Halifax Stadium Discussion

[halifaxboyns]

I would think that people wanting to go to a game would be more inclined to stay at hotels closer to the stadium that were cheap, versus more expensive downtown hotels - whereas a convention will go with the hotels closest to the convention centre, regardless of cost (typically).

Calgary's Motel Village near the McMahon stadium is a great example of this tendancy. When I first lived in Fort Mac, I wanted to come down to Calgary; so I drove (9 bloody hours!) but didn't make a reservation anywhere, it was spur of the momment. Bad idea, there was two conferences, a tradeshow and a game going on. I went instantly to motel village because it was much cheaper than downtown - full, couldn't get anything. I don't want to call that a trend, but that was my experience and everytime there is a game and I drive buy, the hotels there have no vacancy.

There are a number of cheap hotels/motels near Edmonton's stadium/rink too. So that might also be something to consider in picking a site? Just a thought - certainly EP would get a check mark for that considering the hotels in Bayers Lake. I'd say the same for SP (Burnside hotels), Dartmouth Crossing (Burnside and DC hotels) and Woodside (Burnside and DC hotels).

One last thing - I had completely forgotten that a couple months ago I invested $200 in this planning book produced by the American Association of Planners, called "Planning and Urban Design Standards". When I worked in the Mac, the city bought a copy for the planning library, I wanted one for my own. It's got all these design standards (typically from the US) on everything from subdivisions, new residential and convention centres. But oddly enough, nothing on stadiums except a parking requirement. The suggested parking they had was 0.33 stalls per seat. So, at 25,000 seat minimum the APA would suggest 8,250 stalls. I believe we'd talked earlier about much less hadn't we?

[ATL Stadium]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

1. Shannon Park.
Agree.
2. Quarry along 102
I'm not 100% sure where this is; so could someone get a map?
3. Mainland Commons
I don't agree - the commons to me is park; with baseball diamonds. That's just me.
4. Where new 113 will connect to 102
Isn't this area dedicated for redevelopment as part of Bedford South and the residential subdivision that contains the RIM site? Or worse yet; isn't it going to be dedicated as part of the Blue Mountain Park? Btw, I don't think a park is bad, just not good for a stadium!
5. Exhibition Park
Acceptable, but not my favorite given the lack of ability to encourage development around it.
6. Dartmouth Crossing at 118 hwy
An interesting concept - because with DC getting some hotels; there may be a logical connection from the perspective of being close to lodgings.
7. Windsor Pk/ Forum site
I hate to say it; but I'm moving away from this site more and more for a stadium but as a great site for redevelopment as an employment centre instead.

One thing I thought of, which I don't think anyone has thought about is the pull of the downtown bar/restaurant owners. The Metro Centre being where it is wasn't random (from my understanding). Downtown restaurants and bars pushed for it there; because they wanted a way to attract more business. While I doubt that the stadium would end up on the commons (I figure save the whatever would jump on that), any location outside of the downtown core will meet with opposition from downtown restaurant owners and probably cheers for business wherever it is (although if it ends up at EP; you'd just hear the wind because there is no business there hehe - sorry I thought that was funny! ).

EP also presents a challenge from the perspective of providing these services; you would have to build it into the stadium itself.

Brett> you also make a good point about Montreal versus Edmonton. To me; I actually like the design of Edmonton's stadium. It's simple and functional and to me could be made more iconic in simple ways like lighting design or colours. I guess to me; you can still have simple design with little accents that make the building interesting (without having to spend a lot of $).

The No. 4 location is not Bedford South....it actually the other side of the 102 Hwy. It would be part of the Bedford West location (not Blue Mountain Wilderness)....which has a commercial area in its plans.... Currently there is RIM and others plus the new 4Pad Rink site with big parking..also a possible for the new CPA High School......one big draw back is that it is the hands of private developers and the negotiated cost of acquisition for a site might be huge....

