Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

The only place the NFL would seriously consider in Canada, would be Toronto, and the Skydome is in no way adequate for NFL. Unfortunately, Toronto would have to build a completely new stadium, as almost every NFL team has moved away from dual purpose stadiums (football and baseball), to football only venues.

Yes, there is no path to the NFL in Canada without an acceptable stadium, and there are no acceptable stadiums. The big challenge is that anyone paying upwards of $8B USD for a team (average valuation at this time) is not going to without guarantees that they will eventually get to host a Super Bowl. The NFL actually has strict requirements for hosting that are a huge barrier - they require a stadium of at least 70,000 seats, at least 35,000 parking spaces within 1 mile, hotel rooms representing around 35% of the stadium capacity within an hour’s drive, and a gameday stadium temperature minimum of 50F (10C), which for us would mean a roof.

We are talking probably a minimum of $11-12B USD ground-up endeavour to get a team in a Canadian market. Corporations are also not allowed to own teams in the NFL so it would have to come from an individual, which limits things significantly.

[craner]

Originally Posted by elly63

Then why do you think they want out of where they are?

I’m not saying you’re wrong (more control of revenues, ticket scarcity, etc.), I just think it would be a mistake to move outside. Maybe it is largely a negotiating tactic with Pavco as others have mentioned.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by craner

I’m not saying you’re wrong (more control of revenues, ticket scarcity, etc.), I just think it would be a mistake to move outside. Maybe it is largely a negotiating tactic with Pavco as others have mentioned.

Don't know how big of a soccer fan you are but it's a soccer thing. Because soccer does not command as large a permanent presence in Canada as other sports, its fans are very wary of sharing and demand a SSS (soccer specific stadium). The definition of that has fairly eluded them aside from playing on turf and not allowing football and they perpetuate a myth that football is harder on turf than soccer which turf experts have repudiated. There's also the other turf issue. Players want to play on turf not artificial turf.

Despite having to keep explaining this to a certain poster, there is no economical way to maintain turf indoors without not only great expense but at the detriment of hosting other events in the facility. The Blue Jays studied the issue and couldn't make it work.

The places that are able to do it have things like movable pitches from outside to inside or fewer indoor events during the soccer season. You can't cover turf for a week for a car show and expect it to thrive.

BC Places' twin stadium in Germany rips out their turf for a couple of months in the summer so they can hold a concert series. Then they re-lay the turf. BC Place can't do that because of the football and soccer seasons plus all the other events the stadium needs to be viable.

As for being a negotiating ploy, the idea has been around a long time. So long, in fact, I can't remember why they didn't build it originally and moved into BC Place. More to come on that.

Story of the Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium

[logan5]

Originally Posted by craner

I’m not saying you’re wrong (more control of revenues, ticket scarcity, etc.), I just think it would be a mistake to move outside. Maybe it is largely a negotiating tactic with Pavco as others have mentioned.

The Seattle Sounders play outside in the exact same weather conditions that Vancouver has. The Sounders average over 30 000 per game, which ranks 2nd in the league.

Even if it is outdoors, a soccer specific stadium would have a way better atmosphere than cavernous BC Place, with the curtains. A new stadium would be much more intimate, better sightlines, closer to the action. Being outdoors does have the advantage of providing views of the north shore mountains, so overall a much better stadium experience, especially in the summer and spring.

Certainly BC Place has more bars and restaurants surrounding it, being downtown, but a new stadium would be part of an entertainment district, meaning plenty of new bars and restaurants, and a casino, like BC Place Pak Casino.

[Dalreg]

The view from the stands at a stadium is the last thing on my mind when attending a sporting event. If I want to see the mountains i look at them.....

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

The view from the stands at a stadium is the last thing on my mind when attending a sporting event. If I want to see the mountains i look at them.....

Action isn't always continuous so it's nice to have something to look at or in some cases distract. The latter might come into affect at Percival Molson stadium in Montreal which is noted for its view of the Montreal skyline as a feature. Helps to distract from the ancient stadium.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

The view from the stands at a stadium is the last thing on my mind when attending a sporting event. If I want to see the mountains i look at them.....

Every new sports stadium is designed with views in mind, because it greatly adds to the stadium experience. Sporting events are also a social gathering, so having a nice view adds to that.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

IMO it is entirely turning the screws on PavCo and the provincial Ministers that control it.

The province is renovating BC Place right now and the end result could be no tenants. That certainly would make them look dumb. A hundred million or two for a fancy real grass deployable field system looks pretty economical compared to building a new stadium far away from transit.

Figuring out how to manage boxes and concessions too. Probably makes sense to hand over a lease for concessions to the Lions and White Caps, and they manage that part of BC place. Basically reverse the deal: PavCo gets a bit of rent plus a revenue share.

