Stadiums and Arenas of Canada

[drumuser]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

There was an article yesterday in the paper which I can't be bothered to hunt down, about the stadium proposal, so it is still alive and well, at least the government proposal.

Sask First Nations Still Want Stadium-Casino Complex
Must convince government to sell Casino Regina
Story Tools
ShareThis
Reported By Bre McAdam
Posted May 23, 2010 - 11:13am

The group behind a proposed stadium, hotel and casino complex is hoping to revitalize downtown Regina, but to do that they must first convince the government to sell Casino Regina and Moose Jaw.

Saskatchewan First Nations groups signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Seminole Tribe of Florida Incorporated a few months ago. According to Ken Thomas with the First Nation Network the Seminoles are only on-board if the casinos are for sale.

Thomas said since signing the MOU, they've been working on the financial side of things. "We have progressed from the First Nations side to develop a business plan and we have the financing in place for a possible purchase for the casinos and to build a hotel."

Thomas says he will be meeting with the Saskatchewan government at the end of this month, and says that meeting will determine whether or not the complex can become a reality.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by isaidso

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.

You could lower the field and add more seats to the bottom deck and at the same time trim 5-10 rows from the top part of the upper deck which would keep the capacity at the same level while moving the fans closer to the field

[esquire]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

You could lower the field and add more seats to the bottom deck and at the same time trim 5-10 rows from the top part of the upper deck which would keep the capacity at the same level while moving the fans closer to the field

The fans wouldn't be any closer to the field, though. It's not like the grandstands would be moved closer to the sidelines. Sinking the field would actually move most fans just that much farther away from the action. Think about it - if you're already 50 feet away from the field as it stands, then sinking the field 10 feet will put you several feet farther away from the action.

The only way to fix the problem isaidso was talking about would be to physically move one grandstand closer to the other (impossible), or demolish one grandstand and build a new one closer to the other (costly).

I think it's safe to say that Commonwealth Stadium won't be undergoing any such major alterations.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by esquire

The fans wouldn't be any closer to the field, though. It's not like the grandstands would be moved closer to the sidelines. Sinking the field would actually move most fans just that much farther away from the action. Think about it - if you're already 50 feet away from the field as it stands, then sinking the field 10 feet will put you several feet farther away from the action.

The only way to fix the problem isaidso was talking about would be to physically move one grandstand closer to the other (impossible), or demolish one grandstand and build a new one closer to the other (costly).

I think it's safe to say that Commonwealth Stadium won't be undergoing any such major alterations.

Ya, I see what you are saying and by no means is it a perfect solution (although the newly created rows at the bottom of the stands would be A LOT closer), but other stadiums have done this with a decent amount of success. Two examples are the LA Coliseum and Ohio Stadium

[esquire]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Ya, I see what you are saying and by no means is it a perfect solution (although the newly created rows at the bottom of the stands would be A LOT closer), but other stadiums have done this with a decent amount of success. Two examples are the LA Coliseum and Ohio Stadium

Right - but the only purpose of doing something like that is to add more seating. And as isaidso pointed out, the Edmonton Eskimos do not need more seating.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by esquire

Right - but the only purpose of doing something like that is to add more seating. And as isaidso pointed out, the Edmonton Eskimos do not need more seating.

But that is when you remove the top rows of the upper deck at the same time. That way you get the same number of seats if not even less (depending on how many rows you eliminate on top).

[Dalreg]

If you folks want to redo Commonwealth, it would be cheaper to blow it up and start new than some of these proposals.

Yes Alberta has a bit of money but if they want to throw some at a stadium how about Calgary?

A new retractable roof 50,000 seat stadium sounds about right. Just where do you put it?

[AuxTown]

The designs were unveiled today for Ottawa's (hopefully soon to be) new stadium and surrounding mixed-use area. I'm really pumped and hope council will vote this through next month, and if so, we'll be seeing CFL football and pro soccer by summer 2013!

Photos from www.ottawacitizen.com

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

As much as I'd love for that to happen for Ottawa, a LOT of people are going to throw fits about traffic, the towers, the retail and the road. Oh, and the residential.

[AuxTown]

They can complain all they want, but our city needs (and has a policy for) urban intensification. We need to continue to progress as a city and will not be able to do so with stagnation in our central neighbourhoods like the Glebe. This is such a great proposal and our council would be stupid to pass up this opportunity.

