Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka
I recall being at a Fury match years ago in the rain and people complaining in the concourse that it was counterintuitive for the 'main' stand (south) being uncovered and used for those matches despite the fact that the unused stand (north) was covered and empty.
There are a number of oversights in the Lansdowne project but this seems to be one of the most glaring. Stadiums are moving from uncovered to covered, or to semi-domed in some instances, so for Ottawa to build a new stand with no covering whatsoever is unwise in today's environment. I don't recall seeing anything for a new North stand yet but if the same processes are taken as with the South then i'm not holding my breath.
Portland recently renovated their new main stand and it has sufficient covering, as one example:
 |
Portland's stadium looks really good.
Under Jim Watson, everything was value engineered to death, and that is the result. O-Train is the same; functional, but basic.
As per
thurmas's post earlier, Sutcliffe seems a little more open to making improvements beyond the basics. His quote “
What I was writing about at that time, which I still believe in, is that I don’t think we should fall into the trap of always trying to make everything revenue neutral as a justification for something,” might suggest he would consider requests from the public, such as a canopy over the new North Side Stands and making the arena green roof accessible, even if it means investing a bit more money to the point where the overall project won't be "revenue neutral".
Threaded Mode