Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2 - Page 8

trueviking · #**141** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 1:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Building a soccer specific stadium in Vancouver would be a giant waste of money. I'm sure the team is going to move out of town eventually. I would oppose any more government / city money/land/zoning favours wasted on soccer. Having them in BC place as a #2 tenant was the only way to support them while the fad lasts without burning money. Even if private money was spent on a soccer stadium, it would end up useless when the soccer team fails, and a waste of prime property as they wanted to build it on the waterfront or some other downtown location.

Its too bad they didn't spend $450 million on BC place and saved the other $78 million on the nice little 20,000 seat soccer specific stadium that was proposed for the waterfront.

I'm not sure I share your pessimism that the Whitecaps will relocate anytime soon. They consistently have one of the best attendance records in MLS. They have a long history in the city, with solid ownership in a very cost conscious league.

They would do better in a real stadium, however.

esquire · #**142** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 1:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

...Federal/vote buying/Transfer money have deadlines you know. C'est vrais!

Should someone from Edmonton really be lecturing anyone else about squandering public money on an arena?

king10 · #**143** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Building a soccer specific stadium in Vancouver would be a giant waste of money. I'm sure the team is going to move out of town eventually. I would oppose any more government / city money/land/zoning favours wasted on soccer. Having them in BC place as a #2 tenant was the only way to support them while the fad lasts without burning money. Even if private money was spent on a soccer stadium, it would end up useless when the soccer team fails, and a waste of prime property as they wanted to build it on the waterfront or some other downtown location.

Soccer isnt a fad. sorry the times are a changin. Its here to stay.

YoungRepublic · #**144** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

46,314 in the Big O tonight

Might be a really dumb question, but I thought the capacity for baseball at the Big O was 45,757. Last year both games combined for 96,000 seats sold. How does work? Did they add extra seats?

king10 · #**145** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungRepublic

Might be a really dumb question, but I thought the capacity for baseball at the Big O was 45,757. Last year both games combined for 96,000 seats sold. How does work? Did they add extra seats?

Theres thousands of extra seats that they dont sell because theyre so far away from the field. Largest baseball crowd ever at olympic was 59 000. There were still thousands of un used seats.

Here is a photo from the game. Spot the empty seats in the upper deck and far away in the lower deck.

46 000 with all those empty seats. You get an idea of just how massive olympic stadium is. If it went back to olympic mode while removing the track and extending the seating bowl lower you'd get 80 000 seats easily.

YoungRepublic · #**146** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:33 AM**

Thanks king! Was a pretty nice turnout regardless. Are the Jays' preseason games in MTL a long term commitment?

The configuration for baseball kinda looks like an uglier/worse Rogers Centre (at least in the above pic). Still, what are the chances of the Rays moving to MTL before the city gets a baseball stadium somewhere downtown? Perhaps the Expos 2.0 can play in the Big O for a couple of years while the new stadium gets built.

Also, I wonder if the Jays might consider playing in a preseason series in Vancouver sometime in the forceable future. It would be really fun to see. Does BC Place even work for baseball?

trueviking · #**147** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:44 AM**

Not anymore. The scoreboard at renovated bc place is too low and the turf is seamless. No way to install bases etc.

Acajack · #**148** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Exactly...

You mean you don't understand the difference between the federal and the provincial government?

Berklon · #**149** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

The world has moved past the 1980's multi-purpose stadium idea.

Not entirely. The new Vikings Stadium currently under construction will be multi-purpose. It can host football as well as baseball - which apparently is mainly for the University of Minnesota team and high school baseball teams... since the Twins already have a nice 4 year old baseball specific ballpark. Seems like a lot of extra money and some sacrifices just for teams that are very small draws.

go_leafs_go02 · #**150** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 3:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Building a soccer specific stadium in Vancouver would be a giant waste of money. I'm sure the team is going to move out of town eventually. I would oppose any more government / city money/land/zoning favours wasted on soccer. Having them in BC place as a #2 tenant was the only way to support them while the fad lasts without burning money. Even if private money was spent on a soccer stadium, it would end up useless when the soccer team fails, and a waste of prime property as they wanted to build it on the waterfront or some other downtown location.

have to disagree with you. Whitecaps are very soon going to pass the Lions as the #2 sport in the City...they're going nowhere.

Have never heard anyone saying they expect the Whitecaps to fail. Ticket demand keeps rising, and soon I bet they expand capacity to the entire lower bowl.

go_leafs_go02 · #**151** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 3:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

Not anymore. The scoreboard at renovated bc place is too low and the turf is seamless. No way to install bases etc.

