Stadiums and Arenas of Canada

[craner]

Originally Posted by Jay in Cowtown

110% correct!

The stadium doesn't need to be replaced... it just needs major renovations! Replace the benches with seats, add more corporate suites, replace the replay screen with an HD one and for Christ's sake expand the concourses!!!

There's no need to tear the old girl down... look what they done with Soldier Field in Chicago, just reno it!

I do agree you really feel close to the action at McMahon and I love that about it. That's what concerns me about Moncton's and Hamilton's proposed stadiums - the — track around the perimeter pushes the stands away from the field of play.
I do admit I'm jealous seeing all these great stadiums / proposals - makes me want something new for calgary even more. I could live with a thourough renovation of the old gal though.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by mike474

McMahon's not that bad.

The Winnipeg stadium looks pretty good and it's good to see it going ahead I don't have much faith in the 400 million to 1.3 billion monstrosity that might be attempted in Regina. The price differential of a stadium that would cost three times as much as the new Bomber stadium could probably be better utilized elsehwere.

Remember the 400mil pricetag for the Regina stadium includes land costs which there are none in Winnipeg. Also our stadium will be able to be used year round and host events normally hosted by large arena's that we currently don't have in southern Sask. So take all the events (minus the hockey) that happen in the MTS Centre and the new Winnipeg stadium and we'll have it all under one roof. Look forward to the announcement next month.

[Migs]

If you all have the time, join and invite your friends to this facebook group in support of the new multi-purpose stadium in Saskatchewan. The media and the stakeholders are paying attention to public opinions, and I know firsthand that they are reading comments in this group.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=39644763684

[mike474]

Originally Posted by Migs

Remember the 400mil pricetag for the Regina stadium includes land costs which there are none in Winnipeg. Also our stadium will be able to be used year round and host events normally hosted by large arena's that we currently don't have in southern Sask. So take all the events (minus the hockey) that happen in the MTS Centre and the new Winnipeg stadium and we'll have it all under one roof. Look forward to the announcement next month.

The land is a good point, but I still don't get the events argument. How many events will Regina host per year that require a roof, and is that worth 2-3x the cost? Will it be hosting international soccer and box lacrosse competitions in the winter? I know Regina can fill stadium shows, but those are rare events and mostly tour in the summer anyway. As for trade shows and the like, is it going to be that much better than the Brandt Centre and how many more will be hosted? It'll take a lot to make up for that extra 100-200 million for a roof. The only other advantage is a bit more comfort if we get a chilly fall or a summer rain, but who cares?!? -30C won't prevent a Rider playoff game sell out.

Regina needs and deserves a new stadium and the chosen location will be phenomenal at revitalizing part of town, but the city and province would benefit more from an open air stadium when there are so many other great attractions that extra money could be spent on. It's putting all the eggs in one basket. The renders look awesome, but we have to ask ourselves if it will actually translate into any real utility beyond the coolness factor. If the open air stadium can do 80% of the work of a dome is it worth the price tag?

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by craner

I do agree you really feel close to the action at McMahon and I love that about it. That's what concerns me about Moncton's and Hamilton's proposed stadiums - the — track around the perimeter pushes the stands away from the field of play.
I do admit I'm jealous seeing all these great stadiums / proposals - makes me want something new for calgary even more. I could live with a thourough renovation of the old gal though.

The tracks are a very bad idea.

I could only imagine how awesome commonwealth would have been if it wasn't built with one. Unfortunately, the only way to get significant government funding for these are to build it for some sort of track event that appeals to just about nobody and wont see it being reused on any significant scale for many years....meanwhile tens of thousands of football fans are left with a — multi purpose venue that is mediocre at everything.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by mike474

The land is a good point, but I still don't get the events argument. How many events will Regina host per year that require a roof, and is that worth 2-3x the cost? Will it be hosting international soccer and box lacrosse competitions in the winter? I know Regina can fill stadium shows, but those are rare events and mostly tour in the summer anyway. As for trade shows and the like, is it going to be that much better than the Brandt Centre and how many more will be hosted? It'll take a lot to make up for that extra 100-200 million for a roof. The only other advantage is a bit more comfort if we get a chilly fall or a summer rain, but who cares?!? -30C won't prevent a Rider playoff game sell out.

