Regina | New Mosaic Stadium

[StealthGirl]

Knock the siding if you must, but the Tyndal stone (which you don't see from that angle in the photo) looks fantastic. I think it's great they are going to restore the Centennial fountain in the park next to the stadium and didn't take out all those trees. I look forward to seeing how they landscape around it.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

Knock the siding if you must, but the Tyndal stone (which you don't see from that angle in the photo) looks fantastic. I think it's great they are going to restore the Centennial fountain in the park next to the stadium and didn't take out all those trees. I look forward to seeing how they landscape around it.

The Tyndall stone use was very uninspired. It really doesn't add anything.

And the landscaping currently evident on the north east corner looks like a parking lot. I sure hope they soften it up.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by UPP

But you see, the people who care, go to sporting events, and are paying the bulk of the cost, will be inside the stadium so they wanted the money spent on the actual game experience.

Those who don't care about sports and bitched about the cost of the stadium can look at the exterior and thank themselves for it being cheaply designed.

This is exactly the wrong type of attitude for municipal architecture.

The stadium will be empty and unused far more than it will be used. And because it's going to last decades they should have invested in more the design.

By this ridiculous logic if we had to rebuild The Leg you'd recommend it look like this, so long as the chamber seats were spacious and restrooms more accessible.

We need to stop viewing civic architecture as function over form. It does not serve us well.

[StealthGirl]

New video of completed field.

http://www.fabritecstructures.com/content/reginas-mosaic-stadium-completed

[StealthGirl]

Beer Bros. ‏@BeerBros 1h1 hour ago
Guess where the NEXT Beer Bros LOCATION is! We'll give you 3 guesses... #AwesomeTakeOnGameFood #YQR @skRoughriders

https://twitter.com/BeerBros/status/775806701429587968

(Hmmm, tweet deleted. Photo with this tweet was the new stadium. Wonder if they had to take down the tweet bc the info isn't supposed to be out yet)

[Dalreg]

I see we have a new troll spreading his line of BS. Good on you Brutal. Spread your love wherever you can, because guess what. The people that will be using this stadium will love it for what it is.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

I see we have a new troll spreading his line of BS. Good on you Brutal. Spread your love wherever you can, because guess what. The people that will be using this stadium will love it for what it is.

New? I've been dumping on this stadium for years now.

The fact that you don't address anything the nature of municipal architecture tells me everything I need know. That is, Riders > Regina.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

New? I've been dumping on this stadium for years now.

The fact that you don't address anything the nature of municipal architecture tells me everything I need know. That is, Riders > Regina.

Hi Chad.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Migs

Hi Chad.

Chad couldn't hope to be as literate as BD.

And although I like the stadium and am certainly impressed with its features and the interior, let's be honest about it...of all aspects of the stadium, the façade is by far the weakest element. It's entirely possible that it was a cost saving measure to ensure they could include all the other "goodies" for the budget.

I don't have a problem with the design of the exterior per se, just the materials used. Although more expensive, if instead of the metal panels, they had gone with tinted, opaque glass (green and greyish-white), it would've looked a lot fresher/sleeker... and might have even looked a lot more similar to the first renderings published...

They could have also backlight the glass panels with LED lights and the stadium could appear to be "glowing" in a sense at night... Imagine walking up a stadium that looks like that on a Friday night in the summer... or at the Grey Cup...

There's nothing wrong with critiquing things... that's how progress/improvements are made.

[Baker58]

Originally Posted by Migs

Hi Chad.

As much as I disagree with some of what he posts he is certainly not Novak and actually brings some good info to the site. He isn't always right with some of the info he posts but he has been pretty accurate and informative

I feel they cheaped out with the exterior cladding (and they did) but I also think it did end up looking good. I think it would have looked better with better materials but am happy with how the finished product turned out especially since they had a fixed budget to work with. The guys who did this stadium were definitely pros

[#1Fan]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Chad couldn't hope to be as literate as BD.

I don't have a problem with the design of the exterior per se, just the materials used. Although more expensive, if instead of the metal panels, they had gone with tinted, opaque glass (green and greyish-white), it would've looked a lot fresher/sleeker... and might have even looked a lot more similar to the first renderings published...

They could have also backlight the glass panels with LED lights and the stadium could appear to be "glowing" in a sense at night... Imagine walking up a stadium that looks like that on a Friday night in the summer... or at the Grey Cup...

There's nothing wrong with critiquing things... that's how progress/improvements are made.

Current exterior was a way to keep costs down while ensuring a budgeted number would go towards creating the best possible game day atmosphere in the stadium (amenities, features, etc).

As for your suggestions, unfortunately going with the glass idea would have added on an incredibly substantial cost to the stadium. Like, no LED field lights, score board or LED ribbon board cost. I know this was an extreme example, however certain areas were definitely pushed with a cost savings attitude to better spend the money elsewhere.

The Rider TI's are a bit different as they're spending good money on everything.

[esquire]

Get some perspective here...10 years ago who could have even imagined the Riders getting a nice new stadium? Now people are griping because it's not an architectural showpiece?