[ATL Stadium]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I would think that people wanting to go to a game would be more inclined to stay at hotels closer to the stadium that were cheap, versus more expensive downtown hotels - whereas a convention will go with the hotels closest to the convention centre, regardless of cost (typically).

Calgary's Motel Village near the McMahon stadium is a great example of this tendancy. When I first lived in Fort Mac, I wanted to come down to Calgary; so I drove (9 bloody hours!) but didn't make a reservation anywhere, it was spur of the momment. Bad idea, there was two conferences, a tradeshow and a game going on. I went instantly to motel village because it was much cheaper than downtown - full, couldn't get anything. I don't want to call that a trend, but that was my experience and everytime there is a game and I drive buy, the hotels there have no vacancy.

There are a number of cheap hotels/motels near Edmonton's stadium/rink too. So that might also be something to consider in picking a site? Just a thought - certainly EP would get a check mark for that considering the hotels in Bayers Lake. I'd say the same for SP (Burnside hotels), Dartmouth Crossing (Burnside and DC hotels) and Woodside (Burnside and DC hotels).

One last thing - I had completely forgotten that a couple months ago I invested $200 in this planning book produced by the American Association of Planners, called "Planning and Urban Design Standards". When I worked in the Mac, the city bought a copy for the planning library, I wanted one for my own. It's got all these design standards (typically from the US) on everything from subdivisions, new residential and convention centres. But oddly enough, nothing on stadiums except a parking requirement. The suggested parking they had was 0.33 stalls per seat. So, at 25,000 seat minimum the APA would suggest 8,250 stalls. I believe we'd talked earlier about much less hadn't we?

I dont think Hotel Motels should be a consideration.....I know of only one Hotel/Motel in Bayers Lake....CountryView Inn or something like that...unless by EP you meant Eastern Passage and not Exhibition Park....there is another Hotel on Lacewood by the Mainland Commons....?
Anyways if a Stadium ever gets built I'm sure someone will built a hotel close....or offer shuttle packages form existing ones....

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by ATL Stadium

I had an interesting conversation with one the downtown Hotel Managers.....
I thought he would be having huge objections to a suburban sited Stadium....much to my surprise it was quiet the contrary...
He basically said.....he was very interested in a Convention Ctr downtown but not a Stadium...He said in his opinion a stadium was NOT a room seller....sure they tail gate and buy food at the stadium.....but his point was they are generally paying their own way....Conventions are different, lots of time paid by an organization and needs rooms for more than a night or two...they rent cars, need parking, buy higher end meals and banquets....all good stuff for the hotel biz.....Stadium goers not so much.....He said its more for the area resident not so much of a traveler draw....

INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE.

It is an interesting perspective, but his opinion might be different if the Halifax area currently had a team. I think a lot of people have preconceived ideas that might turn out to be inaccurate. I don't see how a stadium would not generate hotel room rentals and all of the other benefits. The Paul McCartney concert did, so why would CFL games be different?

Actually, I am concerned about such an opinion. If a stadium is to be built it would be good to have local businessmen on side. Someone should see how many rooms were sold for the CFL game in Moncton.

[ATL Stadium]

Originally Posted by Empire

How is access to EP similar to Shannon Park?

The Ex Park locale currently has one lane in and one out....thats not gonna cut it so...lots of work needed there and one would need easy access off the highways....at EP that not so easy.....

I like Shannon.....but also along the 102 ....thinking easy on/off double ramps....directly from the highway....in both directions....

[ATL Stadium]

Originally Posted by brettinhalifax

Regarding location only, Woodside is IMO a little better than EP and a little worse than EP. None are that great, and they're all adequate.

Woodside is 6 min from Shannon Park along the circ and Woodside and Shannon Park are the same travelling distance/time from the south end of the peninsula.

A third crossing is coming eventually, and when it happens, it will make Woodside a better location.

But as far of ease of aquiring the land and getting a stadium built, Woodside is easier than Shannon Park and harder than EP.