Regina needs and deserves a new stadium and the chosen location will be phenomenal at revitalizing part of town, but the city and province would benefit more from an open air stadium when there are so many other great attractions that extra money could be spent on. It's putting all the eggs in one basket. The renders look awesome, but we have to ask ourselves if it will actually translate into any real utility beyond the coolness factor. If the open air stadium can do 80% of the work of a dome is it worth the price tag?

Like I said already, the stadium is going to be able to be configured to host concerts and shows that are on the arena circuit. 15-20K. (ie shows that go to CUC, Saddledome, Rexall Place, etc) that regularly bypass southern Sask. This facility will be truly multi-purpose, it will be like having a big arena and a stadium all built into one. And this isn't about 'coolness' its about properly investing funds. In our climate, nobody in their right minds would build an open air stadium on prime real estate right in the middle of downtown. An enclosed stadium/arena that can be used any time of the year, well that is another story. All the scenarios are pointed out several times in the feasibility study. Its a great read, I suggest everyone should read it.

http://www.cicorp.sk.ca/pubs/2010%20Stadium%20Feasibility%20Study.html

[Jay in Cowtown]

Originally Posted by Migs

Like I said already, the stadium is going to be able to be configured to host concerts and shows that are on the arena circuit. 15-20K. (ie shows that go to CUC, Saddledome, Rexall Place, etc) that regularly bypass southern Sask.

As far as I've heard you guys already get more shows than Calgary, the Saddledome can't accomodate anything that's hung from the roof anymore, so most big acts bypass Calgary... which is why we need a new arena 500 times more than a new football stadium.

[mike474]

I have read it. It still doesn't hash out economicallly for me. $45 million for a retractable roof (the cheapest of all alternatives) alone on top of the $380 million? For the 1-3 Rider games a year and maybe 1-2 concerts that would require a closed roof is it really worth it?

Most of the benefits outlined could be achieved through an open-air stadium on the same site (which I'm 100% in agreement with) with the remaining sum being dedicated to other beneficial investment elsewhere in the city where returns would be higher. I've not seen any indication that the returns after the first 150-200 million would not severely diminish. A parallel analysis of the returns and GDP effects of an open roof stadium should be compared to truly justify a dome.

[mike474]

Originally Posted by Jay in Cowtown

As far as I've heard you guys already get more shows than Calgary, the Saddledome can't accomodate anything that's hung from the roof anymore, so most big acts bypass Calgary... which is why we need a new arena 500 times more than a new football stadium.

And as an addendum to my last point, for the difference in cost you could scrap the roof, build an attached 15,000 seat arena, and have plenty of money left over.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by mike474

I have read it. It still doesn't hash out economicallly for me. $45 million for a retractable roof (the cheapest of all alternatives) alone on top of the $380 million? For the 1-3 Rider games a year and maybe 1-2 concerts that would require a closed roof is it really worth it?

Most of the benefits outlined could be achieved through an open-air stadium on the same site (which I'm 100% in agreement with) with the remaining sum being dedicated to other beneficial investment elsewhere in the city where returns would be higher. I've not seen any indication that the returns after the first 150-200 million would not severely diminish. A parallel analysis of the returns and GDP effects of an open roof stadium should be compared to truly justify a dome.

Do you really think there would only be 1-2 concerts per year? How many have been at Rexall Place in Edmonton this year that have bypassed Regina because of a lack of facilities?