Not exactly true. Your comments on the scoreboard and turf are valid, but the turf is being replaced in May (although I believe still seamless)

The entire east side of the stadium does still have retractable seating, so they could expand the field for baseball.

I think we'll see a Jays/Mariners exhibition game at BC Place in the next 5 years. Some logistics to be worked out, but I think it would be just as large of a success as the Montreal games.

FrankieFlowerpot · #**152** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berklon

Not entirely. The new Vikings Stadium currently under construction will be multi-purpose. It can host football as well as baseball - which apparently is mainly for the University of Minnesota team and high school baseball teams... since the Twins already have a nice 4 year old baseball specific ballpark. Seems like a lot of extra money and some sacrifices just for teams that are very small draws.

How much extra money did it cost for these configurations for baseball?

trueviking · #**153** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berklon

Not entirely. The new Vikings Stadium currently under construction will be multi-purpose. It can host football as well as baseball - which apparently is mainly for the University of Minnesota team and high school baseball teams... since the Twins already have a nice 4 year old baseball specific ballpark. Seems like a lot of extra money and some sacrifices just for teams that are very small draws.

Yeah. I meant professionally. I have no idea why they are selling the new Minnesota stadium as 'multi-use'. The configuration for baseball is ludicrous. Right field fence is only 280'.

trueviking · #**154** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 3:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Not exactly true. Your comments on the scoreboard and turf are valid, but the turf is being replaced in May (although I believe still seamless)

The entire east side of the stadium does still have retractable seating, so they could expand the field for baseball.

I think we'll see a Jays/Mariners exhibition game at BC Place in the next 5 years. Some logistics to be worked out, but I think it would be just as large of a success as the Montreal games.

So, you think they are going to start cutting up brand new turf for a couple exhibition baseball games? It is seamless for soccer. I'm not sure the long term sacrifice for one of the main tenants would be justified for six hours of baseball.

Not sure what you do about the scoreboard.

The Fisher Account · #**155** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 3:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

The Expos played outdoors for 20 years.

Because there was no other option.

Berklon · #**156** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 4:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

How much extra money did it cost for these configurations for baseball?

I honestly don't know the money figure, but I have to believe it's not exactly cheap. I'm sure it's just a drop in the bucket compared to what the stadium costs, but it must've still been a pretty penny. I have to think there are some sacrifices being made to do this - which is probably the biggest fault of this idea.

North_Regina_Boy · #**157** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 5:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

Yeah. I meant professionally. I have no idea why they are selling the new Minnesota stadium as 'multi-use'. The configuration for baseball is ludicrous. Right field fence is only 280'.

Yea the current smallest MLB park is Fenway at 302' to Left-Field Corner. But hey it would make for interesting baseball post season if the Twins played in it? Plus it would be a monster wall like Fenway incidentally.

JHikka · #**158** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 12:16 PM**

If the new Vikings stadium is being built with public money it would easily explain the multi-purpose use for high school teams. However, if that's the case, why not just allow local football teams to use it instead? Why baseball?

esquire · #**159** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 1:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

If the new Vikings stadium is being built with public money it would easily explain the multi-purpose use for high school teams. However, if that's the case, why not just allow local football teams to use it instead? Why baseball?

The University of Minnesota typically used the Metrodome as their venue for early-season games (typically Feb-Mar). This made perfect sense given that the Metrodome was built as a MLB venue, so it was no trouble to let the Gophers play there too. (The Gophers actually have a relatively new outdoor stadium of their own.)

In this case, baseball is a total afterthought at the new Vikings stadium... they're not going to spend hundreds of millions accommodating baseball games that might draw a thousand people. Yet for some reason it was very important to politicians in Minnesota that the new facility could accommodate baseball... so in the end, it's a compromise for everyone. The operator gets away with putting in a half-assed baseball field while still getting oodles of public money, and governments don't have to pony up extra for a full-scale baseball field.

The bottom line is that the Gophers will have a place to play their games out of the cold weather, as lame as the facility will be. I wonder how long it will take before people start complaining that the new stadium is inadequate for baseball and start beating the drum for a new facility? I give it two seasons.

FrankieFlowerpot · #**160** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

If the new Vikings stadium is being built with public money it would easily explain the multi-purpose use for high school teams. However, if that's the case, why not just allow local football teams to use it instead? Why baseball?

High school football teams will be able to use the stadium - and soccer teams as well