On another note, I noticed there is some trouble down in Hamilton regarding their stadium and they might even lose it for good.

from www.tsn.ca

PAN AM STADIUM MAY MOVE IF HAMILTON CAN'T BREAK IMPASSE

TORONTO -- Hamilton may lose a new multimillion-dollar stadium for the 2015 Pan American Games if it can't end the standoff over its location by July 8, Game organizers said Thursday.

The city and the owner of the CFL's Hamilton Tiger-Cats are at an impasse over the stadium's location, with Mayor Fred Eisenberger calling on Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to intervene if an agreement can't be reached by the deadline.

The city wants the stadium on West Harbour land as part of downtown redevelopment. But Ticats owner Bob Young wants it near a highway.

Game organizers want to see the issue resolved locally -- without involving the provincial government, said Roger Garland, board chairman of Toronto 2015, the Games host corporation.

"This is an issue to be resolved in Hamilton by Hamiltonians, and we would like to let that decision be a local one," Garland said in a conference call. "I can't speak for the province either, but I would expect that would be their position."

A facilitator, Michael Fenn, has been brought in to find a way to break the impasse. But organizers will "have to be creative" if Hamilton doesn't work out, said CEO Ian Troop.

"We start looking at other options and exploring those possibilities, at least informally," he said. "Our focus is on trying to solve the problem in front of us, knowing that if we have to look at fallbacks, we'll do that."

Troop wouldn't say what other cities may be considered, only that the location would have to be in the Golden Horseshoe area that surrounds Toronto.

"There will be a process where we look where we think would make great sense, if there is a fallback," he said. "Where there would be good legacy, where there's good access to transportation, and those will be the criteria that we'll look at when and if we have to get to it."

Young called for a facilitator after the city rejected a 90-day moratorium on submitting the West Harbour stadium site to Toronto 2015. Young argues the site would limit the stadium's visibility, has insufficient parking and road access, and would be unpopular with nearby residents.

The Pan Am Games stadium would stage track and field in 2015, then be converted later for football and other sports. The federal and provincial governments are each kicking in $32 million for the stadium.

Newly minted Senator David Braley, who helped bring the Games to Ontario, will resign from the Toronto 2015 board when he takes his seat in the upper chamber. The federal government can appoint his replacement, Garland said.

"David has been an unmatched champion for these games, and I think it's fair to say that we would not be here today without him," Garland said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Braley -- the single biggest donor from his 2004 Conservative party leadership campaign -- to the senate last week. The Hamilton businessman owns both the B.C. Lions and Toronto Argonauts of the CFL.

Chris Rudge, who recently resigned as CEO of the Canadian Olympic Committee, also left the board. The COC has appointed Walter Sieber as his replacement.

The Toronto 2015 organizing committee expects to have 25 full-time staff this fall to plan the Games, with a core leadership team of eight people. The successful candidates, including chief financial officer, will be announced over the next few weeks, Troop said.

The committee plans to have the brand strategy, plan and design for the Games by mid-summer, and to start marketing the Games at the end of August, he said. Three agencies will make their pitches next month.

The two-week Pan Am Games have a budget of $1.4 billion for the sporting event itself and $1 billion for an athletes' village.

The federal and provincial governments are each on the hook for some $500 million, while municipalities and private investors will pay the remaining $428.5 million.

Toronto won the major sports competition last November, beating two South American cities.

The win was an important one for Toronto -- a city that has lost two Olympic bids -- and Hamilton, which also lost bids for two Commonwealth Games.

[SteelTown]

I'm sure they'll work it out with the facilitator. This is how it's always done in Hamilton.

Vote on the issue, wait a few weeks, issue is a huge problem all of a sudden, debate, debate some more, pay a consultant what we already know, debate, cool heads, shake hands, dot the i and cross the t and have an agreement.

If not neither the City nor the Ti Cats will get what they want and Hamilton will lose millions of federal and provincal money.

[SteelTown]

By the way the City recently release specs for the stadium, that is if they don't f$^k it up.

Stadium Specs:
‐ 25,000‐30,000 permanent seats target with expansion capability to a minimum of 45,000 for larger events such as the Grey Cup,
‐ Multipurpose design and usage is a must for sustainability,
‐ Capacity to host professional/high‐performance sports other than football (soccer and rugby in particular),
‐ Space in and around the stadium to allow community activities, ancillary activities, partnerships, commercial opportunities, etc. in order to maximize economic impact,
‐ Outstanding sightlines for football (like Ivor Wynne Stadium currently has) by providing a steep rake to the stands and retractable seats that can extend over the 400m running track,
‐ Transit hub within the stadium (such as GO Station and major HSR hub),
‐ Architectural attractiveness and distinctiveness,
‐ Potential year‐round use through putting a bubble on the field during winter,
‐ Wider, more comfortable spectator ceiling than normal,
‐ Ability to have grass (either covered in the end zones of the stadium) or permanently in the warm‐up track for field events, and
‐ Potential new home for Hamilton Sports Hall of Fame or the Canadian Football Hall of Fame.
‐ WARM‐UP TRACK:
o 2,000 – 3,000 permanent seats with expansion capability up to 6,000 – 10,000,
o Greater accessibility for the community than in the main stadium,
o Storage for key equipment (hurdles, mats, etc.), and
o Design that allows for easy sharing of certain facilities like locker rooms, meeting rooms, etc. with the main stadium.