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by #1Fan

Current exterior was a way to keep costs down while ensuring a budgeted number would go towards creating the best possible game day atmosphere in the stadium (amenities, features, etc).

As for your suggestions, unfortunately going with the glass idea would have added on an incredibly substantial cost to the stadium. Like, no LED field lights, score board or LED ribbon board cost. I know this was an extreme example, however certain areas were definitely pushed with a cost savings attitude to better spend the money elsewhere.

The Rider TI's are a bit different as they're spending good money on everything.

Kind of weird that you edited out the paragraph of my post that says the exact same thing...

And although I like the stadium and am certainly impressed with its features and the interior, let's be honest about it...of all aspects of the stadium, the façade is by far the weakest element. It's entirely possible that it was a cost saving measure to ensure they could include all the other "goodies" for the budget.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by esquire

Get some perspective here...10 years ago who could have even imagined the Riders getting a nice new stadium? Now people are griping because it's not an architectural showpiece?

So on a city/architecture website, we're not supposed to discuss the merits of a design? I was under the impression that that was actually one of the main purposes of this site. If that's not the case, we may as well get rid of this thread and just read the news/watch the construction cam.

10 years ago, who would have thought the CFL would be in a position where Montreal would do stadium renos, Ottawa would be back in the fold with a rebuilt/new stadium, Hamilton would have a new stadium, Toronto would be in a reno'ed semi-new stadium, Winnipeg would have a new stadium, BC would be in a completely refurbished stadium, AND the Riders would have a new stadium to play in.

None of the above have stopped people from thinking Ottawa's upper decks are too small (the same has been said of new Mosaic)... It hasn't stopped various teams from seeing deficiencies/ways to improve their stadium (see corrections that have had to be made to IGF, or the new party decks being added in Eastern stadiums).

Also, if you can't be critical of each stadium, you can't form an opinion on which you feel is the "best" of the bunch, which is always a HUGE discussion for everything on this website.

One can understand why a decision was made (budget, etc), while at the same time, thinking about how it could have been better/improved if more funds (within reason) were available.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Nathan

So on a city/architecture website, we're not supposed to discuss the merits of a design? I was under the impression that that was actually one of the main purposes of this site. If that's not the case, we may as well get rid of this thread and just read the news/watch the construction cam.

Discuss to your heart's content, but a bit of reality doesn't hurt either. This design wasn't an architecture school thesis where potential project cost is no object... I think the architects deserve credit for achieving a nice look for the project within a somewhat limited budget.

[UPP]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

This is exactly the wrong type of attitude for municipal architecture.

The stadium will be empty and unused far more than it will be used. And because it's going to last decades they should have invested in more the design.

By this ridiculous logic if we had to rebuild The Leg you'd recommend it look like this, so long as the chamber seats were spacious and restrooms more accessible.

We need to stop viewing civic architecture as function over form. It does not serve us well.

Apples to oranges much? The Leg is the Provincial seat in the middle of an urban park, that was built over 100 years ago.

This is a football stadium, built next to a rail line, surrounded by other sports facilities, with the exact same exteriors.

No, the siding isn't architecturally pleasing, but yes, the roof is.

Now, we could spent 1 billion plus like they did in Arlington Texas for a new football stadium that compliments beautifully the Wal-Mart across the street and the beautiful sea of parking lot around it.

Your last sentence is also ironic, if civic architecture is functional, then it does serve us well.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by esquire

Discuss to your heart's content, but a bit of reality doesn't hurt either. This design wasn't an architecture school thesis where potential project cost is no object... I think the architects deserve credit for achieving a nice look for the project within a somewhat limited budget.

I think they deserve credit too, and overall I'm happy with the result... But that doesn't mean I can't say/recognize that the exterior siding is the weakest part of the finished product.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I think they deserve credit too, and overall I'm happy with the result... But that doesn't mean I can't say/recognize that the exterior siding is the weakest part of the finished product.

For what it's worth I agree with you too... although with modern stadiums and arenas the exterior tends to be the weakest part of the design so NMS is hardly an outlier.

I just don't think it's necessarily catastrophic. From a pragmatic point of view, I'd rather have a pretty good 8/10 stadium today instead of waiting forever until there was enough money for a mind-blowingly spectacular 10/10 stadium.

[#1Fan]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Kind of weird that you edited out the paragraph of my post that says the exact same thing...

I left it out as to not repeat the same information in 1 post. Quoting your post was just a lead in for my response and information.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by esquire

For what it's worth I agree with you too... although with modern stadiums and arenas the exterior tends to be the weakest part of the design so NMS is hardly an outlier.

I just don't think it's necessarily catastrophic. From a pragmatic point of view, I'd rather have a pretty good 8/10 stadium today instead of waiting forever until there was enough money for a mind-blowingly spectacular 10/10 stadium.

I can agree with that.

Originally Posted by #1Fan

I left it out as to not repeat the same information in 1 post. Quoting your post was just a lead in for my response and information.

Except it reframes my post to make it sound like I didn't understand that it was likely the budget and their decision to put money elsewhere that led them down the path to a cheaper cladding option. Expand on it to your heart's content, but the edit removed the portion that gave the context for the rest of the comment, that's all.