAA programs have their own stadiums...)

Think of Pitt playing at Heinz Stadium, or the U playing at Hard Rock, or the b- and c-tier bowl games at NFL stadiums... they generally don't draw anywhere close to capacity crowds.

The high school championships or whatever don't count, since they will simply default to the biggest stadium available at a reasonable price. They probably aren't too picky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4248  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 3:57 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
Whether or not you think it looks better is beside the point, though, when the main purpose of a lot of these newer stadiums is amenities. Being an architectural jewel doesn't pay the bills like player, corporate, and training facilities built in-house. There's a lack of expansion or renovation potential at Rogers which is going to be what holds it back in the medium-term.
If Rogers feels held back by Skydome, then by all means they should have at 'er and build a new stadium. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4249  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 4:06 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Most college football teams playing in NFL stadiums tend to be in the same category as CPL teams playing in CFL stadiums... basically a renter to help pay some of the bills, but in no need of such a large and extravagant facility. They would rarely if ever justify those facilities. (The big glamorous NCAA programs have their own stadiums...)

Think of Pitt playing at Heinz Stadium, or the U playing at Hard Rock, or the b- and c-tier bowl games at NFL stadiums... they generally don't draw anywhere close to capacity crowds.
.
U of Miami gets over 50,000 to their games, and Pitt averages over 40,000. Those are still pretty good crowds.

I don't think the Winnipeg CPL club fills three quarters of IGF. The Ottawa Fury only used one stand at Lansdowne and it wasn't always full.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4250  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 4:10 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
The high school championships or whatever don't count, since they will simply default to the biggest stadium available at a reasonable price. They probably aren't too picky.
I agree. But if you get 20,000 or 30,000 people out to the state high school football championships in an NFL stadium, that still adds to the jusitification of a city needing a largish stadium - and that it's not just for the NFL.

Besides hosting the Fury (crowds of about 8,000), Lansdowne hosts the Panda Game once a year, and the place is packed or close. That's pretty unique in U Sport though.

Aside from that... I don't believe it averages one large concert every year. Maybe one every two or three years?

It hosted an NHL outdoor game - once every 10 or 20 years?

And the Grey Cup - once every 10 or so years?
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4251  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 4:13 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Their crowds are respectable but at considerably lower price points... cheaper tickets, probably very little in the way of premium seat revenues compared to the NFL teams, etc. The point is that a team like Pitt would never build something like Heinz Stadium on their own. For example, the University of Minnesota used to share the Metrodome before they built their own sizable, but quite modest stadium (USBank).

The point is that unlike arenas where you can have multiple big users (NBA, NHL, major concert promoters, even other sports events like UFC/boxing/wrestling or whatever) and aren't dependent on just one thing, outdoor football stadiums tend to live or die on a single main tenant.

EDIT: Your last post above speaks to my point... the other major events that tend to fill outdoor stadiums like the Grey Cup, men's/women's World Cup, athletics events, Heritage Classic, major concerts, etc. are generally pretty rare. If you look at IG Field in Winnipeg there have generally only been one or two big events a year drawing north of 10,000 that are not Bomber games.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4252  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 4:32 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Their crowds are respectable but at considerably lower price points... cheaper tickets, probably very little in the way of premium seat revenues compared to the NFL teams, etc. The point is that a team like Pitt would never build something like Heinz Stadium on their own. For example, the University of Minnesota used to share the Metrodome before they built their own sizable, but quite modest stadium (USBank).

The point is that unlike arenas where you can have multiple big users (NBA, NHL, major concert promoters, even other sports events like UFC/boxing/wrestling or whatever) and aren't dependent on just one thing, outdoor football stadiums tend to live or die on a single main tenant.

EDIT: Your last post above speaks to my point... the other major events that tend to fill outdoor stadiums like the Grey Cup, men's/women's World Cup, athletics events, Heritage Classic, major concerts, etc. are generally pretty rare. If you look at IG Field in Winnipeg there have generally only been one or two big events a year drawing north of 10,000 that are not Bomber games.
I think we're mostly in agreement. I've just always found that large U.S. stadiums seem to have more potential annual uses than even modestly-sized Canadian ones.