Also one must remember that a significant portion of the pricetag is going to be paid for by the private sector. Rod Pedersens show the other night hinted at a local business man ponying up $150mil which would likely mean some benefits for the land surrounding the stadium. Dunno right now its all speculation. On top of that the Riders are contributing upwards of 15-20million, the Hotels association of Regina, another 10million, other corporate donations that I've heard are in the millions, likely bonds for the public to invest in, brick donations (ie wall of fame) that could generate millions, the new SGI plates, etc etc etc. There are several inniatives that are being brought to the table other than govt entities. That said, IMO its smart to build a facility that you can use for 12 months of the year instead of 6, to me its a no brainer. The study itself states how many events have to take place in order for the building to be self sufficient, just look at the events at the Fargodome, I believe they had over 100 events last year alone.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by mike474

And as an addendum to my last point, for the difference in cost you could scrap the roof, build an attached 15,000 seat arena, and have plenty of money left over.

What?

Why would you build two facilities when one could do both jobs? We already have a 6,000 seat arena for junior hockey, what we need is a football stadium and a facility that can host both stadiums concerts and large arena concerts.

[mike474]

There will obviously be more than 1-2 concerts per year, but you can only consider the concerts that: 1) will occur in winter, 2) can't be held elsewhere, 3) the opportunity cost of any other venue that could be built (the cost differential is equal to an NHL sized arena) also 4) the stadium may draw more shows, but it would create a substitution from Saskatoon as total revenues from the province wouldn't increase so you're really not drawing anymore revenue at the provincial level (my belief is that our province should function symbiotically, I think Saskatoon attempting to build a competing stadium would be ridiculous for the same reason). Rexall draws more because it's a bigger market, sure Regina probably loses some shows because Brandt is too small on the margins, but we can only build a limited number of venues at optimal capacities. The net benefits are much smaller than the gross, all things considered.

Private sector? Who cares? Missallocation whether private or public diminishes social welfare. The average person tends to hold public expenditure to a higher standard because they rationalize the waste as being their own money, and it's true to some extent as greater risk is borne more heavily by private investors, but in the end any poor investment creates loss by lack of returns, forgone positive externalities etc. Private investment in a roof is private investment taken away from real estate densification (Capital Pointe) or industrial capacity (Coop Refinery) or any other good thing in which the private sector could invest. Where the money comes from is irrelevant if it's the investment is inferior to any other alternatives.

The self-sufficiency argument is nebulous because it doesn't consider alternative allocation. If an open-air stadium + investment of the remainder is more self-sufficient than a dome, then it is a bad investment.

[mike474]

Originally Posted by Migs

What?

Why would you build two facilities when one could do both jobs? We already have a 6,000 seat arena for junior hockey, what we need is a football stadium and a facility that can host both stadiums concerts and large arena concerts.

Because the two facilities would still be cheaper

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by mike474

Because the two facilities would still be cheaper

Would it be cheaper to run and keep up 3 facilities though?

(Brandt Centre, which just got major renovations and I think is still undergoing a few more, the new arena (what would we need it for?), and a new football stadium)

If you are suggesting a new arena to replace the Brandt Centre, that wouldn't happen. Not with the city pouring 60 million into that complex, plus the necessity of it for Agribition.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

McMahon has fantastic sightlines. Compared to Commonwealth you feel much closer to the game and not having the track to deal with is a huge benefit.

....but the indside of McMahon...it's bad.

Oh I hear ya. I'm a fan of the look of multi-decked stadiums so that is my one superficial complaint with McMahon. Commonwealth is such a great stadium (and will be more pleasant with the new field-turf)... that track is a bummer though. I know some don't mind, but as you said, it really pulls you away from the action. I can only take soo much of Nanook beating the — out of things on the sidelines for so long whilst struggling to look past it. The fact that Edmonton keeps ads off the field is awesome. Is that going to be the same with the new field-turf?

[mike474]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Would it be cheaper to run and keep up 3 facilities though?

(Brandt Centre, which just got major renovations and I think is still undergoing a few more, the new arena (what would we need it for?), and a new football stadium)

If you are suggesting a new arena to replace the Brandt Centre, that wouldn't happen. Not with the city pouring 60 million into that complex, plus the necessity of it for Agribition.