A third crossing.....not in my lifetime....
How is a Woodside site easier to acquire than Shannon????
Am I missing something here.....Shannon is owned by Canada Lands....a disposal arm of the Fed Govt....

[ATL Stadium]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

ATL Stadium - I tried placing a sunken bowl stadium at the two quarry sites near the 102 and Kearney Lake. These are too deep and much too large. One site looks like it must be at least 100 feet deep. I was the one who previously recommended a quarry - so I am embarrassed that I made such a suggestion (blame me). I had only seen these on Google maps from a distant perspective. Once I zoomed in and checked the terrain then I realized that is was a poor suggestion on my part - these really do have a chance of becoming large swimming pools (or large lakes). So such a stadium might end up submerged in water. Let's forget this and think further south at the Bayers Lake or Halifax Commons area . You can criticize me for this idea.

For a sunken bowl stadium, just a slight depression would be best. If a large site were found that was sunken by 20 feet then it might be cheap land since it might not be desirable for many development projects. Then the dirt could be moved around to form the lower bowl of the stadium and ramps to the concourse. Based on what I read, such a method of building a stadium is a cost effective approach.

Fenwick.... I'm not so quick to give up on the quarry locale.... They surely have dug into the hillside....and that elevation may appear to be huge....or your at the wrong quarry....it also right there with the BlueMt Birch Cove Lakes wilderness area....lots of land area at the quarry site and really easy ramp on/off the 102 hwy on both end of the sites....also could have on site parking and easy access to Bayers lake shopping for shuttles etc etc...
The big draw back to me would it might be a bit on the secluded side....

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by ATL Stadium

Fenwick.... I'm not so quick to give up on the quarry locale.... They surely have dug into the hillside....and that elevation may appear to be huge....or your at the wrong quarry....it also right there with the BlueMt Birch Cove Lakes wilderness area....lots of land area at the quarry site and really easy ramp on/off the 102 hwy on both end of the sites....also could have on site parking and easy access to Bayers lake shopping for shuttles etc etc...
The big draw back to me would it might be a bit on the secluded side....

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=44.6750...0Lake%20Rd%2C%20Halifax%2C%20NS%2C%20B3M
There are two quarries on this map - are you thinking of the top one? The lower one certainly looks like a deep pit. The top one loks like it is an active quarry though, so who knows how deep they will go.

I think this area would be better since there would be some parking available right next to it and I think that there is a Lacewood Bus terminal - http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=44.6534...0Lake%20Rd%2C%20Halifax%2C%20NS%2C%20B3M

[brettinhalifax]

account deleted

[halifaxboyns]

ATL> You would be better of getting a root canal than dealing with Canada Lands to get the land sold. They have a tendancy to sit on the land for many years and then when you think you might get it - they decide to redevelop it themselves. That attitude may have changed over the years, but has been my experience here in Calgary. With Woodside, because HRM controls and owns the unused lands in the business parks; they can simply sell themselves the land to build (same with Burnside or Bayer's Lake).

Bayer's Lake has the Lakeview Inn, but there also the Hotel down on the Bay Road and the Future Inns on Lacewood. I also suspect that the Holiday Inn and Quality Inn at Kearney Lake Road would do good business if Exhibition Park (EP) was used, same with the site in Bedford.

I now understand where you are talking about in Bedford - that wouldn't be too bad if Bedford gets it's highspeed ferry. With the location close to Ragged Lake (literally just one interchange and down the 102); you'd have easy ability to deploy transit to get people from a ferry/rail station to the site and back.

Rail was also mentioned for Woodside; interesting concept. Woodside would be close to the existing Ferry terminal and depending on where in Woodside you put it; could just be a quick walk - although I suspect a shuttle would be needed. Atl> Don't under estimate the possibility of a 3rd harbour crossing. If something happens to the NS economy and the population and job growth takes off; it may become a reality. I won't cry on my deathbed though if it doesn't.