How many events does BC Place have outside resident sports teams? I imagine it's probably the most used stadium in Canada outside of the Skydome.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

The only place the NFL would seriously consider in Canada, would be Toronto, and the Skydome is in no way adequate for NFL. Unfortunately, Toronto would have to build a completely new stadium, as almost every NFL team has moved away from dual purpose stadiums (football and baseball), to football only venues.

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Yes, there is no path to the NFL in Canada without an acceptable stadium, and there are no acceptable stadiums. The big challenge is that anyone paying upwards of $8B USD for a team (average valuation at this time) is not going to without guarantees that they will eventually get to host a Super Bowl. The NFL actually has strict requirements for hosting that are a huge barrier - they require a stadium of at least 70,000 seats, at least 35,000 parking spaces within 1 mile, hotel rooms representing around 35% of the stadium capacity within an hour’s drive, and a gameday stadium temperature minimum of 50F (10C), which for us would mean a roof.

We are talking probably a minimum of $11-12B USD ground-up endeavour to get a team in a Canadian market. Corporations are also not allowed to own teams in the NFL so it would have to come from an individual, which limits things significantly.

Wow, 35k parking spots and 35% hotel rooms within an hours drive? They probably have zero consideration for transit or hotel rooms within walking distance.

The NFL's values seem very outdated and I wouldn't want any Government in Canada to spend billions on a stadium used for 8 or 9 days a year. NFL stadiums are no doubt the least financially sensible investment in all the sports leagues. With how much controversy we have anytime public money is put into an NHL arena used 200 night a year, I'm confident no one will be dumb enough to suggest we try to get the NFL.. Maybe Doug Ford.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Wow, 35k parking spots and 35% hotel rooms within an hours drive? They probably have zero consideration for transit or hotel rooms within walking distance.

The NFL's values seem very outdated and I wouldn't want any Government in Canada to spend billions on a stadium used for 8 or 9 days a year. NFL stadiums are no doubt the least financially sensible investment in all the sports leagues. With how much controversy we have anytime public money is put into an NHL arena used 200 night a year, I'm confident no one will be dumb enough to suggest we try to get the NFL.. Maybe Doug Ford.

The NFL is a pretty exclusive club with 30 markets and cities want to be part of that. Watch what's going on with the Chiefs and Bears and their respective pursuits of new stadiums. Both are talking crossing state lines now. I'm sure there is some abstract accounting these places use to put a dollar value on the civic and state pride that being an NFL market brings. Toronto would certainly get use out of a new NFL size stadium (just look at the number of concerts that 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 of a temporary stadium they slapped together at the old airport is getting). But I certainly don't want to see the government getting too involved in that if Edward Rogers or one of those internet billionaires came along and decided they were making a serious play for a Toronto NFL team.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

How many events does BC Place have outside resident sports teams? I imagine it's probably the most used stadium in Canada outside of the Skydome.

It is used as a trade show floor a lot, not as a stadium. Vancouver lacks exhibition type space, with the PNE only having 100,000 square feet of discontinuous space, with all the location disadvantages of the PNE. BC Place is 162,000 square feet for exhibition space.

For comparison, Edmonton's Expo Centre has 425,000 square feet. Exhibition Place has 558,700 square feet in Enercare alone plus 400,000 or so of additional space.

Using BC Place as a stop gap exhibition space is a waste of the now close to $2 billion building, especially as it the use now is squeezing out core tenants.

It would be much cheaper to build better exhibition space elsewhere than to replicate the stadium function.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

The NFL is a pretty exclusive club with 30 markets and cities want to be part of that. Watch what's going on with the Chiefs and Bears and their respective pursuits of new stadiums. Both are talking crossing state lines now. I'm sure there is some abstract accounting these places use to put a dollar value on the civic and state pride that being an NFL market brings.

That would be fine for KC, considering they are a border city, with 1/3 of the population being in Kansas. However, I cannot see the Bears playing in another state. Definitely not Wisconsin, considering that is Packers territory. Would Gary, Indiana work? I can't see it.

All I know is the Bears really screwed up on remodelling the old Soldier Field.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

The NFL is a pretty exclusive club with 30 markets and cities want to be part of that. Watch what's going on with the Chiefs and Bears and their respective pursuits of new stadiums. Both are talking crossing state lines now. I'm sure there is some abstract accounting these places use to put a dollar value on the civic and state pride that being an NFL market brings. Toronto would certainly get use out of a new NFL size stadium (just look at the number of concerts that 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 of a temporary stadium they slapped together at the old airport is getting). But I certainly don't want to see the government getting too involved in that if Edward Rogers or one of those internet billionaires came along and decided they were making a serious play for a Toronto NFL team.