So now you can understand why the stadium has a hefty price tag for a 15,000 seat stadium. Is there a stadium in Canada that has retractable seats?

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Is there a stadium in Canada that has retractable seats?

No, and they would be far better off not to have retractable seats in this one anyways. They would be far better off building a the 15,000 seater for the games, then expanding it for a more football friendly configuration following the games. The practice track could serve as a future athletics venue with the aforementioned expansion of seating

[SFUVancouver]

B.C. Lions games at temporary stadium no easy ride for fans
By Mike Beamish, Vancouver Sun
May 28, 2010
Source

The 27,500-seat temporary stadium at Empire Fields that will be used by the Lions for the 2010 season and possibly half of the 2011 Canadian Football League schedule is a throwback to simpler times. In truth, however, complications abound in the return to the dreamy football field of memory at the corner of Hastings and Cassiar, which was the team's home from 1954 to 1983.

The move, made necessary by the $458-million refit to BC Place, will require thousands of fans to change the transportation patterns they've used for the past quarter century. According to TransLink CEO Ian Jarvis, about 30 per cent of fans traditionally took SkyTrain directly to Stadium-Chinatown station, a short walk from BC Place. Now, those spectators will have to consider taking alternate bus routes, carpooling, ride sharing, walking or cycling to football games.

Read full article: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Lions...de+fans/3084820/story.html#ixzz0pMTEP1sJ

[esquire]

The proposed redesign of Lansdowne Park looks absolutely first-rate. Once realized, the park and market setting will easily be the most impressive surroundings of any stadium in Canada.

That said, why are they building the stadium with only 24,000 seats? New stadiums planned or under construction in the CFL range are all bigger (and those are in markets smaller than Ottawa). With the smallest stadium in the league, I'm concerned that the Lansdowne Live project might be setting up a prospective CFL team to fail.

[Darkoshvilli]

Montreal has been playing in a 20k stadium and doing quite well. Why would Ottawa fail with a 24k stadium?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Darkoshvilli

Montreal has been playing in a 20k stadium and doing quite well. Why would Ottawa fail with a 24k stadium?

I was under the impression that the Als were generally not profitable with 20,000 seats and required a stadium expansion to get out of the red?

There is an article posted here which alludes to that (the original Montreal Gazette article appears not to be online anymore):

http://riderfans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1418262&postcount=6

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by esquire

I was under the impression that the Als were generally not profitable with 20,000 seats and required a stadium expansion to get out of the red?

There is an article posted here which alludes to that (the original Montreal Gazette article appears not to be online anymore):

http://riderfans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1418262&postcount=6

I think they did alright overall though. Montreal has some of the highest levels of sponsorship in the league, so that somewhat made up for the lesser gate revenues. I'm sure much of the losses that were quoted (10 million) probably stem from the first few years when attendances were below 10000. Especially when they played out of Olympic Stadium as I'm sure the rent would have been higher than at their current digs.

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

No, and they would be far better off not to have retractable seats in this one anyways. They would be far better off building a the 15,000 seater for the games, then expanding it for a more football friendly configuration following the games. The practice track could serve as a future athletics venue with the aforementioned expansion of seating

The stadium is intended to be a multipurpose stadium, track and field, football, soccer, concerts and perhaps a rugby team.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

The stadium is intended to be a multipurpose stadium, track and field, football, soccer, concerts and perhaps a rugby team.

Multi-purpose stadiums are a 1970's concept that has for the most part failed miserably. If the track was removed, you could still accommodate football, soccer, rugby & concerts. The only thing that it couldn't accommodate would be track and field and for that the grandstand surrounding the practice track for the Pan-Am's would be more than enough. There is little use to design a stadium with retractable seats which 1) would only be used a few times in a decade if that, or 2) the weight of the seats (and the people sitting on them) would more than likely damage the track to the point where it couldn't be used anyhow which makes it not only poor for football but unsuitable for track too.