Lansdowne 2.0 (Northside Stands/Arena Redevelopment) | Proposed

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

totally agree... but if there was a roof, it would block the view of the field for quite a few of the condos to the north...

I wonder if that is a factor?

I know two different groups of people who are long-time RedBlacks ticket holders and always have their seat at 50 yardline around row 20ish (the first or 2nd covered row). I love using their tickets when they are out of town and always knowing I will have some protection from rain/snow/sleet. It's not a deal-breaker, but it will likely make people think twice about renewing. Covered seats is the standard for new stadiums including Mosaic (Regina), IG (Winnipeg). The exception would be Tim Hortons (Hamilton) that is a horrendous place to watch a game in bad weather (very tall, exposed, no roof....).

[phil235]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

I know two different groups of people who are long-time RedBlacks ticket holders and always have their seat at 50 yardline around row 20ish (the first or 2nd covered row). I love using their tickets when they are out of town and always knowing I will have some protection from rain/snow/sleet. It's not a deal-breaker, but it will likely make people think twice about renewing. Covered seats is the standard for new stadiums including Mosaic (Regina), IG (Winnipeg). The exception would be Tim Hortons (Hamilton) that is a horrendous place to watch a game in bad weather (very tall, exposed, no roof....).

Completely agree. I had season tickets until this year and we deliberately kept them a few rows higher to be under the roof. Makes a huge difference when it rains.

[ponyboycurtis]

Originally Posted by Horus

Not keeping a roof over the North Side stands is a terrible mistake

I would imagine a good portion of that reasoning is the effect it would have on the south facing units up to whatever floor. Especially for the lower floors. You would effectively have a parking deck sized surface extending horizontally from your unit. It's not even a matter of "being able to see the game". It would just be terrible all around aesthetics for a certain number of units.

[Richard Eade]

There are so many towers in which the first several floors overlook a parking lot or structure that I doubt that overlooking a roof would be an issue.

I think that the real issue is that you can sell a condo with a view of the game for much more than a condo with a view of a roof. That and putting a roof over the stands cost money. It is a total win for the developer. Less cost and a higher payback. The City doesn’t care that it is a reduction in comfort for the people who own the stadium.

Hey, how about adding the roof, but make it strong enough to be a terrace for the condo building. (Cantilever it with the weight of the towers and/or tie it back to the towers with cables.) Yes, there would be a lot of extra cost, but think of the marketing for the condos. Even unit in the building can be priced at a premium because they would have access to watching the games from the terrace.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by phil235

Completely agree. I had season tickets until this year and we deliberately kept them a few rows higher to be under the roof. Makes a huge difference when it rains.

I remember a couple instances over the years where we were sitting in our seats during a torrential downpour and I jokingly asked the guys in front if they could sit forward a bit because the rain was splashing onto my knees from their heads

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Horus

Not keeping a roof over the North Side stands is a terrible mistake

They didn't even pretend they'd add a roof even early on with the renderings of an awesome buried arena.

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I kinda agree, why the big bridges and things? If the arena is going to have pass-thru private boxes so you can watch the game, why not just wrap the stands and 'land' them on the corner of the arena? Could lower the upper deck as it wraps to 'open' it up a bit, but the sun doesn't come from behind there so shadows are not an issue. It would produce a more-or-less continuous concourse which would exit to what I assume is an outdoor walkway tacked onto the roof deck of the arena to pass to the South stands.

Cool concept, but that would make the stadium more expensive. They really just want to make the stadium as cheap as possible.

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

totally agree... but if there was a roof, it would block the view of the field for quite a few of the condos to the north...

I wonder if that is a factor?

Could they get more money for the rent of apartments with a view, or for covered season tickets? Depending on who builds the apartments, OSEG may not benefit (should be up for bid, so not necessarily an OSEG partner).

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

There are so many towers in which the first several floors overlook a parking lot or structure that I doubt that overlooking a roof would be an issue.

I think that the real issue is that you can sell a condo with a view of the game for much more than a condo with a view of a roof. That and putting a roof over the stands cost money. It is a total win for the developer. Less cost and a higher payback. The City doesn’t care that it is a reduction in comfort for the people who own the stadium.

Hey, how about adding the roof, but make it strong enough to be a terrace for the condo building. (Cantilever it with the weight of the towers and/or tie it back to the towers with cables.) Yes, there would be a lot of extra cost, but think of the marketing for the condos. Even unit in the building can be priced at a premium because they would have access to watching the games from the terrace.

These will probably be rentals, not condos. And OSEG may not be involved, as per my previous comment. Though last time, an OSEG partner conveniently won the bid.

I like the idea of having a roof that doubles as a terrace however, and this would be the only reasonable excuse to exclude a roof from the design (though we know it's only about money), they are leaving space for expansion between the apartment podium and the new stands, so building a roof could impact the feasibility of that expansion.