If a billionaire wants to go at it alone, they can go ahead.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

It is used as a trade show floor a lot, not as a stadium. Vancouver lacks exhibition type space, with the PNE only having 100,000 square feet of discontinuous space, with all the location disadvantages of the PNE. BC Place is 162,000 square feet for exhibition space.

For comparison, Edmonton's Expo Centre has 425,000 square feet. Exhibition Place has 558,700 square feet in Enercare alone plus 400,000 or so of additional space.

Using BC Place as a stop gap exhibition space is a waste of the now close to $2 billion building, especially as it the use now is squeezing out core tenants.

It would be much cheaper to build better exhibition space elsewhere than to replicate the stadium function.

Thanks for the context. I assumed BC Place might be well used for concerts at least, but maybe not.

Ottawa's exhibition space (outside the downtown Convention Centre, which has a different function as these do everywhere else) was at the Civic Centre at Lansdowne. When they closed it down for Lansdowne 1.0, we built a new exhibition space, the EY Centre, near the airport with 220k square feet. The Civic Centre's exhibition space was converted to retail as part of 1.0.

Vancouver has a lack of land like no other Canadian city, but maybe surface parking could be sacrificed by the airport for such a facility, with easy Skytrain access.

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Wow, 35k parking spots and 35% hotel rooms within an hours drive? They probably have zero consideration for transit or hotel rooms within walking distance.

The NFL's values seem very outdated and I wouldn't want any Government in Canada to spend billions on a stadium used for 8 or 9 days a year. NFL stadiums are no doubt the least financially sensible investment in all the sports leagues. With how much controversy we have anytime public money is put into an NHL arena used 200 night a year, I'm confident no one will be dumb enough to suggest we try to get the NFL.. Maybe Doug Ford.

Yeah the requirements for the Super Bowl are pretty steep. Given that many of our recent sports venue developments in this country involve the creation of a surrounding urban district, the excessive parking spot requirements seems to be a direct contradiction to the way we are going. Part of the requirements is also a big enough tailgating area (which seems like a surface parking lot is a great candidate for), so it’s not like meeting the goal can be achieved with underground parking.

I think the NFL is much better suited for US cities at this point. Orlando, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Austin, San Diego, and St Louis all make the most sense as expansion cites that would be able to more realistically meet the Super Bowl hosting requirements.

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

It is used as a trade show floor a lot, not as a stadium. Vancouver lacks exhibition type space, with the PNE only having 100,000 square feet of discontinuous space, with all the location disadvantages of the PNE. BC Place is 162,000 square feet for exhibition space.

For comparison, Edmonton's Expo Centre has 425,000 square feet. Exhibition Place has 558,700 square feet in Enercare alone plus 400,000 or so of additional space.

Using BC Place as a stop gap exhibition space is a waste of the now close to $2 billion building, especially as it the use now is squeezing out core tenants.

It would be much cheaper to build better exhibition space elsewhere than to replicate the stadium function.

Does the Vancouver Convention Center not count? It has over 460,000 sq feet. BC Place seems to target events like the boat show, home show, Playdome etc. but is also concerts, Rugby 7s, Supercross

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

Does the Vancouver Convention Center not count? It has over 460,000 sq feet. BC Place seems to target events like the boat show, home show, Playdome etc. but is also concerts, Rugby 7s, Supercross

No, convention versus exhibition space. In general, way cheaper, fewer amenities, less variety of breakout and support spaces. Most cities have a 'convention' centre and an 'exhibition' centre targeting different markets. Calgary has a hybrid centre plus their traditional downtown convention centre.

Here is the attendance amount of Stadium Events:
BC Lions x9 227,220

Grey Cup 52,349

Vancouver Whitecaps x19 427,153

Rugby 7s x3 67,753

FIM Supercross Championship estimate of 17,000

Taylor Swift x3 160,000

The Rolling Stones 50,000

Diljit Dosanjh 54,000

Coast City Country x3 forecast 75,000

'Stadium' use
41 days total; 1,130,475 attendees. (BC Place says 1,194,000 attendees, so two events might be missed from my list, or they're also counting a bunch of 5,000 people going to the boat show, home and garden, towards that number).

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

No, convention versus exhibition space. In general, way cheaper, fewer amenities, less variety of breakout and support spaces. Most cities have a 'convention' centre and an 'exhibition' centre targeting different markets. Calgary has a hybrid centre plus their traditional downtown convention centre.