We don't really have things like this in Canada:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls1ec3bBMno
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4253  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 7:50 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
If Rogers feels held back by Skydome, then by all means they should have at 'er and build a new stadium. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though
Neither will I, of course, but i'm sure it's not just Rogers' feelings on the matter - I recall reading something a year or more ago about MLB poking around seeing what they were doing re: Rogers Centre, and what their plans were. There's been discussions at the municipal level but there's obviously not going to be much, if any, funding available.

This is a good primer:
https://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/ml...rogers-centre/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4254  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 8:00 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I've just always found that large U.S. stadiums seem to have more potential annual uses than even modestly-sized Canadian ones.
Depends on which stadiums you look at, really. The Rose Bowl, as one example, hosts NCAA football, the Rose Bowl, typically half a dozen concerts, and a handful of CONCACAF/USF matches each year. Despite this activity it still operates on an annual loss and has fallen behind other venues in the city. There's a good reason why the Rams played out of the Coliseum and why the Chargers selected the Galaxy's stadium for short-term leases.

Michigan and Ohio Stadiums only really host NCAA football and the occasional concert. The same can be said for a lot of the big stadiums in the NCAA/NFL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4255  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 8:45 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
Neither will I, of course, but i'm sure it's not just Rogers' feelings on the matter - I recall reading something a year or more ago about MLB poking around seeing what they were doing re: Rogers Centre, and what their plans were. There's been discussions at the municipal level but there's obviously not going to be much, if any, funding available.

This is a good primer:
https://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/ml...rogers-centre/
That article sounded pretty optimstic about Skydome's renovation potential. If Rogers has to spend its own money (which I'd say is a safe bet considering the circumstances) then those types of spot improvements are about what I'd expect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4256  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 8:53 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,428
Realigning the seats so the sight lines converge on the pitchers mound instead of Centre Field is my #1 for Skydome renovations. Will change the character more than I think most people realize.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4257  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2020, 12:31 AM
Djeffery Djeffery is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 4,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post

For hockey and basketball, as indoor venues, you want to try and use it at least 100 times per year to make it worth it. Scotiabank arena, for me, seems like a raging success because it's booked almost every night. It can be difficult to adapt an arena for both hockey and basketball (see Barclay's), but Toronto seems to have found a good formula (correct me if I'm wrong Torontonians).
Toronto was close to it being a potential shitshow though. Many forget the ACC was being built by the Raptors, the Leafs were still talking about their own arena, (one proposal was on top of Union Station, directly next to the ACC). When the deal finally happened where the Leafs bought the Raptors and the under-construction arena, there was a significant amount of re-work done to bring it up to hockey standard for the spectators (not to mention the behind the scenes work for the Leafs facilities). If the Leafs hadn't purchased the Raps when they did, the ACC would have been close to or actually finished and it would have been a lot bigger deal to put the hockey team in there in what would have been a substandard hockey arena.

Detroit had a similar deal with Little Caesars Arena, where the Pistons joined the party when the arena was well under construction. I don't think that involved a lot of seating bowl changes as I think it's said that a hockey bowl is more suited to basketball conversion than a basketball-centric design is for hockey. But they did have to do a lot of back of house changes to add the Pistons in there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4258  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2020, 1:36 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,664
Looks like the new arena being built in Trois-Rivières will be home to an ECHL team. Affiliated with the Habs.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4259  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2020, 3:10 AM
DavefromSt.Vital DavefromSt.Vital is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Yonge and Davisville
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Looks like the new arena being built in Trois-Rivières will be home to an ECHL team. Affiliated with the Habs.
https://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2...andre-bergeron
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4260  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2020, 7:48 PM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is online now
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Totally true. Skydome delivers on the essentials, and it's hard to see how a billion dollar pricetag for Rogers would justify the marginal improvements that a new stadium would offer.

Also, in some respects Skydome feels less outdated than it did 20 years ago. Baseball's obsession with nostalgia peaked in the 90s/00s, and in more recent years we've been seeing increasingly contemporary stadium designs (just look at what has been built in the last decade in places like Minneapolis and Miami). That ugly hangar of a stadium they've built in Dallas makes Skydome look like an architectural jewel.
I assume you’re referring to the new Rangers stadium (not the Cowboys stadium). That Rangers stadium looks atrocious from the outside.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.