New Arena for Downtown Edmonton

[fortroad]

^ Can't go too big, just makes the game seem less fun!

[Arriviste]

You guys deserve a new arena more than any other Canadian city. The Colloseum sure has seen some history though. It's like Fenway of the NHL almost. Good on yah for it.

The one thing they have to figure out when designing the building is how to keep the noise. A lot of these new arenas you can't hear the fans like in Rexall...changes the atmosphere...I don't like it.

[newflyer]

New arenas are so quite, because it makes for better concert acoustics.

The new MTS centre in Winnipeg contains acoustic paneling which eliminates the echoing effect plagged by many older arenas. Its concert quality is compared to the concert hall, which is very high for a sports venue.

The old Winnipeg arena was one of the loudest arenas in the NHL, second only to the old Chicago arena, due to its concrete walls and large right angled corners within the seating area. Massive echoing!! It made for a great hockey atmosphere, but very bad concert venue.

[MistyMountainHop]

The arena shoulod have removable acoustic paneling. Put it in for concerts, take it out for hockey. You'd get the best of both worlds.

[SSLL]

A downtown arena would be great!

[krazycanuck]

I doubt you will ever see another 20K+ arena built in the NHL. Reason is this, the extra 2,000 seats don't generate a whole lot of extra revenue for the team because the 2,000 seats added to the top of a rink won't fetch a lot more than 20 bucks a pop, that's $40,000 a game (if they're all sold) and maybe $2 million a year tops including preseason and playoffs. Pretty small beans for an NHL club.

Or, if they build it smaller, The Oilers have less supply which lets them up the price on all their tickets and a better experience for fans because they get a more intimate building.

I don't believe any team in this league can also consistantly sell out a 21,000 seat building, aside from probably Montreal and Toronto. Learn from Chicago's mistake...keep the building a reasonable size. Just because the Oilers would sell out 21,000 seats a game for 5 or 6 games a year doesn't make it a good idea to go big.

Even Ken King of the Flames here has said that Ideally capacity on a new building would be down in the 18,000 seat range, from around 19,500 with more club seats and more suites.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by SHOtime

There is a reason that during arena building boom of the 90's most built for 18000-19000 capacity.....

Mostly because nearly all of those were built in American cities, where they in some cases STILL haven't seen a sellout.

You could have 40,000 seat Saddledome and Northlands right now, and they'd still be selling out every damn game. Of course, long term that just isn't the case, as we well remember...

[itom 987]

If the existing Colleseum held 21,000 seats there would have been enough space to add the luxury skyboxes instead of building a brand new Colleseum. Having space gives the ability to adjust with the times.

[krazycanuck]

Originally Posted by itom 987

If the existing Colleseum held 21,000 seats there would have been enough space to add the luxury skyboxes instead of building a brand new Colleseum. Having space gives the ability to adjust with the times.

Would you want to go to a hockey game with 13,000 people in the stands of a 21,000 seat arena?

[itom 987]

Originally Posted by krazycanuck

Would you want to go to a hockey game with 13,000 people in the stands of a 21,000 seat arena?

If the arena is one of the largest in the league, sure. It would beat the hell out of attending a game with 6,100 in the stands of a 10,000 seat arena. Actual attendance from city to city varies. Edmonton hosted the Hockey Classic at the Commonwealth Stadium, 60,000 fans saw it in -30c weather so we can afford to have a new 21,000 seat colleseum.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Mostly because nearly all of those were built in American cities, where they in some cases STILL haven't seen a sellout.

You could have 40,000 seat Saddledome and Northlands right now, and they'd still be selling out every damn game. Of course, long term that just isn't the case, as we well remember...

But like crazycanuck said those revenues don't add up for the team. I'd hate to see what it would cost to build an arena that size and you end up selling those for peanuts, while driving down demand and the price of club seats.

Who cares if the oilers could draw 40 000 a game. As a fan my first priority is seeing a competative team, having an areana that maximizes revenues is a big chunk of that.

This isn't football where you have the event factor...were dealing with a couple games a week.

