Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreamingViking
The issue of having one side fully compliant with current standards and the other side not, remains.
I think we were lucky here... built a new stadium with senior government help due to a significant sporting event being held locally, and before construction cost escalation really took hold.
The result wasn't the best, but it is much better than what we had with Ivor Wynne Stadium and the team ownership has made incremental investments over time (to maximize their revenue, no doubt, but in lasting improvements)
|
The former THF in my mind has definitely punched above it's weight in terms of stadiums. With the black and gold bunting, banners etc it looks good on TV, it's rightsized, and the party areas seem popular. I remember an LDC game that sold over a thousand tickets more than capacity and I wondered why there were empty seats at the top of the stadium. The people were in the party areas.
The stadium has even had some iconic moments that people look upon fondly ie Soccer team beating the US getting them closer to qualifying for the WC.
Many people unfairly shat on the design etc and I kept saying wait until it's finished. For the $145 million the people of Hamilton got a steal.
And yes, by building one side new while leaving the other does create a have and have not. They'll be doing that in Ottawa except the have not side is fairly new in comparison.
To the folks in Calgary, it's not going to get cheaper, that's the new reality and frankly they more than anybody had multiple chances to rectify the situation, as did Montreal and the Big O. But better late than never.
Threaded Mode