Shannon Park and Dartmouth Crossing also have good access to transit resources; they can be easily deployed from the old bus garage. DC has the advantage of an existing hotel (Hampton) and that the plan allows for more hotels if demand warrents.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by brettinhalifax

In March 2008, HHB released a Cross Harbour Traffic Needs Assessment that shows if we continue to travel in single person vehicles we will need a third harbour crossing sometime between 2016 and 2026. And Halifax is growing at the upper end of the population forecasts, which means that the new crossing will be needed closer to 2016.

Basically if they were following the recommendations of the report they'd have to be planning a bridge right now. It will no doubt take a couple of years to plan and a couple of years to build.

Not sure why the third bridge is such a shock to people. The second was built in 1970 when there were a little less than 250,000 in the area. Now there are 400,000 people. By the time a bridge is up and running, it will probably be closer to 450,000. Also note that this comes on the heels of the Macdonald improvement project in the late 90s - that was also undertaken because the bridges were nearing capacity.

I don't know if people don't understand that the city is growing or they think that infrastructure, once built, is all you have until the end of time or what.

[beyeas]

Personally the sites that I would favour are already spoken for I think.

One would be the infill site south of Moirs Pond, and the other would be Sobey's site (basically knock that whole Mall down) between Moirs Pond and Convoy.

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=44.713095841314534~-63.67027091932715&lvl=16&sty=h

I know there are all kinds of good reasons why that won't work.
But my arguments to the pro are:
Sits on the harbour with a gorgeous view, but far enough back to not have the same fog issues as Woodside etc.
Isn't "favouring" the Dartmouth side or the Halifax side (and don't tell me that is not an issue... just reading this focum one can see that it is).
Right on the rail line.
Right where a ferry is planned to go (along with potential park and ride).
Right where in general a transit hub is supposed to be.
In the middle of an area of potential residential growth.

Anyway... I could tell by the lack of comment the last time I mention it (and the resounding THUD when it hit the internets LOL) that this is likely an unfeasible idea. But clearly we have no agreement at all on any of the other sites that people have been mentioning either! :-)

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by someone123

Basically if they were following the recommendations of the report they'd have to be planning a bridge right now. It will no doubt take a couple of years to plan and a couple of years to build.

Not sure why the third bridge is such a shock to people. The second was built in 1970 when there were a little less than 250,000 in the area. Now there are 400,000 people. By the time a bridge is up and running, it will probably be closer to 450,000. Also note that this comes on the heels of the Macdonald improvement project in the late 90s - that was also undertaken because the bridges were nearing capacity.

I don't know if people don't understand that the city is growing or they think that infrastructure, once built, is all you have until the end of time or what.

My reticence to the idea has more to do with the fact that none of the transportation plans are integrated! I know the Mayor floated the idea of a single unified transport authority, but as I said on Fusions FB page, I will believe it when I see it (they also floated this idea with the last government and it died on the order paper).

If one single authority who looked at this holistically and said "Yup, even thinking in terms of every option, we still need a bridge" then I would be more likely to buy into it. For right now I guess I have a chip on my should that of course bridge commissions want to build bridges, and transit authorities want more buses, and highway departments want more roads. I would like this thing looked at as one single economic decision... not piecemeal.

[-Harlington-]

Originally Posted by -Harlington-

I made one for bayers lake, besides anywhere around downtown which im starting to think is less and less likely, i thought this would be a great location with the 102 and 103 right there its obviously good highway access and there may be only 2 buses that go near there the 52 runs constantly and comes trough pretty much halifax and dartmouth anyway with the slightly nearby lacewood terminal and clayton park beachville and fairview(a good 40-50000 people) all within about 40 mins to an hour walking distance, it can be a good location without downtown with room to spare, and walking over through bayers lake after a game which has an ideal amount of sports bars and restraunts anyway.
anyways thats my idea, by the way the green arrow near the top is a supposed historic site called the bayers lake mystery walls which if theres not enogh oppisition would make a nice historic park, also the same for the pound near the 102 103 interchange, im not that good at the whole paint thing but its the thought that counts

this was the post that i made awhile back, its not the best depiction but if someone wants to try a better one with maybe parking and green space that would be cool.
but this is the area i was referring to, and i thought this was a great location.