Look at how some of the new baseball stadiums are being built with significantly less capacity. I think the mets new stadium will hold 15 000 LESS people.

[adam-machiavelli]

No government should spend a cent on this project. Study after study has shown that in the long term, governments spend more on 'mega entertainment complexes' than they earn and they rarely generate enough tax revenues, both directly and indirectly to deserve public support. The project must be 100% privately financed. The government should never ever subsidize elite athletes when we have a real obesity problem amongst the general population in our country.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

No government should spend a cent on this project. Study after study has shown that in the long term, governments spend more on 'mega entertainment complexes' than they earn and they rarely generate enough tax revenues, both directly and indirectly to deserve public support. The project must be 100% privately financed. The government should never ever subsidize elite athletes when we have a real obesity problem amongst the general population in our country.

I love this arguement....

If you were with the EIG would you build it downtown? They surely aren't maximizing revenues by building it on some of the most expensive land in the city, tougher design standards, nearby parking, mass transit access, competition for pre/post game food and drinks.

By building this arena downtown they are doing something very important for the city, the city should return the favour by giving something back.

[feepa]

I think the problem with building more seats is not cost so much as viability and sight lines.
I know personally, if I could go to an Oilers game, I wouldnt be up on the 3rd deck to watch it, I would rather go to pub 1905 with a few forumers then 3rd deck.

That being said, they could still do something nice around 20,000, but 40,000 is a next to impossible, I say. You'd need a ladder to get into some of those seats.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by itom 987

Edmonton hosted the Hockey Classic at the Commonwealth Stadium, 60,000 fans saw it in -30c weather so we can afford to have a new 21,000 seat colleseum.

This is a rather poor argument as the Classic was a one time event. If they had a few of them every season do you honestly think that they would get 60,000 people coming out every time? The argument you are using is the same one the demised Edmonton Aviators used when they got an A-League franchise. They looked at the numbers from the FIFA Under-18 Women's World Cup matches that were played at Commonwealth, which were very good, and said that an A-League team would be able to draw at least half of the crowds. They ended up having an average attendance under 1,000, or around that, and had to be taken control of by the league mid-season. I'd love to see 20,000+ arenas in Alberta as that would mean more cheap, or shall I say reasonable, seats for the average family but seeing how the NHL is a "business" it just isn't feasible.

Merry Christmas!

[Hootch]

Originally Posted by krazycanuck

Would you want to go to a hockey game with 13,000 people in the stands of a 21,000 seat arena?

I think it's laughable to claim that one of the most passionate hockey cities in the world would see 13,000 fans on a regular basis. Edmonton could easily get 21,000 spectators for the Oilers, especially now.

[krazycanuck]

Originally Posted by Hootch

Yes, 'cause 13,000 fans is a common sight in Edmonton...

no, not right now...but 13000 has been common in the past in Edmonton and having all that supply could lead to even lower numbers than in the past.

[Hootch]

It was hardly "common". You're trying to tell me, that in their 26 year history, that 13,000 in Rexall Place, was "common"? Only a moron (aka a Flames fan) would make such a ridiculous claim. The only time attendance fell short of 15,000 was a couple years in the mid-90's because A) Pocklington B) Worst team in the NHL. Once the Oilers got committed ownership that wanted to keep them in Edmonton, the fans came back.

Some Flames fans should research their facts before they open their dumb traps.

[krazycanuck]

Originally Posted by Hootch

It was hardly "common". You're trying to tell me, that in their 26 year history, that 13,000 in Rexall Place, was "common"? Only a moron (aka a Flames fan) would make such a ridiculous claim. The only time attendance fell short of 15,000 was the mid-90's because A) Pocklington B) Worst team in the NHL.

Some Flames fans should research their facts before they open their dumb traps.

Researched...check. here you go....Edmonton oilers attendance for:

1993-94 1994-95 1995-96
13478 13124 12335


So, now...how would you rank the atmosphere of a 21,000 seat arena, with 13,000 people in the stands?

Oiler fans should know their own history before shooting their mouths off.