It wasn't a real suggestion. It was just an illustration of opportunity cost (point being that the marginal benefit of a roof will be outweighed by the benefit of an equal amount of money invested elsewhere, in all likelihood the money would probably be better invested in a multitude of things: residential development, mining, R & D that would yield a greater utility than a roof). There are lots of variables that we hold equal to simplify a comparison. If there would be a predictable divergence in depreciation, obsolescence, operational costs etc. between two alternatives requiring an equal capital investment, of course those factors would have to be considered.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

The tracks are a very bad idea.

I could only imagine how awesome commonwealth would have been if it wasn't built with one. Unfortunately, the only way to get significant government funding for these are to build it for some sort of track event that appeals to just about nobody and wont see it being reused on any significant scale for many years....meanwhile tens of thousands of football fans are left with a — multi purpose venue that is mediocre at everything.

You echo the views of many people. Is there any hope that Commonwealth might get rid of the track, lower the field, and build the stands down to the new field level? I know that Commonwealth doesn't exactly need a capacity increase, but it would dramatically improve the football experience. It would mean increasing Commonwealth Stadium from 62,000 to roughly 70,000-72,000 seats.

This is a similar capacity to the football stadiums in Buffalo, Birmingham, New Orleans, Green Bay, and Iowa City. Edmonton is as big as the first 3 and many times larger than the last 2. Whether Edmonton can fill a 70,000 seat stadium has more to do with whether football becomes as big in Edmonton as it is in these other cities.

Lets face it, this is a football stadium. How often do 40,000+ people show up for track and field in Edmonton? It probably only happened twice in 32 years: during the Commonwealth Games and the World Track & Field Championships. It's time to cater to the real purpose of Commonwealth: football!

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by mike474

And as an addendum to my last point, for the difference in cost you could scrap the roof, build an attached 15,000 seat arena, and have plenty of money left over.

Small town mentality much? If the Riders played in Saskatoon, I bet more tooners would be all for an Enclosed stadium.

[mike474]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Small town mentality much? If the Riders played in Saskatoon, I bet more tooners would be all for an Enclosed stadium.

How is not wanting a roof in lieu of a more productive alternative (skyscrapers, condos, art galleries, city beautification, R & D investment at the U of R, I could go on) indicative of a small town attitude? Adding a roof practically doubles the cost (even more if you want it retractable), but does it double the utility of the structure? I've yet to see a sound economic analysis answering this question and proving that marginal returns don't diminish significantly after you've got a functioning 35,000 seat expandable base. If you'd read my arguments you'd see that I'm well in favour of a new stadium at the proposed site, but that the value of a roof doesn't justify the huge increase in cost. If someone proposed building a 50 story office tower when the market would satiate at 25 storeys would you call out the developer for having a small town mentality if they decided to downsize? (Maybe you would, but most would call him/her crazy for attempting something that wouldn't benefit the market aside from the intrinsic value of having a bigger building)

As for your petty Saskatoon comment, I'm reluctant to even address it. Maybe more Saskatonians would be in favour; but in response to your veiled passive aggressiveness I'll just say I'm a big Rider fan, they belong in Regina, and I don't think it'd be wise for Saskatoon to attempt building any stadium at the moment. Check your ad hominem — at the door next time if you want to have an actual debate.

[isaidso]

What do you think of the $1.2 billion First Nations proposal? It's gorgeous, but would require relinquishing control of some Casino assets. I consider that a fair trade off. Government gets out of the — business (which we shouldn't be involved with in the first place), and Saskatchewan gets an absolutely stunning facility with no public funds directed towards it.

Is Sasktachewan forbidden from building other casinos if they give up Casino Regina? Saskatchewan should insist on the facility being non-smoking though. I believe First Nations aren't subject to non-smoking regulations, but they should be asked to make an exception here.