Here is the attendance amount of Stadium Events:
BC Lions x9 227,220

Grey Cup 52,349

Vancouver Whitecaps x19 427,153

Rugby 7s x3 67,753

FIM Supercross Championship estimate of 17,000

Taylor Swift x3 160,000

The Rolling Stones 50,000

Diljit Dosanjh 54,000

Coast City Country x3 forecast 75,000

'Stadium' use
41 days total; 1,130,475 attendees. (BC Place says 1,194,000 attendees, so two events might be missed from my list, or they're also counting a bunch of 5,000 people going to the boat show, home and garden, towards that number).

Thanks for the clarification, I guess "booked days" also include set up and tear down" of said events, so even though Supercross is one night, it is probably booked for 7 or 8 days to get the dirt in and out

I think as far as the Whitecaps long term, even if BC Place gave them an agreement they liked, grass is never going to be an option, because there is no space to retract a grass pitch (like Vegas, Arizona and Sapporo Dome) and the systems like Real Madrid and Tottenham have probably couldn't be retrofitted (no matter how much they spent)

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

That would be fine for KC, considering they are a border city, with 1/3 of the population being in Kansas. However, I cannot see the Bears playing in another state. Definitely not Wisconsin, considering that is Packers territory. Would Gary, Indiana work? I can't see it.

All I know is the Bears really screwed up on remodelling the old Soldier Field.

Yes, Gary is being talked about. Also have seen chatter online of Munster Indiana. Both are a lot closer to Soldier Field than Arlington Heights (the current proposed site). I guess it depends on what part of the metro area the Bears draw from. Personally I think they just should just move to the new Northwestern Stadium for a couple or 3 seasons and rebuild on the Soldier Field site. Although if they do leave that area, it leaves the Soldier Field site open to have a new arena for the Bulls and Blackhawks built. The United Center will be approaching 40 years old by the time the Bears ever move and a new arena built in that site.

[northernlights99]

Originally Greg Kerfoot wanted to build his Soccer Specific Stadium down at the Waterfront near the Helijet pad. However that is Port Land and Ports don't allow construction of stadiums.

The City has very little say on construction on Ports land aside from planning road networks outside such an area. The City has no jurisdiction on Ports land.

So then they looked at a site near the Via Train station.

At any rate, I can't believe Kerfoot would foot the bill for a new stadium. Whereever it may be.

Certainly there will be no support for taxpayer money to pay for this.

So that leaves me assuming that Kerfoot is just floating this New stadium as a way get a better lease from BC Place.

As far as revenue stream, if Whitecaps consistently drew more fans (as opposed for the odd one off where a major star plays and he gets 55,000), then he would have more revenue wouldn't he ?

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Yeah the requirements for the Super Bowl are pretty steep. Given that many of our recent sports venue developments in this country involve the creation of a surrounding urban district, the excessive parking spot requirements seems to be a direct contradiction to the way we are going. Part of the requirements is also a big enough tailgating area (which seems like a surface parking lot is a great candidate for), so it’s not like meeting the goal can be achieved with underground parking.

I think the NFL is much better suited for US cities at this point. Orlando, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Austin, San Diego, and St Louis all make the most sense as expansion cites that would be able to more realistically meet the Super Bowl hosting requirements.

Minneapolis hosted the Super Bowl in 2018. The Vikings stadium is located in D/T Minneapolis and is not surrounded by a sea of parking. Rather, the stadium has spurred the development of a robust residential area.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by northernlights99

Originally Greg Kerfoot wanted to build his Soccer Specific Stadium down at the Waterfront near the Helijet pad. However that is Port Land and Ports don't allow construction of stadiums.

The City has very little say on construction on Ports land aside from planning road networks outside such an area. The City has no jurisdiction on Ports land.

So then they looked at a site near the Via Train station.

At any rate, I can't believe Kerfoot would foot the bill for a new stadium. Whereever it may be.

Certainly there will be no support for taxpayer money to pay for this.

So that leaves me assuming that Kerfoot is just floating this New stadium as a way get a better lease from BC Place.

As far as revenue stream, if Whitecaps consistently drew more fans (as opposed for the odd one off where a major star plays and he gets 55,000), then he would have more revenue wouldn't he ?

The City intends to lease the land to the Whitecaps for 99 years to build not only a stadium, but an entertainment district. That's 50 acres of land that the Whitecaps will control - 10 acres for a very large stadium, and 40 acres that they can use to finance the stadium by drawing commercial, and residential development, making the whole enterprise much more profitable than if it was just building a stadium and nothing else. Maybe Daryl Katz would want to be a partner here. That 40 acres can accommodate a lot of development. This is no bluff.

The valuation of the Whitecaps would go up significantly if they had their own arena, which would offset a huge portion of the cost for the stadium, with the potential of the team value going up to over a billion dollars in the not too distant future. A lot of money to be made for whoever buys into the Whitecaps and the new entertainment district.