[brettinhalifax]

account deleted

[halifaxboyns]

Brett makes an interesting point about residential and NIMBY's. I'm not sure how the neighbourhood adjacent to McMahon reacts to games when they are on; but I remember when a concert was there they complained like crazy.

That point may make Shannon Park out, because of the fact it is considered in the regional plan an opportunity site for mixed use (residential included). That may also eliminate Woodside, with the adjacent residential development that exist and is going up across the circ.

Bayer's Lake may be seperated enough with the 102 that because it will take time to finish Clayton Park west - there wouldn't be any residents close enough for about 5 maybe 10 years, depending on population growth and development. Love the fact the you used McMahon stadium Harlington. Great example though.

If you take proximity to residential into the mix; I would guess that would knock out Shannon Park, Woodside, Mill Cove and the RIM Site (since there would be adjacent residential going up). So that would leave the 102 quarry site (which is near residential, but like Bayer's Lake probably has good seperation distance), Bayer's Lake, Exhibition park, Dartmouth Crossing or Burnside.

My only concern with locating it too far off the beaten track is that if an LRT is ever built in HRM (I believe it could be), a stadium could be a logical destination. But if it's too far away from major areas, there would be no way to extend an LRT to the site - it would be a waste of money. But we shouldn't plan the stadium for an LRT that may or may not happen...just a risk I guess.

[beyeas]

Fair enough... just throwing it out, especially we can knock holes in every single site that has been proposed! Not sure where it leaves us, other than that really it is all an exercise in self gratification anyway at this point! LOL

[halifaxboyns]

Well you are right - like I said; I 'think' Bayers Lake and the Quarry should be okay; but if you want to take a strict interpretation of 'close to residential' - then they would probably be out. Does that mean KeithP wins with Exhibition park lol? Sorry bad joke...

I thought about Bedford cove and taking the fog issue aside, I'd hate to see all the effort that was put into the redevelopment plan for the area to go to waste by just plunking a stadium there. The Bedford Cove Master Plan is impressive and could really boost density in Bedford, which is a big plus.

I'm of the same opinion that Shannon would probably be better off as a mixed use residential community and then put the stadium somewhere else because of the fact you'd get too many residents complaining. The more I think about this, the more i'm slanting to putting it suburban simply for the sake of just getting it built.

I don't know anymore to be honest...put it on Mcnabs Island - no complaints there lol.

[halifaxboyns]

To help assist with discussions - I decided to map some of the locations. I know I probably didn't get them all and may not be exactly what people are thinking; but this is meant to help guide some discussion.

Here is the map. Please let me know if I've missed any.

[fenwick16]

I have been to a few stadiums and none that I have been to are surrounded by strictly industrial land. The ones that I have been inside are the Alamodome - near downtown San Antonio, Rogers Centre - downtown Toronto, Lambeau Field - central Green Bay, Olympic Stadium - residential area, Camden Yards - edge of the downtown core on one side and residential on the other, and the Lucas Oil Stadium - downtown Indianapolis. I have driven by a few and I can't remember any being in a strictly industrial area. I have been to several hockey/basketball arenas and all were downtown (that I can remember) - ACC, Copps, Buffalo Aud, Buffalo HSBC, old Dallas Reunion Arena, Halifax Metro Centre, FedEx Centre in Memphis, (I might have missed a couple).

I can see that many on this forum think that a stadium should be put far away from residents of the municipality. To me it is disappointing because in my opinion, a stadium should be in a very central, visible location. Wanting it outside of town gives me the impression that a stadium is on par with the Exhibition Park (no offense to anyone). So in short, I can see that we won't get any type of consensus on the forum. The only ones that seem to be somewhat acceptable to the majority are the Halifax Mainland Commons and Shannon Park.